Ex Minicio libri
Ex libro IV
Dig. 12,1,22Idem libro quarto ex Minicio. Vinum, quod mutuum datum erat, per iudicem petitum est: quaesitum est, cuius temporis aestimatio fieret, utrum cum datum esset an cum litem contestatus fuisset an cum res iudicaretur. Sabinus respondit, si dictum esset quo tempore redderetur, quanti tunc fuisset, si dictum non esset, quanti tunc fuisset, cum petitum esset. interrogavi, cuius loci pretium sequi oporteat. respondit, si convenisset, ut certo loco redderetur, quanti eo loco esset, si dictum non esset, quanti ubi esset petitum.
Ad Dig. 12,1,22Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 258, Note 7.The Same, On Minicius, Book IV. A loan of wine was made and proceedings were instituted to recover it; the question arose with reference to the time when an estimate of its value should be made, whether when it was delivered, when issue was joined in the suit, or when the case was decided? Sabinus answered that if it had been stated at what time it was to be restored, the estimate should be made of what it was worth at that date; but if not, its value should be estimated at the time when suit was brought. I asked at what place the valuation should be made? The answer was, if it had been agreed that it should be restored at a certain place, the valuation should be made there; but if this had not been mentioned, it should be appraised at the place where suit was brought.
Dig. 17,1,33Idem libro quarto ex Minicio. Rogatus ut fideiuberet si in minorem summam se obligavit, recte tenetur: si in maiorem, Iulianus verius putat quod a plerisque responsum est eum, qui maiorem summam quam rogatus erat fideiussisset, hactenus mandati actionem habere, quatenus rogatus esset, quia id fecisset, quod mandatum ei est: nam usque ad eam summam, in quam rogatus erat, fidem eius spectasse videtur qui rogavit.
The Same, On Minicius, Book IV. Where a party is asked to become a surety, and obligates himself for a smaller sum, he is legally liable; but if he becomes bound for a larger sum, Julianus very properly thinks—and this is also the opinion of many authorities—that he will not be liable to an action on mandate for a larger amount than he was asked to become surety for, but only for the sum contained in the request; because he did what he was directed to do; since it is held that the party who requested him relied upon his good faith to the extent to which he was asked to be responsible.
Dig. 19,1,29Idem libro quarto ex Minicio. Cui res sub condicione legata erat, is eam imprudens ab herede emit: actione ex empto poterit consequi emptor pretium, quia non ex causa legati rem habet.
The Same, On Minicius, Book IV. Where property has been left to someone under a condition, and the latter, ignorant of the fact, buys it from the heir, the purchaser can recover the price by an action on purchase, because he has not possession of the property as derived from the legacy.
Dig. 19,2,32Iulianus libro quarto ex Minicio. Qui fundum colendum in plures annos locaverat, decessit et eum fundum legavit. Cassius negavit posse cogi colonum, ut eum fundum coleret, quia nihil heredis interesset. quod si colonus vellet colere et ab eo, cui legatus esset fundus, prohiberetur, cum herede actionem colonum habere: et hoc detrimentum ad heredem pertinere: sicuti si quis rem, quam vendidisset nec dum tradidisset, alii legasset, heres eius emptori et legatario esset obligatus.
Ad Dig. 19,2,32Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 361, Note 3; Bd. II, § 400, Note 7.Julianus, On Minicius, Book IV. A man who leased a tract of land to be cultivated for a term of several years died, and devised the said land. Cassius denied that the tenant could be compelled to cultivate the land, because the heir had no interest in it. If, however, the tenant desired to cultivate it, and was prevented from doing so by the party to whom the land had been left, he would be entitled to an action against the heir, and the loss must be borne by the heir; just as where anyone sells something and bequeaths it to another before he delivers it; for, in this instance, the heir will be liable both to the purchaser and to the legatee.
Dig. 21,1,50Iulianus libro quarto ex Minicio. Varicosus sanus non est.
Julianus, On Minicius, Book IV. A slave with varicose veins is not sound.
Dig. 43,20,5Idem libro quarto ex Minicio. Cum constet non solum temporibus, sed etiam mensuris posse aquam dividi, potest eodem tempore alius cottidianam, alius aestivam aquam ducere, ita ut aestate dividatur inter eos aqua, hieme solus ducat is qui cottidianae ius habeat. 1Inter duos, qui eodem rivo aquam certis horis separatim ducebant, convenit, ut permutatis inter se temporibus aqua uterentur: quaero, cum amplius tempore servitutibus praefinito ita duxissent, ut neuter eorum suo tempore usus esset, num ius utendi amississent. negavit amississe.
The Same, On Minicius, Book IV. It is established that the use of water can be divided not only by seasons, but also by measurement. One person can have the right to conduct it for daily use, and another to do so during the summer; so that the water will be divided between them during the summer, and, during the winter, he alone can conduct it who has the right to its daily use. 1It was agreed between two persons who were entitled to the privilege of conducting water by the same aqueduct, at different hours, that the hours for its use should be changed. If they had conducted it for a longer period than was necessary, as prescribed by the servitude, so that neither of them used it during the specified time for which it had been granted him, I ask whether they had lost the right to its use. It was denied that they had lost it.
Dig. 46,1,19Idem libro quarto ex Minicio. Servus inscio domino pro quodam fideiusserat et eo nomine pecuniam solverat: quaerebatur, dominus possetne ab eo, cui soluta esset, repetere. respondit: interest, quo nomine fideiusserit: nam si ex causa peculiari fideiussit, tunc id, quod ex peculio solverit, repetere dominus non poterit, quod ex dominica causa solverit, vindicabitur: si vero extra causam peculii fideiusserit, quod ex pecunia dominica solverit, aeque vindicabitur, quod ex peculio, condici poterit.
The Same, On Minicius, Book IV. A slave became surety for a certain person without the knowledge of his master, and paid the money due, in his name. The question arose whether or not the master could recover the amount from the person to whom it had been paid. The answer was that it was important to ascertain in whose name the slave had become surety, for if he had done so with reference to his peculium, then his master could not recover what he had paid out of his peculium, but anything which he had paid on account of his master could be recovered by him. If, however, he became surety for an amount greater than his peculium, any money belonging to his master, which he had paid, could also be recovered, and what he paid out of his peculium could be recovered by a personal action.