Ad edictum praetoris libri
Ex libro VI
Dig. 2,8,16Paulus libro sexto ad edictum. Qui iurato promisit iudicio sisti, non videtur peierasse, si ex concessa causa hoc deseruerit.
Paulus, On the Edict, Book VI. He who has promised under oath to appear in court, is not held to have committed perjury if he fails to do so for some good reason.
Dig. 2,9,2Paulus libro sexto ad edictum. Sed alio iure utimur. nam ex praecedentibus causis non liberatur noxae deditus: perinde enim noxa caput sequitur, ac si venisset. 1Si absens sit servus, pro quo noxalis actio alicui competit: si quidem dominus non negat in sua potestate esse, compellendum putat vindius vel iudicio eum sisti promittere vel iudicium accipere, aut, si nolit defendere, cauturum, cum primum potuerit, se exhibiturum: sin vero falso neget in sua potestate esse, suscepturum iudicium sine noxae deditione. idque Iulianus scribit et si dolo fecerit, quominus in eius esset potestate. sed si servus praesens est, dominus abest nec quisquam servum defendit, ducendus erit iussu praetoris: sed causa cognita domino postea dabitur defensio, ut Pomponius et vindius scribunt, ne ei absentia sua noceat: ergo et actori actio restituenda est, perempta eo quod ductus servus in bonis eius esse coepit.
Paulus, On the Edict, Book VI. We, however, adopt a different rule; for when a slave is surrendered in satisfaction of damages, the right of action is not extinguished on account of any of the reasons previously stated; for the action always follows the slave, just as if he had put in an appearance in the first place. 1Where the slave, on account of whom a noxal action can be instituted by anyone, is absent, and where his master does not deny that he is under his control, Vindius holds that he can be compelled to promise to produce him in court, or to defend him, and if he is unwilling to do this, he must give security to produce him as soon as possible; but if he falsely denies that he is under his control, he will be compelled to defend the suit without the surrender of the slave; and Julianus stated this also, even where the master contrived by fraud that the slave should not be under his control. If the slave is present, and the master is absent, and there is no one to defend the slave, he should be removed by the order of the Prætor, but if proper cause be shown, his defense can afterwards be conceded to his master, as Pomponius and Vindius state; nor will the master be prejudiced by his absence. Therefore, the right of action which the plaintiff lost because when the slave was taken away he became his property, can be restored to him.
Dig. 2,10,2Paulus libro sexto ad edictum. Si actoris servus domino sciente et cum possit non prohibente dolo fecerit, quo minus in iudicio sistam, Ofilius dandam mihi exceptionem adversus dominum ait, ne ex dolo servi dominus lucretur. si vero sine voluntate domini servus hoc fecerit, Sabinus noxale iudicium dandum ait nec factum servi domino obesse debere nisi hactenus, ut ipso careat: quando ipse nihil deliquit.
Paulus, On the Edict, Book VI. Where the slave of the plaintiff, with the knowledge of his master, commits a fraud to hinder me from appearing in court, and his master does not prevent him when he could do so, Ofilius says that an exception should be granted against his master to prevent him from profiting by the fraud of the slave. But if, in fact, the slave committed the act without the consent of his master; Sabinus says that a noxal action will lie, and that the act of the slave ought not to prejudice his master, except to the extent that he shall lose him when he himself has committed no wrong.
Dig. 3,3,6Paulus libro sexto ad edictum. et qui in foro et qui in urbe et in continentibus aedificiis:
Paulus, On the Edict, Book VI. And also one who is in the Forum, in the city, and where the buildings are continuous.
Dig. 6,1,6Paulus libro sexto ad edictum. Si in rem aliquis agat, debet designare rem, et utrum totam an partem et quotam petat: appellatio enim rei non genus, sed speciem significat. Octavenus ita definit, quod infectae quidem materiae pondus, signatae vero numerum, factae autem speciem dici oportet: sed et mensura dicenda erit, cum res mensura continebitur. et si vestimenta nostra esse vel dari oportere nobis petamus, utrum numerum eorum dicere debebimus an et colorem? et magis est ut utrumque: nam illud inhumanum est cogi nos dicere, trita sint an nova. quamvis et in vasis occurrat difficultas, utrum lancem dumtaxat dici oporteat an etiam, quadrata vel rutunda, vel pura an caelata sint, quae ipsa in petitionibus quoque adicere difficile est. nec ita coartanda res est: licet in petendo homine nomen eius dici debeat et utrum puer an adulescens sit, utique si plures sint: sed si nomen eius ignorem, demonstratione eius utendum erit: veluti ‘qui ex illa hereditate est’, ‘qui ex illa natus est’. item fundum petiturus nomen eius et quo loci sit dicere debebit.
Paulus, On the Edict, Book VI. Where anyone brings an action in rem, he is obliged to designate the thing, and also to state that he brings suit for all, or for a portion of the same; for the word “thing” does not mean something in kind, but a specific article. Octavenus says with reference to this, that a party must state the weight of raw material, and where the property is stamped, the number, and where goods have been manufactured, the nature of the same. The dimensions must also be given when the article can be measured. If we bring suit claiming that certain clothing is ours, or that it should be delivered to us, are we obliged to state the number of the articles and the color also? The better opinion is that both those things should be done; for it would be a hardship to compel us to say whether our clothes are worn or new. A difficulty arises occasionally with reference to household utensils, namely, whether it is only necessary to mention a dish, or whether we must add whether it is square or round, plain or ornamented, for it is difficult to insert these additions in the complaint; nor should the requirements be so rigid, although in an action to recover a slave his name should be mentioned, and also whether he is a boy or a grown man, and, by all means, this should be done if there is more than one. But, if I am ignorant of his name, I must make use of some description of him; as for example, that he is a portion of a certain estate, or the son of a certain woman. In like manner, where a man brings an action for land, he must state its name and where it is situated.
Dig. 9,4,12Paulus libro sexto ad edictum. Si bona fide possessor eum servum, quem bona fide possidebat, dimiserit, ne agi cum eo ex noxali causa possit, obligari eum actione, quae datur adversus eos, qui servum in potestate habeant aut dolo fecerint, quo minus haberent, quia per hoc adhuc possidere videntur.
Paulus, On the Edict, Book VI. Where a bona fide possessor dismisses a slave who was in his possession under these circumstances, in order to avoid proceedings being taken against him in a noxal action, he will be liable to the action which is granted against parties who have a slave in their power or commit fraud in order to avoid having him under their control, because in this instance they are held to be still in possession.
Dig. 12,2,15Idem libro sexto ad edictum. Ad personas egregias eosque qui valetudine impediuntur domum mitti oportet ad iurandum.
The Same, On the Edict, Book VI. Someone must be sent to their homes to administer the oath to distinguished persons, and to those who are prevented by illness from appearing in court.
Dig. 26,8,17Idem libro sexto ad edictum. Si tutor pupillo nolit auctor fieri, non debet eum praetor cogere, primum quia iniquum est, etiamsi non expedit pupillo, auctoritatem eum praestare, deinde etsi expedit, tutelae iudicio pupillus hanc iacturam consequitur.
The Same, On the Edict, Book VI. Where a guardian is unwilling to grant authority to his ward, the Prætor should not compel him to do so; in the first place, because it would be unjust, even if it was not expedient, to force him to give his consent; and then, even if it was expedient, the ward can bring an action on guardianship on account of the loss he has sustained.
Dig. 50,17,110Idem libro sexto ad edictum. In eo, quod plus sit, semper inest et minus. 1Nemo alienae rei expromissor idoneus videtur, nisi si cum satisdatione. 2Pupillus pati posse non intellegitur. 3Ubi verba coniuncta non sunt, sufficit alterutrum esse factum. 4Mulieribus tunc succurrendum est, cum defendantur, non ut facilius calumnientur.
The Same, On the Edict, Book VI. The less is always included in the greater. 1No one is considered to be legally responsible for another, unless he gives security. 2A minor is not considered to have consented to something to his injury. 3Where two sentences in a contract referring to the same thing are not connected, it is sufficient for one of them to be complied with. 4Relief should be granted to women for their protection, but not to enable them the more readily to impose upon others.