Digestorum libri
Ex libro V
Dig. 1,21,3Iulianus libro quinto digestorum. Et si praetor sit is, qui alienam iurisdictionem exsequitur, non tamen pro suo imperio agit, sed pro eo cuius mandatu ius dicit, quotiens partibus eius fungitur.
Dig. 5,1,74Iulianus libro quinto digestorum. De qua re cognoverit iudex, pronuntiare quoque cogendus erit. 1Iudex, qui usque ad certam summam iudicare iussus est, etiam de re maiori iudicare potest, si inter litigatores conveniat. 2Cum absentem defendere vellem, iudicium mortuo iam eo accepi et condemnatus solvi: quaesitum est an heres liberaretur, item quae actio mihi adversus eum competeret. respondi iudicium, quod iam mortuo debitore per defensorem eius accipitur, nullum esse et ideo heredem non liberari: defensorem autem, si ex causa iudicati solverit, repetere quidem non posse, negotiorum tamen gestorum ei actionem competere adversus heredem: qui sane exceptione doli mali tueri se possit, si ab actore conveniatur.
Julianus, Digest, Book V. A judge can be compelled to render a decision with reference to any matter of which he has taken cognizance. 1A judge appointed to render a decision for some particular amount can also decide with reference to a greater one, as this is agreed upon by the litigants. 2Where I once consented to defend an absent party, and joined issue when the defendant was already dead, and I was defeated, and paid the damages; the question arose whether the heir was released, and also what kind of an action I was entitled to against him? I answered that the decision was not valid, as the debtor was already dead when issue was joined, and therefore the heir was not released; but if the party conducting the defence had made payment in accordance with the judgment, while he could not recover the money, still, an action would lie in his favor against the heir on the ground of business transacted; and certainly the heir could protect himself by an exception based on bad faith, if suit was brought against him by the plaintiff.
Dig. 30,79Iulianus libro quinto digestorum. Si quis testamento suo Titio et Seio decem dari iusserit, nullam haec verba recipiunt ambiguitatem, ut dena dixisse videatur, qui decem dixit.
Dig. 42,1,60Iulianus libro quinto digestorum. Quaesitum est, cum alter ex litigatoribus febricitans discessisset et iudex absente eo pronuntiasset, an iure videretur pronuntiasse. respondit: morbus sonticus etiam invitis litigatoribus ac iudice diem differt. sonticus autem existimandus est, qui cuiusque rei agendae impedimento est. litiganti porro quid magis impedimento est, quam motus corporis contra naturam, quem febrem appellant? igitur si rei iudicandae tempore alter ex litigatoribus febrem habuit, res non videtur iudicata. potest tamen dici esse aliquam et febrium differentiam: nam si quis sanus alias ac robustus tempore iudicandi levissima febre correptus fuerit, aut si quis tam veterem quartanam habeat, ut in ea omnibus negotiis superesse soleat, poterit dici morbum sonticum non habere.
Julianus, Digest, Book V. The following question has been raised. One of several litigants who was attacked by fever withdrew from the case; if the judge renders a decision in his absence, will he be considered to have acted according to law? The answer was, that dangerous illness demands delay, even if the parties and the judge are unwilling to grant it. Moreover, an illness is considered to be dangerous which offers an impediment to the transaction of business by anyone. What, however, can be a greater impediment to a lawsuit than that revolt of the body against nature which is designated fever? Hence, if one of the parties has a fever at the time when the decision is rendered, it is considered as not rendered at all. Still, it can be said that there is a considerable difference in fevers, for if a person is otherwise healthy and robust, and at the time when the decision was rendered has a slight attack of fever, or if he has a chronic or a quartan fever, and, nevertheless, is able to attend to his affairs, it may be said that his illness is not serious.