Ad Sabinum libri
Ex libro X
Dig. 3,5,39Paulus libro decimo ad Sabinum. Si communes aedes tecum habeam et pro tua parte damni infecti vicino cavero, dicendum est quod praestitero negotiorum gestorum actione potius quam communi dividundo iudicio posse me petere, quia potui partem meam ita defendere, ut socii partem defendere non cogerer.
Paulus, On Sabinus, Book X. If I have a house in common with you and give security for the prevention of threatened injury for your part of said house; it must be stated that what I pay by way of damage I can sue you for rather on the ground of business transacted than on that of a common division of expense; because I was able to protect my own share without being forced to protect that of my partner.
Dig. 5,3,53Paulus libro decimo ad Sabinum. Non solum ad aes alienum hereditarium exsolvendum necessaria alienatio possessori est, sed et si impensae necessariae in rem hereditariam factae sunt a possessore, vel si mora periturae deterioresve futurae erant.
Paulus, On Sabinus, Book X. The alienation of property by the possessor is necessary, not only for the payment of debts by the estate, but where expenses have been incurred by the possessor on account of the estate, or where property is liable to be destroyed or deteriorated by delay.
Dig. 6,1,46Paulus libro decimo ad Sabinum. Eius rei, quae per in rem actionem petita tanti aestimata est, quanti in litem actor iuraverit, dominium statim ad possessorem pertinet: transegisse enim cum eo et decidisse videor eo pretio, quod ipse constituit.
Paulus, On Sabinus, Book X. Where property for which suit is brought by an action in rem is estimated at the amount that the plaintiff makes oath to in court, the ownership of the same at once passes to the possessor; for I am considered to have compromised and arranged the matter with him, on the basis which he himself established.
Dig. 7,1,24Paulus libro decimo ad Sabinum. Si quis donaturus usufructuario spoponderit servo in quem usum fructum habet stipulanti, ipsi usufructuario obligabitur, quia ut ei servus talis stipulari possit, usitatum est.
Paulus, On Sabinus, Book X. Where anyone about to give a present to an usufructuary, promises a slave, who is subject to the usufruct on his own stipulation, he will be bound to the usufructuary; for the reason that it is customary for a slave to be able to enter into a stipulation in favor of the usufructuary.
Dig. 7,1,31Idem libro decimo ad Sabinum. Ex re fructuarii etiam id intellegitur, quod ei fructuarius donaverit concesseritve vel ex administratione rerum eius compendii servus fecerit.
The Same, On Sabinus, Book X. The phrase, “Based on the property of the usufructuary”, must be understood to refer to anything which the usufructuary may have presented or granted to the slave, or where the slave gained anything through the transaction of his business.
Dig. 9,2,12Paulus libro decimo ad Sabinum. Sed et si proprietatis dominus vulneraverit servum vel occiderit, in quo usus fructus meus est, danda est mihi ad exemplum legis Aquiliae actio in eum pro portione usus fructus, ut etiam ea pars anni in aestimationem veniat, qua nondum usus fructus meus fuit.
Paulus, On Sabinus, Book X. Where the mere owner of property wounds or kills a slave in whom I have the usufruct, an action should be granted me, as under the Lex Aquilia, for damages in proportion to the amount of my usufruct; and that portion of the year which elapsed previous to my usufruct must also be included in the assessment of said damages.
Dig. 9,2,18Paulus libro decimo ad Sabinum. Sed et si is qui pignori servum accepit occidit eum vel vulneravit, lege Aquilia et pigneraticia conveniri potest, sed alterutra contentus esse debebit actor.
Paulus, On Sabinus, Book X. Where, however, a party who has received a slave in pledge kills or wounds him, suit can be brought against him under the Lex Aquilia and also on the pledge, but the plaintiff must be content with one or other of these actions.
Dig. 9,2,28Paulus libro decimo ad Sabinum. Qui foveas ursorum cervorumque capiendorum causa faciunt, si in itineribus fecerunt eoque aliquid decidit factumque deterius est, lege Aquilia obligati sunt: at si in aliis locis, ubi fieri solent, fecerunt, nihil tenentur. 1Haec tamen actio ex causa danda est, id est si neque denuntiatum est neque scierit aut providere potuerit: et multa huiusmodi deprehenduntur, quibus summovetur petitor, si evitare periculum poterit:
Paulus, On Sabinus, Book X. Where persons dig pits for the purpose of catching bears or deer, and do this on the highway, and anything falls into them and is injured, they will be liable under the Lex Aquilia; but they will not be liable if they dug the pits in some other place where this is ordinarily done. 1This action, however, should only be brought where proper cause is shown; that is to say, where no notice was given, and the owner had no knowledge, and could not provide against the accident. And indeed, a great many instances of this kind are encountered, in which a plaintiff is barred if he could have avoided the danger;
Dig. 9,2,31Idem libro decimo ad Sabinum. Si putator ex arbore ramum cum deiceret vel machinarius hominem praetereuntem occidit, ita tenetur, si is in publicum decidat nec ille proclamavit, ut casus eius evitari possit. sed Mucius etiam dixit, si in privato idem accidisset, posse de culpa agi: culpam autem esse, quod cum a diligente provideri poterit, non esset provisum aut tum denuntiatum esset, cum periculum evitari non possit. secundum quam rationem non multum refert, per publicum an per privatum iter fieret, cum plerumque per privata loca volgo iter fiat. quod si nullum iter erit, dolum dumtaxat praestare debet, ne immittat in eum, quem viderit transeuntem: nam culpa ab eo exigenda non est, cum divinare non potuerit, an per eum locum aliquis transiturus sit.
The Same, On Sabinus, Book X. Where a trimmer of trees throws down a branch, or a man working on an elevation kills a passer-by, he is only liable where he threw down the object in a public place, and did not give warning, that the accident might be avoided. Mucius, however, states that even if this happened on private property, an action could be brought for negligence; because it is negligence when provision was not made by taking such precautions as a diligent man would have done, or warning was only given when the danger could not have been avoided. On this principle it does not make much difference whether the party injured was traversing public or private ground, since it very frequently happens that many persons go through private ground. If there is no roadway there, the party is only liable for malice where he throws something down on anyone who is passing by; for he cannot be held accountable for negligence, as he would be unable to conjecture whether anyone is going to pass through that place or not.
Dig. 9,2,45Paulus libro decimo ad Sabinum. Scientiam hic pro patientia accipimus, ut qui prohibere potuit teneatur, si non fecerit. 1Lege Aquilia agi potest et sanato vulnerato servo. 2Si meum servum, cum liberum putares, occideris, lege Aquilia teneberis. 3Cum stramenta ardentia transilirent duo, concurrerunt amboque ceciderunt et alter flamma consumptus est: nihil eo nomineaaDie Großausgabe fügt potest ein. agi, si non intellegitur, uter ab utro eversus sit. 4Qui, cum aliter tueri se non possent, damni culpam dederint, innoxii sunt: vim enim vi defendere omnes leges omniaque iura permittunt. sed si defendendi mei causa lapidem in adversarium misero, sed non eum, sed praetereuntem percussero, tenebor lege Aquilia: illum enim solum qui vim infert ferire conceditur, et hoc, si tuendi dumtaxat, non etiam ulciscendi causa factum sit. 5Qui idoneum parietem sustulit, damni iniuria domino eius tenetur.
Paulus, On Sabinus, Book X. In this instance we understand knowledge to signify sufferance, so that where the party is able to prevent the act, and does not do so, he will be liable. 1Proceedings can be brought under the Lex Aquilia where a wounded slave is cured. 2If you kill my slave being under the impression that he is free, you will be liable under the Lex Aquilia. 3Where two slaves leap over burning straw and collide with one another, and both fall and one is burned to death; in this instance an action cannot be brought where it is not known which of them was overthrown by the other. 4Where parties commit damage because they could not otherwise protect themselves, they are guiltless; for all laws and all legal principles permit persons to repel force by force. But if I throw a stone at an adversary for the purpose of defending myself, and I do not hit him but do hit a passer-by, I will be liable under the Lex Aquilia; for you are only permitted to strike a person who is attacking you, and this solely where you do so in defending yourself, and not where it is done for the purpose of revenge. 5Where a party removes a wall which is useful, he is liable to the owner of the same for wrongful damage.
Dig. 10,4,16Paulus libro decimo ad Sabinum. Cum servus tenet aliquid, dominus ad exhibendum suo nomine tenetur: si autem servus citra scientiam domini dolo fecit quo minus habeat, vel furti actio vel de dolo malo noxalis servi nomine danda est, ad exhibendum autem utilis nulla constituenda est.
Paulus, On Sabinus, Book X. Where a slave has anything in his possession, his owner is liable in his own name to an action for production; but if the slave without the knowledge of his owner, is guilty of fraud to avoid being in possession, a noxal action for theft, or one for malicious fraud should be granted on account of the slave, but no prætorian action can be brought for production.
Dig. 12,5,1Paulus libro decimo ad Sabinum. Omne quod datur aut ob rem datur aut ob causam, et ob rem aut turpem aut honestam: turpem autem, aut ut dantis sit turpitudo, non accipientis, aut ut accipientis dumtaxat, non etiam dantis, aut utriusque. 1Ob rem igitur honestam datum ita repeti potest, si res, propter quam datum est, secuta non est. 2Quod si turpis causa accipientis fuerit, etiamsi res secuta sit, repeti potest:
Paulus, On Sabinus, Book X. Everything which is given is parted with either with some purpose in view or for a consideration; and where it is given for some purpose it may be either immoral or honorable, and where it is immoral, the immorality may either attach to the giver and not to the receiver, or it may attach to the receiver and not the giver, or it may attach to both. 1Hence where anything is given for an honorable purpose, an action can be brought for its recovery only where the purpose for which it was granted was not accomplished. 2Where, however, the receiver is the one guilty of immorality, even though the purpose be accomplished, an action can be brought for the recovery of the gift.
Dig. 12,5,3Paulus libro decimo ad Sabinum. Ubi autem et dantis et accipientis turpitudo versatur, non posse repeti dicimus: veluti si pecunia detur, ut male iudicetur.
Paulus, On Sabinus, Book X. Where both the giver and the receiver are guilty of immoral conduct, we hold that suit cannot be brought for the recovery of the donation; as, for instance, where money is paid in order that an unjust judgment may be rendered.
Dig. 12,6,13Idem libro decimo ad Sabinum. Naturaliter etiam servus obligatur: et ideo, si quis nomine eius solvat vel ipse manumissus, ut Pomponius scribit, ex peculio, cuius liberam administrationem habeat, repeti non poterit: et ob id et fideiussor pro servo acceptus tenetur et pignus pro eo datum tenebitur et, si servus, qui peculii administrationem habet, rem pignori in id quod debeat dederit, utilis pigneraticia reddenda est. 1Item quod pupillus sine tutoris auctoritate mutuum accepit et locupletior factus est, si pubes factus solvat, non repetit.
The Same, On Sabinus, Book X. Even a slave may be bound by a natural obligation; hence, if anyone should pay a debt for him, or the slave himself should do so after being manumitted (as Pomponius says), he cannot recover the money out of the peculium the free administration of which he enjoys; and on this account a surety who had been accepted for the slave will be liable, and a pledge given on his account will be retained; if, however, the slave who has the administration of his peculium gives anything as a pledge for what he owes, he should be granted a prætorian action to recover it. 1Moreover, where a ward borrows money without the authority of his guardian, becoming more wealthy thereby, and pays the same after he reaches puberty, he cannot bring an action for its recovery:
Dig. 12,6,15Paulus libro decimo ad Sabinum. Indebiti soluti condictio naturalis est et ideo etiam quod rei solutae accessit, venit in condictionem, ut puta partus qui ex ancilla natus sit vel alluvione accessit: immo et fructus, quos is cui solutum est bona fide percepit, in condictionem venient. 1Sed et si nummi alieni dati sint, condictio competet. ut vel possessio eorum reddatur: quemadmodum si falso existimans possessionem me tibi debere alicuius rei tradidissem, condicerem. sed et si possessionem tuam fecissem ita, ut tibi per longi temporis praescriptionem avocari non possit, etiam sic recte tecum per indebitam condictionem agerem. 2Sed et si usus fructus in re soluta alienus sit, deducto usu fructu a te condicam.
Paulus, On Sabinus, Book X. The right to recover anything which was not due is based upon natural law, and therefore the action will include any addition to the property, for instance, a child born of a female slave, or any land added by alluvium; and, indeed, it also includes crops gathered in good faith by the party to whom delivery was made. 1Ad Dig. 12,6,15,1ROHGE, Bd. 22 (1878), Nr. 66, S. 299: Cond. possessionis gegen den aus Irrthum Besitzenden. Besitz ein Vermögensobject.Moreover, where money belonging to another person was paid, an action will lie in order to obtain possession of the same; just as if I, laboring under a false impression, should deliver possession of certain property to you thinking that I was obliged to do so, I could bring suit for its recovery. But if I should have made the possession yours, so that you could not be deprived of the property on the ground of prescription, even then I could properly bring an action against you for the recovery of money which had been paid without being due. 2Even if an usufruct in the property delivered belongs to another, I could bring suit against you for recovery leaving out the usufruct.
Dig. 21,2,3Idem libro decimo ad Sabinum. Cum in venditione servi peculium semper exceptum esse intellegitur, is homo ex peculio summam quandam secum abstulerat. si propter hanc causam furti cum emptore actum sit, non reverteretur emptor ad venditorem ex stipulatione duplae, quia furtis noxisque solutum esse praestari debet venditionis tempore, haec autem actio postea esse coeperit.
The Same, On Sabinus, Book X. In the sale of a slave, his peculium is always understood to be reserved. Where a slave who was sold took away with him a certain portion of his peculium, and an action of theft is brought against the purchaser on this account, the latter cannot have recourse to the vendor for double damages on the ground of a stipulation, because the vendor, at the time of the sale, should guarantee the slave to be free from liability for theft, or damage. This right of action, however, only originates after the sale has taken place.
Dig. 33,9,6Idem libro decimo ad Sabinum. Instrumentum pistrini, item universa vasa cocitatoria penu non continentur.
The Same, On Sabinus, Book X. The utensils of a bakery, and all the vessels used for cooking, are not included in a bequest of provisions.
Dig. 39,2,34Paulus libro decimo ad Sabinum. utique si pro praeterita pensione satisfacere paratus fuit: alioquin iusta retentio pignoris domino fieri videretur. sed et si quasi pignora retinuerit et ea interierint ruina vicinarum aedium, potest dici etiam pigneraticia actione locatorumaaDie Großausgabe liest locatorem statt locatorum. teneri, si poterat eas res in locum tutiorem transferre.
Paulus, On Sabinus, Book X. Provided always, that he is ready to give security for any rent which may have accrued; otherwise, the owner could justly retain his property by way of pledge. But even if he should retain it by way of pledge, and it should be destroyed by the fall of a neighboring house, it may be said that the owner would be liable to the tenant in an action on pledge, if he could have deposited the property in a safer place.
Dig. 39,2,36Paulus libro decimo ad Sabinum. Sed ita idoneum esse plerique dixerunt, ut utrarumque aedium onera, quae modo iure imponantur, communis paries sustinere possit.
Paulus, On Sabinus, Book X. Several authorities hold that a party-wall, to be suitable, must be able to support the weights of both the houses which may legally be placed thereon.
Dig. 39,2,38Paulus libro decimo ad Sabinum. Emptor aedium ante traditam sibi possessionem ideo inutiliter stipulatur, quia venditor omnem diligentiam ei praestare debet. tunc certe utiliter stipulatur, cum omnis culpa a venditore aberit, veluti si precario emptori in his aedibus esse permisit custodiamque ei afuturus tradidit. 1Si agri nomine non caveatur, in eam partem agri mittendum est, ex qua periculum timeatur: eiusque rei ratio haec est, quod in aedificiis partes quoque reliquae a vitiosa parte traherentur, at in agris non idem est. sed dicendum est, ut in domibus quoque maioribus interdum causa cognita praetor statuere debeat, in cuius partis possessionem is, cui non caveatur, mitti debeat. 2Deducto veteris parietis pretio, si quid amplius sit, aestimari debet, et si quid ex veteri in novum coniectum sit, deduci ex aestimatione oportet.
Paulus, On Sabinus, Book X. The purchaser of a house cannot properly stipulate for indemnity before possession has been delivered to him; for the reason that the vendor is bound to exercise strict diligence with reference to the property, so far as the rights of the purchaser are concerned. It is certain that such a stipulation can be made, where the vendor is in no way to blame; for instance, if he permitted the purchaser to remain in the house under a precarious title, and when about to depart, he gave him the custody of the same. 1If security is not furnished with reference to a field, the plaintiff should be placed in possession of that part of it where some damage is apprehended. The reason for this is, that in the case of buildings, the portions which are in good repair may be pulled down by those which are ruinous, and this is not true of vacant land. It must, however, be said that, with reference to very large houses, the Prætor should sometimes determine, after investigation, in which part of the building the person, to whom security has not been given, should be placed in possession. 2Where a new wall is erected, the expense should be calculated after having deducted the cost of the old one to ascertain whether there is any excess; or if any of the old wall was used in the construction of the new one the value of it should be deducted in making the estimate.
Dig. 45,1,28Paulus libro decimo ad Sabinum. Si rem tradi stipulamur, non intellegimur proprietatem eius dari stipulatori, sed tantum tradi.
Paulus, On Sabinus, Book X. If we stipulate for property to be delivered, we do not understand that its ownership shall be transferred to the stipulator, but merely that the article itself shall be delivered.
Dig. 46,3,8Paulus libro decimo ad Sabinum. Illud non ineleganter scriptum esse Pomponius ait, si par et dierum et contractuum causa sit, ex omnibus summis pro portione videri solutum.
Paulus, On Sabinus, Book X. Pomponius says that it has very properly been stated that when the terms and the contracts are the same payment will be held to have been made pro rata on all the sums in question.
Dig. 46,3,21Paulus libro decimo ad Sabinum. Si decem stipulatus a Titio deinde stipuleris a Seio, quanto minus ab illo consecutus sis: etsi decem petieris a Titio, non tamen absolvitur Seius: quid enim, si condemnatus Titius nihil facere potest? sed et si cum Seio prius egeris, Titius in nullam partem liberatur: incertum quippe est, an omnino Seius debiturus sit: denique si totum Titius solverit, nec debitor fuisse videbitur Seius, quia condicio eius deficit.
Paulus, On Sabinus, Book X. If, having stipulated with Titius for ten aurei, you then stipulate with Seius to pay you whatever you cannot collect from Titius; even if you bring an action for ten aurei against Titius, Seius will still not be released. But what if Titius, having had a judgment rendered against him, should not be able to pay anything? Even if you first bring suit against Seius, Titius will not, in any respect, be discharged from liability, for it is uncertain whether Seius will owe anything at all. Finally, if Titius discharged the entire debt, Seius will not be considered to have been a debtor, for the reason that the condition upon which his indebtedness depended has failed to be fulfilled.
Dig. 46,3,50Paulus libro decimo ad Sabinum. Si, cum aurum tibi promisissem, ignoranti quasi aurum aes solverim, non liberabor: sed nec repetam hoc quasi indebitum solutum, quod sciens feci. petentem tamen te aurum exceptione summovebo, si non reddas aes quod accepisti.
Paulus, On Sabinus, Book X. If, having promised you gold, I should, without your knowledge, give you copper instead, I will not be released, but I cannot recover it as having been paid without being due, because I gave it knowingly; nevertheless, if you bring suit for gold, I can bar you by means of an exception, if you do not return the copper which you received.
Dig. 47,10,29Paulus libro decimo ad Sabinum. Si servum, cuius nomine iniuriarum actio tibi competit, manumiseris aut alienaveris, superest tibi iniuriarum actio.
Paulus, On Sabinus, Book X. If you manumit or alienate a slave, on whose account you are entitled to an action for injury, you will retain the right to bring the action.
Dig. 47,10,31Paulus libro decimo ad Sabinum. cum possit propter filii dignitatem maior ipsi quam patri iniuria facta esse.
Paulus, On Sabinus, Book II. As the injury done to the son may be greater than that done to the father, on account of the superior rank of the former.
Dig. 47,10,33Paulus libro decimo ad Sabinum. Quod rei publicae venerandae causa secundum bonos mores fit, etiamsi ad contumeliam alicuius pertinet, quia tamen non ea mente magistratus facit, ut iniuriam faciat, sed ad vindictam maiestatis publicae respiciat, actione iniuriarum non tenetur.
Paulus, On Sabinus, Book X. When anything is done in compliance with the dictates of morality for the purpose of protecting the interests of the State, and this causes anyone to be insulted, nevertheless, for the reason that the magistrate did not act with the intention of causing injury, but had in view the vindication of the majesty of the Republic, he will not be liable to an action for injury.