Quaestionum libri
Ex libro XXXVII
Dig. 4,3,19Papinianus libro trigensimo septimo quaestionum. Si fideiussor promissum animal ante moram occiderit, de dolo actionem reddi adversus eum oportere Neratius Priscus et Iulianus responderunt, quoniam debitore liberato per consequentias ipse quoque dimittitur.
Papinianus, Questions, Book LVII. Where a surety kills an animal which had been promised before the principal was in default in its delivery; Neratius Priscus and Julianus hold that an action on the ground of fraud ought to be brought against him; since the debtor having been discharged, he himself, in consequence, is released from liability.
Dig. 9,2,54Papinianus libro trigensimo septimo quaestionum. Legis Aquiliae debitori competit actio, cum reus stipulandi ante moram promissum animal vulneravit: idem est et si occiderit animal. quod si post moram promissoris qui stipulatus fuerat occidit, debitor quidem liberatur, lege autem Aquilia hoc casu non recte experietur: nam creditor ipse sibi potius quam alii iniuriam fecisse videtur.
Papinianus, Questions, Book XXXVII. A debtor is entitled to an action under the Lex Aquilia where a party who stipulated for delivery, and before default of the debtor, wounds the animal which was promised; and the same rule applies if he should kill it. But where the party who stipulated kills the animal after the default of the promisor, the debtor will undoubtedly be discharged; but in this instance he will not have a right to institute proceedings under the Lex Aquilia, since the creditor must be held rather to have injured himself rather than another.
Dig. 24,3,41Idem libro trigesimo septimo quaestionum. Si pater ignorans filiam divortisse dotem ex causa promissionis numeravit, non per indebiti condictionem, sed de dote actione pecunia petetur.
The Same, Questions, Book XXXVII. Where a father, ignorant that his daughter has been divorced, pays the dowry to her husband in compliance with his promise, the money can be recovered, not by the action for the payment of what was not due, but by the action on dowry.
Dig. 35,2,13Idem libro trigesimo septimo quaestionum. Si tacitum fideicommissum servus iniungente domino susceperit, habiturum eum legis Falcidiae beneficium, quia parere domino debuit, constitutum est: idemque placuit in filio, qui fuit in patris potestate.
The Same, Questions, Book XXXVII. Where a slave undertakes the execution of an implied trust under the direction of his master, it has been decided that, because he was obliged to obey his master, he will be entitled to the benefit of the Falcidian Law.
Dig. 45,1,120Idem libro trigensimo septimo quaestionum. Si ita stipulatus fuero: ‘hanc summam centum aureorum dari spondes?’, etsi maxime ita exaudiatur ille sermo: ‘si modo centum aureorum est’, non facit condicionem haec adiectio, quoniam si centum non sint, stipulatio nulla est: nec placuit instar habere condicionis sermonem, qui non ad futurum, sed ad praesens tempus refertur, etsi contrahentes rei veritatem ignorant.
The Same, Questions, Book XXXVII. If I stipulate as follows, “Do you promise to pay this sum of a hundred aurei?” although the clause, “Provided there are a hundred aurei,” is understood, this addition does not establish a condition, for if there are not a hundred aurei, the stipulation is void; and it has been decided that a clause which does not refer to the future, but to the present time, is not conditional, even though the contracting parties may be ignorant of the truth of the matter.
Dig. 45,2,10Idem libro trigensimo septimo quaestionum. Si duo rei promittendi socii non sint, non proderit alteri, quod stipulator alteri reo pecuniam debet.
Ad Dig. 45,2,10ROHGE, Bd. 12 (1874), Nr. 81, S. 253: Compensationsbefugniß eines vom Gläubiger wegen einer Correalschuld in Anspruch genommenen Schuldners mit Privatforderungen des andern Socius.The Same, Questions, Book XXXVII. If two joint-promisors are not partners, the fact that the stipulator owes a sum of money to one of them will be of no advantage to the other.
Dig. 46,1,50Idem libro trigensimo septimo quaestionum. Debitori creditor pro parte heres extitit accepto coherede fideiussore: quod ad ipsius quidem portionem attinet, obligatio ratione confusionis intercidit aut (quod est verius) solutionis potestate: sed pro parte coheredis obligatio salva est non fideiussoria, sed hereditaria, quoniam maior tollit minorem.
The Same, Questions, Book XXXVII. A creditor, who became the heir to a portion of the estate of his debtor, accepted his co-heir as surety. So far as his own share of the estate is concerned, the obligation is extinguished by merger or (more correctly speaking) by the power of payment. But, with reference to the share of the co-heir, the obligation remains unimpaired, that is to say, not the obligation of his suretyship but the hereditary obligation, since the larger one has rendered the smaller of no force or effect.