Notae ad Iuliani Digestorum libros
Ex libro LVI
Dig. 46,8,22Iulianus libro quinquagensimo sexto digestorum. Si sine iudice non debitam pecuniam exegerit procurator et dominus ratam solutionem non habuerit, sed eandem pecuniam petere instituerit: fideiussores tenentur et condictio, qua procurator teneretur, si stipulatio interposita non fuisset, peremitur. quotiens enim procuratori pecunia solvitur et dominus eam solutionem ratam non habet, existimo id agi, ut condictio perematur et sola actio ei, qui indebitum solvit, adversus procuratorem ex stipulatu competat. hoc amplius praestant fideiussores impensas, quae in iudicium factae fuissent. quod si dominus ratam habuisset, fideiussores quidem liberantur, sed ab ipso domino eadem pecunia per condictionem peti potest. 1Quod si procurator debitam domino pecuniam sine iudice exegisset, idem iuris est, hoc secus, quod, si dominus ratam rem habuisset, nulla eius pecuniae repetitio futura est. 2Quod si procurator per iudicem non debitam pecuniam exegisset, dici potest, sive ratum dominus habuisset sive non habuisset, fideiussores non teneri, vel quia nulla res esset, quam dominus ratam habere possit, vel quia nihil stipulatoris interest ratum haberi: adficietur ergo iniuria is, qui procuratori solvit. magis tamen est, ut, si dominus ratum non habuerit, fideiussores teneantur. 3Quod si debitam pecuniam procurator per iudicem, cui nihil mandatum fuerit, petierit, magis est, ut in solidum fideiussores teneantur, si dominus ratum non habuerit. 4Cum autem procurator recte petit, dominus perperam, non debet procurator praestare, ne iniuria iudicis dominus aliquid consequatur: numquam enim propter iniuriam iudicis fideiussores obligantur. verius tamen est hoc casu fideiussores non nisi in impensas litis teneri. 5Marcellus: si dominus ratam rem non habuerit, sed lite mota rem amiserit, nihil praeter impendia in stipulationem ratam rem deducitur. 6Iulianus. Si procuratori eius, qui mortuus erat, sine iudice soluta fuerint legata, stipulatio committetur, nisi heres ratum habuerit, utique si debita fuerint: tunc enim non dubie interest stipulatoris ratam solutionem ab herede haberi, ne bis eadem praestet. 7Si in stipulationem ratam rem haberi hactenus comprehensum fuerit ‘Lucium Titium ratum habiturum?’, cum id aperte ageretur, ut heredis ceterorumque personae, ad quos ea res pertinet, omitterentur, difficile est existimari doli clausulam committi. sane cum per imprudentiam hae personae omittantur, actio ex doli clausula competit. 8Si procurator iudicium de hereditate ediderit, deinde dominus fundum ex ea hereditate petierit, stipulatio ratam rem haberi committetur, quia, si verus procurator fuisset, exceptio rei iudicatae dominum summoveret. plerumque autem stipulatio ratam rem haberi his casibus committetur, quibus, si verus procurator egisset, domino aut ipso iure aut propter exceptionem actio inutilis esset. 9Qui patris nomine iniuriarum agit ob eam rem, quod filius eius verberatus pulsatusve sit, in stipulatione cogendus est filii quoque personam comprehendere, praesertim cum fieri possit, ut pater ante decedat, quam sciret procuratorem suum egisse, et ita iniuriarum actio redeat ad filium. 10Sed et si nepoti iniuria facta fuerit et procurator avi propter hanc causam iniuriarum aget, non solum filii, sed etiam nepotis persona comprehendenda erit in stipulatione: quid enim prohibet et patrem et filium, antequam scirent procuratorem egisse, decedere? quo casu iniquum est fideiussores non teneri nepote iniuriarum agente.
Julianus, Digest, Book LVI. When an agent, without a judgment, collects money which is not due, and his principal does not ratify the payment, but institutes proceedings to collect the same money, the sureties will be liable; and the right to the personal action under which the agent would have been responsible if the stipulation had not been interposed will be extinguished. For whenever money is paid to an agent, and his principal does not ratify the payment, I think that the effect is that the right of personal action for recovery will be extinguished, and that the sole proceeding to which he who paid the money which was not due will be entitled, against the agent, will be the one based on the stipulation. In addition to this, the sureties must pay the expenses incurred in the suit. If, however, the principal should ratify the payment, the sureties will be released; but the same money can be recovered from the principal by means of a personal action. 1Where an agent collects money due to his principal without bringing suit, the same rule applies, with the difference that if the principal has ratified the transaction he cannot afterwards make another demand for the money. 2If an agent should collect a sum of money which was not due, by having an execution issued on the judgment, it can be said that whether the principal ratifies his act or not, the sureties will not be liable, either for the reason that there was nothing that the principal could ratify, or because the stipulator had no interest in having the ratification made; hence he who pays the agent suffers an injury. It is, however, better to hold that if the principal does not ratify the transaction the sureties will be liable. 3Where, however, an agent who had not been directed to do so institutes judicial proceedings to collect money which is due, the better opinion is that the sureties will be liable for the entire amount, if the principal does not ratify the transaction. 4Ad Dig. 46,8,22,4Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 285, Note 18.But when the agent makes a proper demand, he should not be compelled to guarantee that the principal will not profit by the injustice of the judge; for sureties are never liable on account of any damage caused by the wrongful act of a court. In this case it is better to hold that the sureties are only liable for the costs of the suit. 5Marcellus: If the principal does not ratify the transaction, but loses the case after it has been brought, nothing but the costs should be included in the agreement for ratification. 6Julianus: If, without an order of court, legacies should be paid to the agent of a person who is already dead, the stipulation will become operative unless the heir ratifies the transaction, that is, if the legacies were due; for then there is no doubt that it is to the interest of the stipulator to have the payment ratified by the heir, so that he may not be compelled to pay the same legacies twice. 7If, in a stipulation for ratification, it was expressly stated that Lucius Titius would ratify the transaction, as it was clearly the intention that the ratification of the heir and the other parties in interest should be omitted, it is difficult to hold that the clause having reference to fraud becomes operative. When the above-mentioned persons are omitted through inadvertence, an action under the clause having reference to fraud will undoubtedly lie. 8Where an attorney brings suit with reference to an estate, and afterwards his constituent demands a tract of land forming part of said estate, the stipulation for ratification becomes operative, because, if he was a genuine attorney, an exception on the ground of res judicata would act as a bar to his constituent. The stipulation for ratification, however, generally becomes effective in cases in which, if the genuine attorney should proceed, the action, if brought by the constituent, will become of no avail, either by operation of law or through pleading an exception. 9When anyone, in the name of a father, brings an action for injury sustained, because his son was struck or beaten, he will be compelled also to include the son in the stipulation; and especially as the father may happen to die before being informed that his attorney had instituted proceedings; and thus the right of action for injury will return to the son. 10If an injury is inflicted upon a grandson, and the attorney for the grandfather, on this account, brings suit for injury sustained, not only the son, but also the grandson, must be included in the stipulation. For what will prevent both the father and the son from dying before they knew that the attorney has brought the action? In this case it would be just for the sureties not to be held liable, if the grandson should bring suit for injury sustained.