Notae ad Iuliani Digestorum libros
Ex libro XXXVI
Dig. 5,1,75Idem libro trigensimo sexto digestorum. Si praetor iusserit eum a quo debitum petebatur adesse et ordine edictorum peracto pronuntiaverit absentem debere, non utique iudex, qui de iudicato cognoscit, debet de praetoris sententia cognoscere: alioquin lusoria erunt huiusmodi edicta et decreta praetorum. Marcellus notat: si per dolum sciens falso aliquid allegavit et hoc modo consecutum eum sententiam praetoris liquido fuerit adprobatum, existimo debere iudicem querellam rei admittere. Paulus notat: si autem morbo impeditus aut rei publicae causa avocatus adesse non potuit reus, puto vel actionem iudicati eo casu in eum denegandam vel exsequi praetorem ita iudicatum non debere.
The Same, Digest, Book XXXVI. Where the Prætor has ordered a party against whom an action is brought for a debt, to appear; and the number of citations is exhausted; and he decides that the absent party owes the debt, and suit is brought to enforce the judgment; the judge who hears the case cannot examine the decree of the Prætor, otherwise citations of this kind and the decrees of the Prætors would be illusory. Marcellus says in a note: “Where the plaintiff knowingly and falsely states anything with malicious intent, and it is clearly established that in this way he obtained a judgment in his favor from the Prætor; I think that the judge should admit the complaint of the defendant.” Paulus says in a note, that if the defendant was unable to be present because he was prevented by illness, or was employed in some business for the State, it is his opinion that in this case an action to enforce the judgment against him should be refused, or the Prætor ought not to permit execution to be issued.