Digestorum libri
Ex libro VIII
Dig. 12,3,8Marcellus libro octavo digestorum. Tutor rem adulti, quam possidet, restituere ei non vult: quaero, utrum quanti res est an quanti in litem iuratum fuerit condemnari debet, respondi: non est aequum pretio, id est quanti res est, litem aestimari, cum et contumacia punienda sit et arbitrio potius domini rei pretium statuendum sit potestate petitori in litem iurandi concessa.
Marcellus, Digest, Book VIII. Where a guardian who is in possession of the property of a person who has attained his majority refuses to surrender it to him; I ask whether judgment should be rendered against him for what the property is worth, or for the amount of the claim sworn to by the plaintiff? I answered that it is not just that the value, (that is what the property is worth), alone should be estimated, but that the contumacy displayed must be punished; and that the value of the property should rather be left to the judgment of the owner of the same by the power of making oath to the claim being granted to the plaintiff.
Dig. 19,2,48Idem libro octavo digestorum. Si cui locaverim faciendum quod ego conduxeram, constabit habere me ex locato actionem. 1Qui servum conductum vel aliam rem non immobilem non restituit, quanti in litem iuratum fuerit damnabitur.
The Same, Digest, Book VIII. If I contract with anyone to perform some labor which I myself have agreed to do, it is settled that I will be entitled to an action on lease against him. 1Where a party refuses to restore to me a slave, or any other movable property which I have leased to him, judgment shall be rendered against him for the amount of damages sworn to by me in court.
Dig. 21,2,61Marcellus libro octavo digestorum. Si quod a te emi et Titio vendidi, voluntate mea Titio tradideris, de evictione te mihi teneri, sicuti si acceptam rem tradidissem, placet.
Dig. 26,7,28Marcellus libro octavo digestorum. Tutor pro pupillo in iudicium vocatus sollemniter cavit: si inter moras puer ad pubertatem pervenit, non est cogendus accipere iudicium. 1Tutor, qui post pubertatem pupilli negotiorum eius administratione abstinuit, usuras praestare non debet ex quo optulit pecuniam: quin etiam iustius mihi videtur eum per quem non stetit, quo minus conventus restitueret tutelam, ad praestationem usurarum non compelli. Ulpianus notat: non sufficit optulisse, nisi et deposuit obsignatam tuto in loco,
Marcellus, Digest, Book VIII. A guardian, who is summoned to court, gives security in the usual form. If, in the meantime, the boy arrives at puberty, he cannot be compelled to conduct the case. 1A guardian who has relinquished the administration of the affairs of his ward, after the latter has reached the age of puberty, is not liable for interest on money in his hands which he has already tendered. However, it seems more just to me that he should not be compelled to pay interest if he was not responsible for failure to surrender the guardianship, when it was demanded of him. (Ulpianus says that it is not sufficient for him to have tendered the money, unless he deposited it, sealed up, in some safe place.)
Dig. 26,7,29Marcellus libro octavo digestorum. maximeque heredem tutoris: nam periniquum est eum, cui forte post viginti annos vel amplius in mentem venit tutelam reposcere, etiam usuras postulare.
Dig. 47,2,69Marcellus libro octavo digestorum. Hereditariae rei furtum fieri Iulianus negabat, nisi forte pignori dederat defunctus aut commodaverat:
Dig. 47,2,71Marcellus libro octavo digestorum. His enim casibus putabat hereditariarum rerum fieri furtum et usucapionem impediri idcircoque heredi quoque actionem furti competere posse.
Dig. 47,6,5Marcellus libro octavo digestorum. Familia communis sciente altero furtum fecit: omnium nomine cum eo qui scit furti agi poterit, cum altero ad eum modum, qui edicto comprehensus est: quod ille praestiterit non totius familiae nomine, ab hoc socio partem consequeretur. et si servus communis alterius iussu damnum dederit, etiam quod praestiterit alter, si modo cum eo quoque ex lege Aquilia vel ex duodecim tabulis agi potest, repetat a socio, sicuti cum communi rei nocitum est. si ergo dumtaxat duos habuerim servos communes, cum eo, quo non ignorante factum est, agetur utriusque servi nomine, sed non amplius consequentur a socio, quam si unius nomine praestitisset: quod si cum eo, quo ignorante factum est, agere volet, duplum tantum consequetur. et videamus, an iam in socium alterius servi nomine non sit dandum iudicium, quemadmodum si omnium nomine socius decidisset: nisi forte hoc casu severius a praetore constituendum est nec servorum conscio parcendum est.
Marcellus, Digest, Book VIII. A number of slaves owned in common committed a theft with the knowledge of one of their masters. An action for theft can be brought on account of all of them against the owner who was aware of the crime, but against the other owner only to the extent authorized by the Edict. If the former owner should pay, he can recover his share from the other, but not the amount due for the entire body of slaves. Where a slave, owned in common, commits damage by order of one of his masters, and the other makes payment, he can recover from his partner on the ground of damage sustained by the property owned in common; provided he can bring suit against him under the Aquilian Law, or the Law of the Twelve Tables. Therefore, if I have only two slaves owned in common, an action can be brought against the master who was aware that the damage had been committed, and this will include both slaves, but he cannot recover more from his partner than if he had paid for one alone. If, however, he should desire to proceed against the master who did not know that any injury had been done, he can only collect double damages. Let us see whether an action should not be granted against his partner, on account of the other slave, just as if he had paid in the name of all of them. In this case the decision of the Prætor should be more severe, and no indulgence should be shown to the one who was aware of the act of the slaves.