The Same, Digest, Book XII. Where Stichus, a slave owned by you and me in common, has himself a sub-slave named Pamphilus, who is worth ten aurei, and an action De peculio is brought against me, and, having lost it, I pay ten aurei; then, even though Pamphilus should die afterwards, you will, nevertheless, be compelled to pay me five aurei in an action in partition or in one on partnership, because I have released you from a debt of that amount. Much more ought I to be entitled to recover this amount, if Stichus, after the death of Pamphilus, should acquire another sub-slave.

Julianus, Digest, Book XII. One man brings a suit against the master on account of the slave, only on the peculium, another institutes proceedings under the Tributorian Action; the question arises whether the master ought to deduct from the peculium what he will have to make good to the plaintiff in the Tributorian Action? The answer is that proceedings can be instituted under the Tributorian Action only where the master, in distributing the value of the merchandise, did not comply with the terms of the Prætor’s Edict; that is, when he has deducted a greater part of his own debt than he has apportioned among the creditors; as, for instance, where the merchandise was worth thirty aurei of which he himself had lent fifteen, and two other creditors had lent thirty, he deducted the entire fifteen, and gave the creditors the remaining fifteen, when he should only have deducted ten, and have given each of the creditors ten. Therefore, when he has acted in this way, it is not to be understood that he has released the slave from liability to him, for the reason that he still must pay five aurei on his account in the Tributorian Action. Wherefore, if he institutes proceedings with reference to the peculium, (if by chance there should be other peculium than that invested in the business) he has a right to deduct five aurei as being still a creditor of the slave.

Julianus, Digest, Book XII. I have a son, and a grandson by him; a loan was made to my grandson under the direction of his father, the question arose whether this was done in violation of the Decree of the Senate? I stated that even though sons are included in the terms of the Decree of the Senate, still, the same rule should be observed also in the case of a grandson; but the direction of his father will not prevent the loan of the money from being considered as made in violation of the Decree of the Senate, as he himself is in such a position that he cannot borrow money if his father is unwilling.

Julianus, Digest, Book XII. For the reason that in this instance proceedings can be instituted against the one with reference to whom there is no peculium.

Julianus, Digest, Book XII. Moreover, where it is directed by a will that a slave shall immediately become free, suit on the peculium should be brought against all the heirs, and none of them can deduct more than is due to himself. 1Again, where the slave died during the lifetime of his master, and the master then died within the year, leaving several heirs, both the action on the peculium and the right of deduction are divided.

Julianus, Digest, Book XII. What then would be the case where the peculium of a common slave belongs to one of his masters alone? In the first place, if any one sells a half share in a slave, and grants him no peculium, and then, if any one gives money or property of any description to a slave owned in common, in such a way as to retain the ownership of said property, but to grant the slave the management of the same; Marcellus says in a note that this is an instance where one owner has taken away the peculium, or where an owner has actually granted one, but the grant is applicable to the obligations of his debtors.

Ad Dig. 15,1,28Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 482, Note 16.Julianus, Digest, Book XI. Wherefore, if no one has become the heir or possessor of the estate of the partner, he against whom the action was brought should have judgment rendered against him for the amount of whatever peculium he may be entitled to in addition to as much as he can obtain out of the estate.

Julianus, Digest, Book XII. If a creditor of your son appoints you his heir, and you sell the estate, you will be liable for the peculium under this clause of the stipulation, namely: “Whatever sum of money derived from the estate that shall come into your hands.” 1If you permit your slave to purchase a sub-slave for eight aurei, and he purchases him for ten, and writes to you that he has bought him for eight, and you allow him to pay eight out of your money, and he pays ten, you can recover only two aurei on this ground, and these will be made good to the vendor only to the amount of the peculium of the slave. 2Ad Dig. 15,1,37,2Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 484, Note 21.I sold to Titius a slave which I held in common either with him or with Sempronius. Before an action De peculio was brought against me because of said slave, the question arose whether, in a suit on the peculium against Titius or against Sempronius, an account should be taken of the peculium which was in my hands? I stated that, if the action was brought against Sempronius, under no circumstances, should an account be taken of the peculium in my hands, because he would have no right of action against me by which he could recover what he had paid. Moreover, if an action should be brought against Titius more than a year after I have made the sale, in like manner, the peculium in my hands should not be considered, for an action De peculio cannot now be brought against me. If, however, the action is brought within the year, then an account ought also to be taken of this peculium, for it is established that where the slave has been alienated, the creditor should be permitted to proceed against both the vendor and the purchaser. 3Where an action on the peculium has been brought against a party who has an usufruct in the slave, and the creditor has recovered less than the amount due to him, it is not unjust that he should obtain what he is entitled to out of the entire peculium, whether this is in the hands of the usufructuary or of the owner. It makes no difference whether the slave has hired his own services from the usufructuary, or has borrowed money from him. Therefore, an action should be granted him against the owner of the property, and that should be deducted which the slave has, as peculium, with reference to the usufructuary.

Julianus, Digest, Book XII. Where a woman has become surety for another in violation of the Decree of the Senate, it is but just that the action should be restored for the benefit of the creditor not only against the original debtor, but also against his sureties; for when the responsibility of the woman was taken away from the creditor on account of the Decree of the Senate, the former cause of action should be restored unimpaired.

Ad Dig. 35,2,83Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. III, § 652, Note 8.Julianus, Digest, Book XII. If the creditor of your son should appoint you his heir, and you should desire to obtain the portion due to you under the Falcidian Law, the amount of the peculium which existed at the time that the estate was entered upon shall be included in your fourth.

Julianus, Digest, Book XII. Where anyone has lent money to a son under paternal control in violation of the Decree of the Senate, and the son is dead, he cannot take a surety from his father, because he is entitled to no action, either civil or prætorian, against his father, and there is no estate for which sureties can become liable.