Digestorum libri
Ex libro II
Dig. 2,10,3Iulianus libro secundo digestorum. Ex hoc edicto adversus eum, qui dolo fecit, quo minus quis in iudicium vocatus sistat, in factum actio competit quanti actoris interfuit eum sisti. in quo iudicio deducitur si quid amiserit actor ob eam rem: veluti si reus tempore dominium rei interim sibi adquirat aut actione liberatus fuerit. 1Plane si is, qui dolo fecerit, quo minus in iudicio sistatur, solvendo non fuerit, aequum erit adversus ipsum reum restitutoriam actionem competere, ne propter dolum alienum reus lucrum faciat et actor damno adficiatur. 2Si et stipulator dolo Titii et promissor dolo Maevi impeditus fuerit, quo minus in iudicio sistatur: uterque adversus eum, cuius dolo impeditus fuerit, actione in factum experietur. 3Si et stipulator dolo promissoris et promissor dolo stipulatoris impeditus fuerit quo minus ad iudicium veniret: neutri eorum praetor succurrere debebit, ab utraque parte dolo compensando. 4Si a fideiussore quinquaginta stipulatus fuero, si in iudicium reus non venerit, petiturus a reo centum, et dolo malo Sempronii factum fuerit, ne in iudicium reus veniat: centum a Sempronio consequar. tanti enim mea interfuisse videtur, quia, si venisset in iudicium, actio mihi centum adversus reum vel adversus heredem eius competebat, licet fideiussor minorem summam mihi promiserit.
Julianus, Digest, Book II. An action will lie under this Edict against a party who, by means of fraud, prevented anyone from appearing in court, for a sum equal to the interest the plaintiff had in his appearance. In a suit of this kind it is ascertained if the plaintiff lost anything on account of this; as, for example, whether the defendant obtained ownership of the property in question by lapse of time, or was freed from liability to be sued. 1Ad Dig. 2,10,3,1Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 118, Note 6.It is evident that if the party who acted maliciously to prevent the other from appearing in court is not solvent, it will be just to grant a restitutory action against the defendant, lest he may profit and the plaintiff suffer loss on account of the fraud of another. 2If the stipulator has been prevented from appearing in court through the fraudulent act of Titius, and the promisor has been prevented by that of Mævius; each of them has a right of action in factum against the party by whose fraudulent act he was prevented. 3If both the stipulator and the promisor were each prevented from appearing in court by the fraudulent act of the other, the Prætor shall come to the relief of neither of them, for the fraud committed by each is mutually set off. 4If I stipulate with a surety for fifty aurei in case the defendant should not appear, and I am suing the defendant for a hundred aurei, and, through the wrongful act of Sempronius, the defendant fails to appear in court, I can recover a hundred aurei from Sempronius, for that amount seems to have been my interest in the matter; because if the party had appeared I would have had an action against him for a hundred aurei, or one against his heir for the same amount, although the surety had bound himself to me for a smaller sum.
Dig. 50,16,200Iulianus libro secundo digestorum. Haec stipulatio ‘noxis solutum praestari’ non existimatur ad eas noxas pertinere, quae publicam exercitionem et coercitionem capitalem habent.