Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book I. And this applies to such an extent that it will not be sufficient for only one of them to pay the penalty.

Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book I. Where one person brings several actions against another and the amounts of the different claims demanded therein, if taken separately, are within the jurisdiction of the judge, but the entire sum exceeds it, it was the opinion of Sabinus, Cassius, and Proculus that the actions could be tried before him; and this opinion was confirmed by a Rescript of the Emperor Antoninus. 1Where, however, the rights of actions are reciprocal in their character, and one party claims an amount under the limit, and another one over it, he who claims the smaller sum can proceed before the same judge; so that it may not be in the power of my adversary, if he wishes to annoy me, to prevent me from trying the case before the same judge. 2Where an action is brought by a number of persons at the same time, as for instance for the partition of an estate, the division of common property, or the establishment of boundaries, should we in order to ascertain the jurisdiction of the judge who has cognizance of the case, consider the value of the separate shares, which is the opinion of Ofilius and Proculus for the reason that each party is bringing suit for his own share; or should the entire value of the property rather be considered because the whole of it is in court and may perhaps be adjudged to one person? This is the opinion of both Cassius and Pegasus, and in fact it seems the more reasonable one.

Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book I. The Prætor very properly and justly inserted this exception: “Unless one of the parties has acted unjustly against some one who himself had acted in the same way against another.” And, indeed, where a magistrate desires to sustain the Edict, or a litigant wishes to obtain the benefit of it, he might render himself liable and incur the penalty prescribed by the Edict.

Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book I. Whether the action is for double, triple, or fourfold damages, we hold that one and the same surety is liable for the entire amount, for the reason that the property is understood to be worth that much.

Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book I. Where anyone becomes the surety for a party who has already been condemned, and afterwards died, or has lost his Roman citizenship, an action can, nevertheless, properly be brought against the surety. 1When anyone refuses to accept a sufficient surety for the appearance of another in court, who, it is perfectly evident, is solvent; or if there is any doubt on this point and he is proved to be solvent, an action for injury can be brought against him; for, indeed, it is not an ordinary wrong for a man to be brought into court who can furnish a perfectly solvent surety. The surety who was not accepted can also bring suit for the injury done to himself.

Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book I. The Prætor orders that a day shall be granted for every twenty thousand paces in addition to that on which the bond is executed, as well as that on which the party is bound to appear in court, for, indeed, this enumeration, as applied to the journey, is burdensome to neither of the litigants.

Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book I. When a banker is ordered to produce his accounts, it makes no difference whether the controversy has arisen with him or with another party. 1The reason why the Prætor requires only bankers to produce their accounts, and not others who are transacting business of a different description, is, because their functions and occupations are of a public nature, and their chief duty is to carefully keep accounts of their transactions. 2An account is considered to be produced when this is done from the very beginning (for an account cannot be understood unless it is thoroughly examined). This, however, does not signify that the entire account-book, or all the parchments of any person, are to be examined or copied; but that only the portion of the account which is required to give a party the information he desires, is to be examined and copied. 3When an action is brought for an amount which is equal to the interest of the plaintiff in having the account produced, it follows that whether he does not obtain what he brought suit for, or whether he is condemned for the reason that he did not have the account with which he could have sustained his case; he can recover by this action whatever he lost in this way. Let us consider whether this is actually true, for if he can prove before the judge who is to decide between him and the banker, that he could have gained his case in the trial in which he was beaten, he must then have been able to prove it; and if he did not do so, or if he did prove it, and the judge did not pay any attention to this fact, he has only the right to complain of himself, or of the judge. This, however, is not the case, for it might happen that he has at present obtained possession of the account from the defendant himself, or in some other way; or be able to prove, by means of other documents, or witnesses, which for some reason or other, he was not able to make use of at the time of the trial, that he could have gained his case. For, under these circumstances, a man has a right of action for theft or for fraudulent alteration of an obligation made for his benefit; as well as an action for unlawful damage, as, although we may not have been able to prove something previously for the reason that an undertaking has been abstracted, and may have lost our case, still, we can prove it now by other documents, or witnesses, which we were unable to make use of in the first place.

Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book I. (Whether the agreement is made with reference to a former contract with the parties themselves, or with the father or master).

Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book I. Or for any profit obtained by an obligation contracted by his son, or where he is sued as a defender of his son, if he should prefer this.

Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book I. Agreements entered into against the Civil Law are not considered valid; as, for instance, where a ward, without the consent of his guardian, enters into an agreement not to sue his debtor, or that he will not bring suit within a certain time (for example, within five years) for he cannot legally receive payment without the consent of his guardian. On the other hand, if a ward makes an agreement that he shall not be sued for what he owes, the agreement is held to be valid, for he is permitted to improve his condition without the consent of his guardian. 1Where the curator of an insane person or a spendthrift makes an agreement that suit shall not be brought against the said insane person or spendthrift, it is perfectly proper that such an agreement of the curator should be sustained, but not in the contrary case. 2Where a son, or a slave makes an agreement that he himself will not bring an action, the agreement is void. But if it was made with reference to property, that is to say that suit shall not be brought for the money, it must be held to be valid as against the father or the master, if the son or the slave has the unrestricted management of his own peculium; and the property concerning which the agreement was entered into is his peculium. This, however, is not altogether advisable, for since it is true, as Julianus holds, that he who has the management of his peculium granted him still has no right to dispose of it; it follows that if the agreement was made not to sue for the money for the purpose of giving it away, the contract should not be allowed to stand; but if he should obtain something, by way of consideration for making the contract, which is worth not less, or even more than he gives, the contract must be considered valid.

Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book I. Let us consider, with reference to the son of a family, whether the agreement is valid when he agrees not to bring suit, because sometimes the father of a family has a right of action, for example, for injury; however, where a father has a right of action on account of an injury done to his son, there is no doubt that if he wishes to bring suit he will not be barred by the agreement of his son. 1Where a man stipulated with a slave for money which Titius owed him, and brings suit against Titius, the question arises whether he can and should be barred by an exception on the ground of contract? Julianus thinks that he should be barred where the stipulator has a right of action against the master of the slave for his peculium, that is to say, if the slave has good ground for interposing, because, for instance, he owed the same amount to Titius. But where the slave intervenes as surety, a right of action is not granted for his peculium, on this ground; nor should the creditor be prevented from bringing suit against Titius. In like manner, he should, by no means, be prevented from doing so if he thought that the slave was a freeman. 2If I should stipulate with you under a condition for a sum which Titius owes me absolutely, and the condition should not be fulfilled, and I bring suit against Titius, can I and should I be barred by an exception based upon contract? The better opinion is that an exception cannot be interposed.

Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book I. Or for an idiot of either sex (for curators are also appointed for persons of this description).

Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book I. He who hires himself for the purpose of appearing in public exhibitions, and does not do so, is not branded with infamy; because the offence is not so disgraceful a one that even the intention to commit it should be punished.

Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book I. We have no legal right to bring an action against a person who is under our control, unless with reference to castrense peculium.

Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book I. It sometimes happens that, where injury has been sustained, we will not be entitled to any action, if security had not previously been given; for instance, when the house of my neighbor, which is in a ruinous condition, falls upon my building. This rule is applicable to such an extent that it has been held by many authorities that he who is to blame can not even be compelled to remove the rubbish, provided he intends to abandon everything upon the ground.

Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book I. Exceptions are either perpetual and peremptory, or temporary and dilatory. Those are perpetual and peremptory which will always lie, and cannot be avoided; for example, those based on fraud and res judicata, and where anything is alleged to have been done against the laws or decrees of the Senate; also such as are applicable in the case of an informal agreement, that is to say, such as provide that the money due shall, under no circumstances, be collected. Exceptions are temporary and dilatory which cannot be brought at any time, and can be avoided; and of this description is a temporary agreement between the parties under which an action cannot be brought for a specified period, for instance, within five years. Exceptions by which the action of an agent is barred, and which can be avoided, are also dilatory.

Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book I. A man must obey the magistrates of the town in which he lives, as well as those of the one of which he is a citizen; for not only is he subject to the municipal jurisdiction of both places, but he should also discharge the duties. of any public office in either of them.

Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book I. By the appellation of “creditors,” not only those are understood who have loaned money, but all to whom anything is due for any reason whatsoever.

Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book I. No action at law can be brought against a slave.