Ad Sabinum libri
Ex libro XIII
Dig. 3,4,9Pomponius libro tertio decimo ad Sabinum. Si tibi cum municipibus hereditas communis erit, familiae erciscundae iudicium inter vos redditur. idemque dicendum est et in finium regundorum et aquae pluviae arcendae iudicio.
Ad Dig. 3,4,9Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 58, Note 4.Pomponius, On Sabinus, Book XIII. If you have an interest in an estate in common with a municipality, a right of action can be brought by both of you for a division of the property. The same thing may be stated with reference to an action for the establishment of boundaries, and for the prevention of the flow of rain-water upon your premises.
Dig. 10,2,45Pomponius libro tertio decimo ad Sabinum. Si quid contendis ex hereditate mihi tecum commune esse, quod ego ex alia causa meum proprium esse dico, id in familiae erciscundae iudicium non venit. 1Dolus, quem servus heredis admisit, in iudicium familiae erciscundae non venit, nisi si domini culpa in hoc erat, quod non idoneum servum rei communi applicuerit.
Pomponius, On Sabinus, Book XIII. Where you contend that part of an estate is owned by yourself and me in common, which I, for some other reason, declare to be mine alone; this is not included in the action for the partition of an estate. 1Fraud committed by a slave of the heir does not come within the terms of the action for the partition of an estate, unless there was negligence on the part of the owner of the slave in that he employed a slave which was not trustworthy to take care of the common property.
Dig. 10,3,20Pomponius libro tertio decimo ad Sabinum. Si is, cum quo fundum communem habes, ad delictum non respondit et ob id motu iudicis villa diruta est aut arbusta succisa sunt, praestabitur tibi detrimentum iudicio communi dividundo: quidquid enim culpa socii amissum est, eo iudicio continetur.
Pomponius, On Sabinus, Book XIII. Where a person with whom you hold land in common does not answer in the case of an offence, and on this account the house is demolished, or the trees are cut down by order of the judge; damages can be recovered by you in an action for the partition of common property, for whatever is lost through the negligence of a joint-owner is included in this proceeding.
Dig. 11,2,1Pomponius libro tertio decimo ad Sabinum. Si inter plures familiae erciscundae agetur et inter eosdem communi dividundo aut finium regundorum, eundem iudicem sumendum: praeterea, quo facilius coire coheredes vel socii possunt, in eundem locum omnium praesentiam fieri oportet.
Pomponius, On Sabinus, Book XIII. Where an action for the partition of an estate and one for the division of property held in common or for the establishment of boundaries is brought between several persons, the same judge should be selected; and, moreover, they should all be present in the same place, in order that the co-heir or joint-owners may the more easily assemble.
Dig. 17,2,15Pomponius libro tertio decimo ad Sabinum. Vel quod ea re frui non liceat, cuius gratia negotiatio suscepta sit?
Ad Dig. 17,2,15Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 307, Note 3.Pomponius, On Sabinus, Book XIII. Or because it was not possible for him to enjoy the property on account of which the business of the partnership was undertaken.
Dig. 17,2,18Pomponius libro tertio decimo ad Sabinum. Si servus societatem coierit, non sufficiet, si iubeatur a domino servus abire a societate, sed socio renuntiandum est.
Pomponius, On Sabinus, Book XIII. Where a slave forms a partnership, it will not be sufficient for him to be ordered by his master to withdraw from it, but his partner must be notified of his renunciation of the same.
Dig. 17,2,37Pomponius libro tertio decimo ad Sabinum. Plane si hi, qui sociis heredes exstiterint, animum inierint societatis in ea hereditate, novo consensu quod postea gesserint efficitur ut in pro socio actionem deducatur.
Pomponius, On Sabinus, Book XIII. It is clear that, if the heirs of partners have the intention of forming a partnership in the estate by new consent, whatever they afterwards do will furnish ground for an action on partnership.
Dig. 17,2,39Pomponius libro tertio decimo ad Sabinum. Si fundus mihi tecum communis sit et in eum mortuum intuleris, agam tecum pro socio.
Pomponius, On Sabinus, Book XIII. Where you and I own a field in common, and you bury a dead body therein, I can bring an action on partnership against you.
Dig. 17,2,54Pomponius libro tertio decimo ad Sabinum. Quod enim ex maleficio contulerit socius, non aliter recipere debet, quam si damnatus sit.
Pomponius, On Sabinus, Book XIII. For the reason that where a partner places the proceeds of a crime in the partnership fund, he cannot recover it, except where he is compelled to surrender it by a judicial decision.
Dig. 17,2,60Idem libro tertio decimo ad Sabinum. Socium, qui in eo, quod ex societate lucri faceret, reddendo moram adhibuit, cum ea pecunia ipse usus sit, usuras quoque eum praestare debere Labeo ait, sed non quasi usuras, sed quod socii intersit moram eum non adhibuisse: sed si aut usus ea pecunia non sit aut moram non fecerit, contra esse: item post mortem socii nullam talem aestimationem ex facto heredis faciendam, quia morte socii dirimatur societas. 1Socius cum resisteret communibus servis venalibus ad fugam erumpentibus, vulneratus est: impensam, quam in curando se fecerit, non consecuturum pro socio actione Labeo ait, quia id non in societatem, quamvis propter societatem inpensum sit, sicuti si propter societatem eum heredem quis instituere desisset aut legatum praetermississet aut patrimonium suum neglegentius administrasset: nam nec compendium, quod propter societatem ei contigisset, veniret in medium, veluti si propter societatem heres fuisset institutus aut quid ei donatum esset.
The Same, On Sabinus, Book XIII. Labeo says that a partner who fails to report to the partnership the profit which he has obtained, or one who uses the money for his own benefit, must pay interest on it, not as ordinary interest, but by way of indemnity for what his partner has suffered by reason of his default. If, however, he did not make use of the money, or was not in default, the contrary rule applies. Moreover, after the death of a partner, no estimate of damages can be made on account of any act of his heir, because the partnership was dissolved by the death of the partner. 1A partner, while attempting to prevent slaves, who formed part of the stock of the partnership from escaping, was wounded; Labeo says that the expense which he incurred for medical services, in consequence, cannot be recovered by an action on partnership, because it was not actually caused by the partnership business, although it was done on account of it; just as if where someone had avoided appointing a party an heir, or had passed him by in bequeathing a legacy, or had managed his property more negligently on account of a partnership, for any gain which he himself had obtained on account of the partnership he would not be obliged to place in the common fund; as, for example, if he had been appointed an heir on account of the partnership, or anything had been given to him for this reason.
Dig. 17,2,62Pomponius libro tertio decimo ad Sabinum. Si Titius cum quo mihi societas erat decesserit egoque cum putarem Titii hereditatem ad Seium pertinere, communiter cum eo res vendiderim et partem pecuniae ex venditione redactae ego, partem Seius abstulerit, te, qui re vera Titio heres es, partem ad me redactae pecuniae societatis iudicio non consecuturum Neratio et Aristoni placebat, quia meae dumtaxat partis pretia percepissem, neque interesse, utrum per se partes meas vendidissem an communiter cum eo, qui reliquas partes ad se pertinere diceret. alioquin eventurum, ut etiam, si duo socii rem vendiderint, unusquisque quod ad se pervenerit partem alteri societatis iudicio praestare debeat. sed nec te ex parte, quam hereditatis petitione forte a Seio consecuturus sis, quicquam mihi praestare debere, quia quod ad Seium pervenerit, tuarum partium pretium sit nec ad me habentem meum quicquam ex eo redire debeat.
Pomponius, On Sabinus, Book XIII. If Titius, with whom I have formed a partnership should die, and I am of the opinion that his estate belongs to Seius, and I sell the common property and take half of the proceeds of the sale, and Seius takes the other half; you, who are in reality the heir of Titius, cannot recover from me, in an action on partnership, the money which I have paid out; as was held by Neratius and Aristo, because I have only received the value of my share. Nor does it make any difference whether I dispose of my share separately, or together with that which the other party alleges is his. Otherwise, the result would be that, even if two partners should sell the property of the partnership, either one of them would be liable to the other in an action on partnership for half of whatever had come into his hands. But you would not be obliged to make good to me in a suit for the estate anything that you might have obtained from Seius, because what came into his possession was the price of your share, and nothing could be recovered from him by me, since I have already obtained what was mine.
Dig. 22,6,4Idem libro tertio decimo ad Sabinum. Iuris ignorantiam in usucapione negatur prodesse: facti vero ignorantiam prodesse constat.
The Same, On Sabinus, Book XIII. It is denied that ignorance of the law is of any advantage in usucaption, but it is established that ignorance of fact is a benefit.