Digestorum libri
Ex libro III
Dig. 1,9,2Marcellus libro tertio digestorum. Cassius Longinus non putat ei permittendum, qui propter turpitudinem senatu motus nec restitutus est, iudicare vel testimonium dicere, quia lex Iulia repetundarum hoc fieri vetat.
Marcellus, Digest, Book III. Cassius Longinus is of the opinion that when a man has been expelled from the Senate for infamous behaviour, and has not been reinstated, he should not be permitted to preside in court, or testify as a witness; for the reason that the Lex Julia forbids this to be done in cases of extortion.
Dig. 4,1,7Marcellus libro tertio digestorum. Divus Antoninus Marcio Avito praetori de succurrendo ei, qui absens rem amiserat, in hanc sententiam rescripsit: ‘Etsi nihil facile mutandum est ex sollemnibus, tamen ubi aequitas evidens poscit, subveniendum est. itaque si citatus non respondit et ob hoc more pronuntiatum est, confestim autem pro tribunali te sedente adiit: existimari potest non sua culpa sed parum exaudita voce praeconis defuisse, ideoque restitui potest.’ 1Nec intra has solum species consistet huius generis auxilium: etenim deceptis sine culpa sua, maxime si fraus ab adversario intervenerit, succurri oportebit, cum etiam de dolo malo actio competere soleat, et boni praetoris est potius restituere litem, ut et ratio et aequitas postulabit, quam actionem famosam constituere, ad quam tunc demum descendendum est, cum remedio locus esse non potest.
Marcellus, Digest, Book III. The Divine Antoninus made the following statement in a Rescript addressed to Marcius Avitus, the Prætor, on the subject of relieving a person who had lost his property while absent: “Although changes should not be readily made in matters which have been solemnly established, still, where equity clearly demands it, relief must be granted; and therefore, where a party who was summoned did not appear, and on this account judgment was formally rendered against him, and he soon afterwards appeared before the court where you were presiding; it may be supposed that his non-appearance was due, not so much to his own fault, as to the imperfectly heard voice of the crier, and therefore he is entitled to restitution.” 1Ad Dig. 4,1,7,1Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 118, Note 6.The aid of the Emperor does not seem to be limited to cases of this kind alone, for relief should be granted to persons who have been deceived without their own fault, and especially where fraud was committed by their adversaries, since it is usual for an action based upon fraud to be requested; and it is the duty of a just prætor to grant a new trial, which both reason and justice demand, rather than to allow an action involving turpitude to be brought, which should be resorted to only when no other remedy is available.
Dig. 5,2,3Marcellus libro tertio digestorum. Inofficiosum testamentum dicere hoc est allegare, quare exheredari vel praeteriri non debuerit: quod plerumque accidit, cum falso parentes instimulati liberos suos vel exheredant vel praetereunt.
Dig. 5,2,5Marcellus libro tertio digestorum. Nam et his, qui non ex masculis descendunt, facultas est agendi, cum et de matris testamento agant et optinere adsidue soleant. huius autem verbi ‘de inofficioso’ vis illa ut dixi est docere immerentem se et ideo indigne praeteritum vel etiam exheredatione summotum: resque illo colore defenditur apud iudicem, ut videatur ille quasi non sanae mentis fuisse, cum testamentum inique ordinaret.
Marcellus, Digest, Book III. Those, also, who are not descended from the testator in the male line, have the right to institute proceedings, as they can do so in case of the testament of a mother; and they very frequently succeed. The force of the term “inofficious” is, (as I have already stated), to show that the party was undeservedly and therefore improperly passed over, or even excluded by disinheritance, and the allegation is made in court that the testator does not appear to have been of sound mind when he executed an unjust will.
Dig. 5,2,10Marcellus libro tertio digestorum. Si pars iudicantium de inofficioso testamento contra testamentum, pars secundum id sententiam dederit, quod interdum fieri solet, humanius erit sequi eius partis sententiam quae secundum testamentum spectavit: nisi si aperte iudices inique secundum scriptum heredem pronuntiasse apparebit. 1Illud notissimum est eum qui legatum perceperit non recte de inofficioso testamento dicturum, nisi id totum alii administravit.
Marcellus, Digest, Book III. Where, in the case of an inofficious testament, part of the judges rendered a decision against it, and part in favor of it, which is sometimes done; it will be more humane to adopt the opinion of those who favored the testament, unless where it is clearly apparent that they rendered an unjust decision in favor of the party who was appointed heir. 1It is a well known fact that anyone who accepts a legacy cannot properly allege that the will is inofficious, unless he transferred the entire legacy to another person.
Dig. 22,3,10Marcellus libro tertio digestorum. Census et monumenta publica potiora testibus esse senatus censuit.
Dig. 42,1,37Marcellus libro tertio digestorum. Tunc autem universi iudices intelleguntur iudicare, cum omnes adsunt.
Dig. 44,1,9Marcellus libro tertio digestorum. Non utique existimatur confiteri de intentione adversarii is quocum agitur, quia exceptione utitur.
Dig. 45,1,94Marcellus libro tertio digestorum. Triticum dare oportere stipulatus est aliquis: facti quaestio est, non iuris. igitur si de aliquo tritico cogitaverit, id est certi generis certae quantitatis, id habebitur pro expresso: alioquin si, cum destinare genus et modum vellet, non fecit, nihil stipulatus videtur, igitur ne unum quidem modium.
Marcellus, Digest, Book III. A man stipulated for wheat to be delivered to him. This is a question of fact, and not of law. Therefore, if he had a certain kind of wheat in his mind, that is to say, wheat of a certain quality, or of a certain quantity, this is considered to have been stated. Otherwise, if he intended to designate the kind of wheat and the amount, and did not do so, he is considered not to have stipulated for anything, and hence the other party is not bound to deliver a single measure of wheat.
Dig. 50,17,183Marcellus libro tertio digestorum. Etsi nihil facile mutandum est ex sollemnibus, tamen ubi aequitas evidens poscit, subveniendum est.