Ad Sabinum libri
Ex libro IX
Dig. 13,1,3Paulus libro nono ad Sabinum. Si condicatur servus ex causa furtiva, id venire in condictionem certum est quod intersit agentis, veluti si heres sit institutus et periculum subeat dominus hereditatis perdendae. quod et Iulianus scribit. item si mortuum hominem condicat, consecuturum ait pretium hereditatis.
Paulus, On Sabinus, Book IX. Where a slave is sued in an action based on theft, it is certain that damages can be claimed to the amount of the interest of the plaintiff; as, for instance, where he was appointed heir, and his master may be in danger of losing the estate; and Julianus is of this opinion. Moreover, if the action is brought for a slave who is dead, the plaintiff will obtain the value of the estate.
Dig. 13,1,5Paulus libro nono ad Sabinum. Ex furtiva causa filio familias condici potest: numquam enim ea condictione alius quam qui fecit tenetur aut heres eius.
Paulus, On Sabinus, Book IX. An action arising from theft can be brought against a son under paternal control, for no one is ever liable to an action of this kind but the party who committed the theft or his heir.
Dig. 44,7,9Paulus libro nono ad Sabinum. Filius familias suo nomine nullam actionem habet, nisi iniuriarum et quod vi aut clam et depositi et commodati, ut Iulianus putat.
Paulus, On Sabinus, Book IX. A son under paternal control is not entitled to an action in his own name, except for the reparation of injury sustained, and where he has been deprived of property by violence or clandestinely, or to recover property which he has deposited or lent; which is the opinion of Julianus.
Dig. 45,1,22Paulus libro nono ad Sabinum. Si id quod aurum putabam, cum aes esset, stipulatus de te fuero, teneberis mihi huius aeris nomine, quoniam in corpore consenserimus: sed ex doli mali clausula tecum agam, si sciens me fefelleris.
Paulus, On Sabinus, Book IX. If I stipulated with you for what I believed to be gold, when, in fact, it was brass, you will be liable to me for the brass, as we agreed upon the object; but I can bring an action against you on the ground of fraud, if you knowingly deceived me.
Dig. 45,1,24Paulus libro nono ad Sabinum. Sed si ex stipulatu Stichum debeat pupillus, non videbitur per eum mora fieri, ut mortuo eo teneatur, nisi si tutore auctore aut solus tutor interpelletur.
Paulus, On Sabinus, Book IX. If a minor owes Stichus under a stipulation, he is not considered to be in default, and be liable, if Stichus should die, unless a demand was made upon him with the consent of his guardian, or it was made upon his guardian alone.
Dig. 47,2,4Paulus libro nono ad Sabinum. ‘Quo destinaverit quis auferre’ sic accipiendum est ‘quo destinaverit eo die manere cum eo furto’.
Paulus, On Sabinus, Book IX. The place where anyone intends to take stolen property should be understood to mean where he expected to remain that day with the proceeds of the theft.
Dig. 47,2,6Paulus libro nono ad Sabinum. Quamvis enim saepe furtum contrectando fiat, tamen initio, id est faciendi furti tempore, constituere visum est, manifestus nec ne fur esset.
Paulus, On Sabinus, Book IX. For although theft is often committed by merely handling an object, still, in the beginning, that is to say, when the theft was committed, is the time which has been established to determine whether or not the culprit is a manifest thief.
Dig. 47,2,11Paulus libro nono ad Sabinum. Tum is cuius interest furti habet actionem, si honesta causa interest.
Paulus, On Sabinus, Book IX. The party in interest is entitled to the action for theft if the case is an honorable one.
Dig. 47,2,18Paulus libro nono ad Sabinum. Quod dicitur noxam caput sequi, tunc verum est, ut quae initio adversus aliquem nata est caput nocentis sequatur: ideoque si servus tuus furtum mihi fecerit et dominus eius effectus eum vendidero, non posse me agere cum emptore Cassiani putant.
Paulus, On Sabinus, Book IX. When it is said that the injury follows the person, this is true to the extent that the right of action follows him who commits the damage, where it arises against anyone in the beginning. Hence, if your slave steals something from me, and, having become his owner, I sell him, the Cassians hold that I cannot bring an action against the debtor.
Dig. 47,2,20Paulus libro nono ad Sabinum. Cum aes pignori datur, etiamsi aurum esse dicitur, turpiter fit, furtum non fit. sed si datum est aurum, deinde, cum dixisset se ponderare aut obsignare velle, aes subiecit, furtum fecit: rem enim pignori datam intervertit. 1Si bona fide rem meam emeris eamque ego subripuero, vel etiam tuus usus fructus sit et eam contrectavero, tenebor tibi furti actione, etsi dominus rei sum. sed his casibus usucapio quasi furtivae rei non impedietur, quoniam et si alius subripiat et in meam potestatem reversa res fuerit, usucapiebatur.
Paulus, On Sabinus, Book IX. Where brass is given in pledge, and it is stated to be gold, a dishonorable act, but not a theft, is committed. If gold is pledged, and afterwards, under the pretext of weighing, or sealing it, brass is substituted for the gold, the person who does so commits a theft, for he has appropriated property given in pledge. 1If you purchase my property in good faith, and I steal it from you, or even if you are entitled to the usufruct thereof, and I put it aside with the intention of appropriating it, I will be liable to you in an action for theft, notwithstanding I am the owner of the property. In these cases, however, usucaption will not be prevented, as where it is stolen; for, if another had stolen it, and the property should again come under my control, usucaption will continue to run.
Dig. 47,2,22Paulus libro nono ad Sabinum. Si quid fur fregerit aut ruperit, quod non etiam furandi causa contrectaverit, eius nomine cum eo furti agere non potest. 1Si eo consilio arca refracta sit, ut uniones puta tollerentur, hique furti faciendi causa contrectati sint, eorum tantummodo furtum factum videri: quod est verum. nam ceterae res, quae seponuntur, ut ad uniones perveniatur, non furti faciendi causa contrectantur. 2Qui lancem rasit, totius fur est et furti tenetur ad id, quod domini interest.
Paulus, On Sabinus, Book IX. Where a thief breaks or destroys anything, which he did not handle for the purpose of stealing it, an action of theft cannot be brought against him on this account. 1If, for instance, a chest should be broken into with the intention of stealing pearls, and they were handled with this dishonest purpose, it seems that the culprit had intended to steal them alone; which is correct. For the other articles which were displaced in order to reach the pearls were not handled for the purpose of stealing them. 2Anyone who scrapes a silver dish is a thief of all of it, and he is liable to an action for theft to the extent of the owner’s interest.
Dig. 47,2,24Paulus libro nono ad Sabinum. Nec minus etiam condici ei posse Iulianus scripsit.
Paulus, On Sabinus, Book IX. Julianus says that a personal action for recovery cannot be brought against him.
Dig. 47,2,26Paulus libro nono ad Sabinum. Si apes ferae in arbore fundi tui apes fecerint, si quis eas vel favum abstulerit, eum non teneri tibi furti, quia non fuerint tuae: easque constat captarum terra mari caelo numero esse. 1Item constat colonum, qui nummis colat, cum eo, qui fructus stantes subripuerit, acturum furti, quia, ut primum decerptus esset, eius esse coepisset.
Paulus, On Sabinus, Book IX. If wild bees swarm upon a tree of your land, and anyone removes either the bees or their honey, he will not be liable for theft to you, because they were not yours, and it is established that they are included among those things which can be seized on land or sea, or in the air. 1Ad Dig. 47,2,26,1Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 186, Note 6.It is also settled that a tenant who pays rent in money can bring an action for theft against anyone who steals his standing crops, because they would have begun to belong to him as soon as he had gathered them.
Dig. 47,2,28Paulus libro nono ad Sabinum. Sed si subripuit, priusquam deleat, tanto tenetur, quanti domini interfuit non subripi: delendo enim nihil ad poenam adicit.
Paulus, On Sabinus, Book IX. If, however, he should steal something, he will only be liable for the interest which the owner had in not having the article stolen, for, by defacing it, he adds nothing to the penalty.
Dig. 47,2,30PaulusaaDie Großausgabe liest Idem statt Paulus. libro nono ad Sabinum. si hereditariae tabulae deletae sint.
The Same, On Sabinus, Book IX. If the will has been mutilated.
Dig. 47,2,32Paulus libro nono ad Sabinum. Quidam tabularum dumtaxat aestimationem faciendam in furti actione existimant, quia, si iudici, apud quem furti agatur, possit probari, quantum debitum fuerit, possit etiam apud eum iudicem eadem probare, apud quem pecuniam petat: si vero in furti iudicio probare non potest, ne illud quidem posse ostendi, quanti eius intersit. sed potest post furtum factum tabulas nanctus esse actor, ut ex eo probet, quanti sua interfuerit, si tabulas nanctus non esset. 1De lege Aquilia maior quaestio est, quemadmodum possit probari, quanti eius intersit: nam si potest alias probare, non patitur damnum. quid ergo, si forte pecuniam sub condicione credidit et interim testium ei copia est, testimonio quorum probationem habeat, qui possunt mori pendente condicione? aut puta me petisse creditum et, quia testes et signatores, qui rem meminissent, praesentes non haberem, victum rem amississe: nunc vero, cum furti agam, eorum memoria et praesentia ad fidem creditae pecuniae uti possum.
Paulus, On Sabinus, Book IX. Some authorities think that, in an action for theft, an estimate of the accounts should only be made, for the reason that if the amount of the debt can be proved before a judge having jurisdiction of an action of theft, it can also be proved before one having jurisdiction of a suit brought for the collection of the money. If, however, it cannot be established before the judge having jurisdiction of the action for theft, the amount of the damage sustained cannot be shown. Still, it might happen that, after the theft has been committed, the plaintiff could recover the accounts, so that he can prove how much damage he would have sustained if he had not recovered them. 1The principal question with reference to the Aquilian Law is, how can the value of the party’s interest be established? For if it can be proved in any other way, he does not sustain any damage. What then is the rule, if he should happen to lend money under a condition, and, in the meantime, the witnesses on whom he relies for proof die before the condition is fulfilled? Or, suppose I have demanded a sum of money, which I lent, and because I do not produce the witnesses who signed the agreement, I lose my case; if I bring an action for theft, I can make use of their memory and their presence to prove that I lent the money.
Dig. 47,2,34Paulus libro nono ad Sabinum. Is, qui opem furtum facienti fert, numquam manifestus est: itaque accidit, ut is quidem, qui opem tulit, furti nec manifesti, is autem, qui deprehensus est, ob eandem rem manifesti teneatur.
Paulus, On Sabinus, Book IX. Anyone who assists a thief is not always himself a manifest thief; hence it happens that he who furnished assistance is liable for non-manifest theft, and he who was caught in the act is guilty of manifest theft of the same property.
Dig. 47,2,38Paulus libro nono ad Sabinum. Mater filii subrepti furti actionem non habet. 1Liberarum personarum nomine, licet furti actio sit, condictio tamen nusquam est.
The Same, On Sabinus, Book IX. A mother whose son has been stolen is not entitled to an action for theft. 1Although an action for theft can be brought on account of free persons, a personal action for recovery will still never lie.
Dig. 47,2,40Paulus libro nono ad Sabinum. Qui iumenta sibi commodata longius duxerit alienave re invito domino usus sit, furtum facit.
Paulus, On Sabinus, Book IX. Anyone who takes beasts of burden to a greater distance than was agreed upon when they were lent to him, or who makes use of property belonging to another against the consent of the owner, commits a theft.
Dig. 47,2,42Paulus libro nono ad Sabinum. Si servus navem exerceat non voluntate domini, de eo, quod ibi perit, volgaris formula in dominum danda est, ut quod alter admisit ‘dumtaxat de peculio’, quod ipse exercitor, adiciatur ‘ut noxae dederet’. igitur si manumissus sit, persecutio quidem in peculio manebit adversus dominum intra annum, noxalis ipsum sequetur. 1Interdum et manumissus et qui eum manumissit, ob furtum tenetur, si ideo manumisit, ne furti cum eo agi possit: sed si cum domino actum fuerit, ipso iure manumissum liberari Sabinus respondit, quasi decisum sit.
Paulus, On Sabinus, Book IX. If a slave should assume command of a ship without the consent of his master, the common rule should be applied against the latter for anything which is lost in the ship; so that what the slave is responsible for may be taken out of his peculium, and any negligence of the owner himself must in addition be atoned for by a noxal action. Therefore, if the slave should be manumitted, the right to bring the action De peculio will continue to exist against a master for a year, but the noxal action will follow him. 1Sometimes both the manumitted slave and the person who gave him his freedom are liable for theft, if the latter manumitted the slave in order to prevent an action for theft from being brought against him. When, however, the master is sued, Sabinus says that the manumitted slave is released by operation of law, just as if it had been decided that this should be the case.
Dig. 47,2,47Paulus libro nono ad Sabinum. Si dominium rei subreptae quacumque ratione mutatum sit, domino furti actio competit, veluti heredi et bonorum possessori et patri adoptivo et legatario.
Paulus, On Sabinus, Book IX. If the ownership of the stolen property is changed in any way whatsoever, the action for theft will lie in favor of the actual owner; as, for instance, in favor of the heir and the prætorian possessor of the estate, as well as of an adoptive father, and a legatee.
Dig. 47,7,1Paulus libro nono ad Sabinum. Si furtim arbores caesae sint, et ex lege Aquilia et ex duodecim tabularum dandam actionem Labeo ait: sed Trebatius ita utramque dandam, ut iudex in posteriore deducat id quod ex prima consecutus sit et reliquo condemnet.
Paulus, On Sabinus, Book IX. Where trees are cut down by stealth, Labeo says that an action should be granted under the Aquilian Law, as well as under the Law of the Twelve Tables. Trebatius, however, holds that both actions should be granted in such a way that the court, in rendering a decision in the second action, should deduct the amount recovered in the first, and give judgment for the remainder.
Dig. 47,7,5Paulus libro nono ad Sabinum. Caedere est non solum succidere, sed etiam ferire caedendi causa. cingere est deglabrare. subsecare est subsecuisse: non enim poterat cecidisse intellegi, qui serra secuisset. 1Eius actionis eadem causa est, quae est legis Aquiliae. 2Is, cuius usus fructus est in fundo, hanc actionem non habet: qui autem fundum vectigalem habet, hanc actionem habet, sicut aquae pluviae arcendae actionem et finium regundorum.
Paulus, On Sabinus, Book IX. To cut down is not merely to cut, but to cut with the intention of felling; to girdle is to remove the bark; to cut away is to cut underneath; for one cannot be understood to have cut down a tree who has divided it with a saw. 1In this proceeding the cause of action is the same as in that under the Aquilian Law. 2He who has the usufruct in the land cannot bring this suit. He who has leased land belonging to the State can bring this suit, just as he can the action for taking care of rain-water and the one to establish boundaries.