Quaestionum libri
Ex libro I
Dig. 1,3,37Idem libro I quaestionum. Si de interpretatione legis quaeratur, in primis inspiciendum est, quo iure civitas retro in eiusmodi casibus usa fuisset: optima enim est legum interpres consuetudo.
Callistratus, Questions, Book I. When inquiry is made as to the interpretation of a law, it must in the first place be ascertained what rule the State formerly made use of in cases of the same kind; for custom is the best interpreter of the laws.
Dig. 2,4,15Paulus libro primo quaestionum. Libertus adversus patronum dedit libellum non dissimulato se libertum esse eius: an si ad desiderium eius rescribatur, etiam edicti poena remissa esse videtur? respondi non puto ad hunc casum edictum praetoris pertinere. neque enim qui libellum principi vel praesidi dat, in ius vocare patronum videtur.
Paulus, Questions, Book I. A freedman presented a petition against his patron without concealing the fact that he was his freedman; and the question arose whether, if he obtained an Imperial Rescript in accordance with his wishes, the penalty of the Edict would be remitted? I have answered that I do not think that the Edict of the Prætor is applicable in this instance, for the reason that he who presents a petition to the Emperor or to a Governor, is not considered to have summoned his patron to court.
Dig. 3,5,33Paulus libro primo quaestionum. Nesennius Apollinaris Iulio Paulo salutem. Avia nepotis sui negotia gessit: defunctis utrisque aviae heredes conveniebantur a nepotis heredibus negotiorum gestorum actione: reputabant heredes aviae alimenta praestita nepoti. respondebatur aviam iure pietatis de suo praestitisse: nec enim aut desiderasse, ut decernerentur alimenta, aut decreta essent. praeterea constitutum esse dicebatur, ut si mater aluisset, non posset alimenta, quae pietate cogente de suo praestitisset, repetere. ex contrario dicebatur tunc hoc recte dici, ut de suo aluisse mater probaretur: at in proposito aviam, quae negotia administrabat, verisimile esse de re ipsius nepotis eum aluisse. tractatum est, numquid utroque patrimonio erogata videantur. quaero quid tibi iustius videatur. respondi: haec disceptatio in factum constitit: nam et illud, quod in matre constitutum est, non puto ita perpetuo observandum. quid enim si etiam protestata est se filium ideo alere, ut aut ipsum aut tutores eius conveniret? pone peregre patrem eius obisse et matrem, dum in patriam revertitur, tam filium quam familiam eius exhibuisse: in qua specie etiam in ipsum pupillum negotiorum gestorum dandam actionem divus Pius Antoninus constituit. igitur in re facti facilius putabo aviam vel heredes eius audiendos, si reputare velint alimenta, maxime si etiam in ratione impensarum ea rettulisse aviam apparebit. illud nequaquam admittendum puto, ut de utroque patrimonio erogata videantur.
Paulus, Questions, Book I. Nesennius Apollinaris to Julius Paulus, Greeting. A grandmother transacted the business of her grandson, and after the death of both of them the heirs of the grandmother were sued by the heirs of the grandson in an action based on business transacted, but the heirs of the grandmother filed a claim for support furnished the grandson. Answer was made to this that the grandmother had furnished it out of her own property through natural affection, since she had not asked that the amount of the maintenance should be fixed, and that it had not been fixed; and moreover, it has been established that if the mother had furnished maintenance she could not recover that which he had provided out of her own property under the inducement of natural affection. On the other hand, it was stated, and I hold it to be correct, that this is the case where it is proved that a mother had furnished maintenance out of her own property; but in the present instance it is probable that the grandmother who transacted the business of her grandson supported him out of his own property. It was a subject of discussion as to whether the expense should be considered as having been paid out of both estates, and I ask what seems to be the more just conclusion? I answered that the decision in this instance depends upon the facts. For I am of the opinion that what has been established in the case of the mother should not always be observed; for what would be the effect if the mother had positively stated that when she was supporting her son, she did so in order to bring an action either against himself or his guardians? Suppose, for instance, that his father had died far from home, and that his mother, while returning to her country had supported her son and the slaves; in this instance the Divine Pius Antoninus established the rule that a suit on the ground of business transacted could be granted against the minor himself. Therefore, as the question is one of fact, I think that the grandmother or her heirs should be heard if they wish an accounting for maintenance, and especially so if it appears that the grandmother had entered the items in the expense account. I think that it by no means should be admitted that the expenses should be charged to both estates.
Dig. 4,2,17Paulus libro primo quaestionum. Videamus ergo, si heres, ad quem aliquid pervenerit, consumpserit id quod pervenit, an desinat teneri, an vero sufficit semel pervenisse? et, si consumpto eo decesserit, utrum adversus heredem eius omnimodo competit actio, quoniam hereditariam suscepit obligationem, an non sit danda, quoniam ad secundum heredem nihil pervenit? et melius est omnimodo competere in heredem heredis actionem: sufficit enim semel pervenisse ad proximum heredem, et perpetua actio esse coepit: alioquin dicendum erit nec ipsum, qui consumpsit quod ad eum pervenit, teneri.
Paulus, Questions, Book I. Let us see then, where the heir has acquired possession of something, and has consumed what he obtained, will he cease to be liable, or will the fact that he once had possession of the property be sufficient? And if he should die after having consumed it, will an action absolutely lie against his heir, since he received an indebtedness with the estate; or will no action be granted because the second heir received nothing? It is the better opinion that, in any event, an action will lie against the heir of the heir; for it is sufficient that the property once passed to the original heir, and the right of action becomes perpetual. Otherwise, it must be held that the heir himself, who consumes what had come into his hands, will not be liable.
Dig. 4,4,32Paulus libro primo quaestionum. Minor viginti quinque annis adito praeside ex aspectu corporis falso probavit perfectam aetatem: curatores cum intellexissent esse minorem perseveraverunt in administratione: medio tempore post probatam aetatem ante impletum vicensimum quintum annum solutae sunt adulescenti pecuniae debitae easque male consumpsit. quaero cuius sit periculum: et quid si curatores quoque in eodem errore perseverassent, ut putarent maiorem esse et abstinuissent se ab administratione, curationem etiam restituissent, an periculum temporis, quod post probatam aetatem cessit, ad eos pertineat? respondi: hi qui debita exsolverunt liberati iure ipso non debent iterum conveniri. plane curatores, qui scientes eum minorem esse perseveraverunt in eodem officio, non debuerunt eum pati accipere pecunias debitas et debebunt hoc nomine conveniri. quod si et ipsi decreto praesidis crediderunt et administrare cessaverunt vel etiam rationem reddiderunt, similes sunt ceteris debitoribus, ideoque non conveniuntur.
Paulus, Questions, Book I. A minor under twenty-five years of age having applied to the Governor convinced him, from his appearance, that he was of age, which was not the case; but his curators, as they knew him to be a minor, continued to conduct his affairs. In the meantime, after his age had been proved, and before he had completed his twenty-fifth year, certain sums of money that were due to the minor were paid to him, which he squandered. I ask who is responsible for the loss; for if the curators had been in error, and thinking that he had attained his majority, had relinquished the administration of his property, and rendered their accounts, would they have to assume the risk for the time which had passed after proof of his age had been established? I answered that those who have paid their debts are released by operation of law, and cannot be sued a second time. It is evident that the curators who, knowing the party to be a minor, persevered in the discharge of their duties, ought not to have allowed him to receive the money which was due; and on this account suit should be brought against them. If, however, they themselves accepted the decision of the Governor, and ceased to administer their trust, or even rendered an account; they are in the same legal position as other debtors, and therefore should not be sued.
Dig. 16,2,21Paulus libro primo quaestionum. Posteaquam placuit inter omnes id quod invicem debetur ipso iure compensari, si procurator absentis conveniatur, non debebit de rato cavere, quia nihil compensat, sed ab initio minus ab eo petitur.
Ad Dig. 16,2,21Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 349, Noten 9, 10.Paulus, Questions, Book I. Since it has generally been held that what persons owe one another is set off by mere operation of law, if the agent of a person who is absent is sued, he need not give security that his act will be ratified, because nothing can be set off, but a smaller sum can be demanded from him in the beginning.
Dig. 21,1,56Paulus libro primo quaestionum. Latinus Largus: quaero, an fideiussori emptionis redhiberi mancipium possit. respondi, si in universam causam fideiussor sit acceptus, putat Marcellus posse ei fideiussori redhiberi.
Dig. 29,2,88Paulus libro primo quaestionum. Gerit pro herede, qui animo adgnoscit successionem, licet nihil attingat hereditarium. unde et si domum pignori datam sicut hereditariam retinuit, cuius possessio qualisqualis fuit in hereditate, pro herede gerere videtur: idemque est et si alienam rem ut hereditariam possedisset.
Paulus, Questions, Book I. A person acts in the capacity of heir, who signifies his intention of accepting an estate, even though he does not touch any of the property forming part of the same. Hence, if he should keep a house as belonging to the estate but which had been given by way of pledge, the possession of which was, in any way, held by the estate, he will be considered to have acted as the heir. The same rule will apply if he should retain possession of any other property as a part of the estate.
Dig. 50,1,18Paulus libro primo quaestionum. Divus Severus rescripsit intervalla temporum in continuandis oneribus invitis, non etiam volentibus concessa, dum ne quis continuet honorem.
Dig. 50,2,14Paulus libro primo quaestionum. De decurione damnato non debere quaestionem haberi divus Pius rescripsit. unde etiam si desierit decurio esse, deinde damnetur, non esse torquendum in memoriam prioris dignitatis placet.
Paulus, Questions, Book I. The Divine Pius stated in a Rescript that a decurion who had been convicted should not be subjected to torture. Wherefore, when anyone ceases to be a decurion, and afterwards is convicted, it is decided that he must not be tortured, on account of the memory of his former dignity.