Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LVII. If a freedman, in opposition to the Edict of the Prætor, should summon to court the son of his patron whom the patron himself has under his control, it should be held that, if the father is absent, relief should be granted to his son who is under his control, and that a penal action, that is to say one for fifty aurei, will lie against the freedman.

Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LVII. Many fathers disinherit their children not on account of any disgrace or to do them injury, but with a view to their own welfare (as, for instance, those who have not arrived at puberty), and bequeath their estates to them in trust.

Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LVII. Where one of two heirs meddles with an estate and dies, and afterwards the other rejects it, his heir will be entitled to the same choice that the deceased himself would have had; which is the opinion of Marcellus.

Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LVII. Sabinus says that a son under paternal control, who is a tenant, is entitled to the interdict Quod vi aut clam against anyone who sets fire to trees.

Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LVII. The Prætor provides in his Edict as follows: “Anyone who brings an action for injury must state positively what injury was sustained,” because he who brings an action which may render another infamous should not make a vague accusation admitting of a distinction which may affect the good name of another, but he must designate and specify clearly the injury which he alleges he has suffered. 1When it is said that a slave has been killed for the purpose of causing injury, should not the Prætor permit the public action to be prejudiced by the private one of the Cornelian Law, just as if anyone should desire to bring suit, because you gave poison for the purpose of killing a man? He will, therefore, act more properly, if he does not grant an action of this kind. We are, however, accustomed to hold that, in cases which can be publicly prosecuted, we ought not to be prevented from bringing private actions. This is true only where the action which should be publicly prosecuted is not vitally concerned. What, then, must we say with reference to the Aquilian Law, for this action has principally reference to this? The slave who was killed was not the principal object of the action which was brought mainly on account of the loss sustained by his owner; but, in the action for injury, proceedings are instituted with reference to murder and poisoning, for the purpose of inflicting punishment, and not for reparation of damage. But what if anyone should desire to bring the action for injury, because he has been struck on the head with a sword? Labeo says that he should not be prevented from bringing it, as the case is not one which demands public punishment. This is not true, for who doubts that the aggressor can be prosecuted under the Cornelian Law? 2Besides, the nature of the injury which the person suffered must be specifically stated, in order that we may ascertain whether judgment should be rendered against a patron in favor of his freedman. For it must be remembered that an action for injury is, not always but only occasionally, granted to a freedman against his patron, where the injury he has sustained is atrocious; for instance, if it is one which may be inflicted upon a slave. Moreover, we allow a patron to inflict a light punishment upon his freedman; and the Prætor will not receive his complaint as having sustained an injury, unless he is impressed by the atrocity of the act. For the Prætor should not permit the slave of yesterday who is the freedman of today to complain that his master has insulted him, or struck him lightly, or corrected him. It will, however, be perfectly just for the Prætor to come to his relief, if his master has scourged him, or severely beaten him, or seriously wounded him. 3If one of several children, who are not subject to paternal authority, desires to bring suit against his father, an action for injury cannot be rashly instituted, unless the atrocity of the deed should induce this to be done, but certainly those who are under paternal control are not entitled to this action, even if the injury was atrocious. 4When the Prætor says, “Must state positively what injury was sustained,” how should this be understood? Labeo holds that he states anything positively who mentions the name of the injury, without any ambiguity (for instance, “either this or that”), but alleges that he has suffered such-and-such an injury. 5If you inflict several injuries upon me, for example, where a disorderly crowd having assembled, you enter my house, and in consequence I am insulted and beaten at the same time; the question arises, can I bring separate actions against you for each injury? Marcellus, in accordance with the opinion of Neratius, approves of the union in a single action of all the injuries that anyone has suffered at the same time. 6Our Emperor stated in a Rescript that, at present, civil actions can be brought for all kinds of injuries, even such as are of an atrocious character. 7We understand an atrocious injury to be one which is more than usually insulting and serious. 8Labeo says that an atrocious injury is committed with reference to the person, or the time, or the thing. An injury to the person becomes more atrocious when it is committed against a magistrate, a parent, or a patron. With reference to time, when it is committed at the games, and in public, or in the presence of the Prætor, or in private, for he asserts that there is a great difference, as an injury is more atrocious when it is committed in public. Labeo says that an injury is atrocious with reference to the thing, as for instance, where a wound is inflicted, or anyone is struck in the face.

Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LVII. While we are discussing the point that the injury becomes atrocious on account of the thing itself, the question arises whether, in order for it to be atrocious, it must be inflicted upon the body, or whether it can be such if it is not corporeal, for instance, where clothing is torn, or an attendant is taken away, or insulting language is used. Pomponius says that an injury can be called atrocious without inflicting a blow, the atrocity being dependent upon the person. 1When, however, one person strikes and wounds another in the theatre or in some other public place, he perpetrates an atrocious injury even though it is not serious. 2It makes little difference whether the injury is inflicted upon the head of a household, or on a son under paternal control, for it will be considered atrocious. 3If a slave inflicts an atrocious injury and his master is present, proceedings can be instituted against the latter. If his master is absent, the slave should be delivered to the Governor, who shall cause him to be scourged. 4When anyone makes immodest advances to either a woman or a man, or to a freeborn person, or to a freedman, he will be liable to an action for injury. If the modesty of a slave is attacked, the action for injury can be brought.

Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LVII. Not only is he liable to an action for injury who commits the injury, that is to say, he who delivered the blow, but he also is included who, either by malice or through his efforts, causes anyone to be struck with the fist, for instance, upon the cheek. 1The action for injury is founded on right and justice. It is extinguished by dissimulation; for if anyone should abandon an injury, that is to say, if, after having suffered it, he does not recall it to mind, and should afterwards repent of having neglected to do so, he cannot revive it. According to this, equity is considered to abolish all apprehension of an action, whenever anyone opposes what is just. Hence, if an agreement with reference to an injury is entered into, or a compromise is made, or an oath is exacted in court, the action for injury will not survive. 2Anyone can bring the action for injury either by himself or by another; as, for example, by an agent, a guardian, or any other persons who are accustomed to act in behalf of others. 3If an injury is committed against anyone by my direction, most authorities hold that both I, who gave the order, and the person who received it, are liable to the action for injury. 4Proculus very properly says that if I hire you to commit an injury, suit can be brought against each of us, because the injury was committed by my agency. 5He says that the same rule will apply, if I direct my son to commit an injury against you. 6Atilicinus, however, says that if I persuade anyone to commit an injury who otherwise would be unwilling to obey me, an action for injury can be brought against me. 7Although the action for injury is not granted to a freedman against his patron, it can be brought by the husband of a freedwoman, in her name, against her patron; for the husband, when his wife has suffered any injury, is considered to bring the action in her name; which opinion Marcellus accepts. I, however, have made a note on him to the effect that I do not think that this applies to every injury. For why should light chastisement of a freedwoman even if she is married, or strong language, which is not obscene, be denied to a person? But if the woman was married to a freedman, we should say that an action for injury ought, by all means, to be granted to the husband against the patron. This is the opinion of many authorities. Hence it is apparent that our freedmen not only cannot bring an action for injury against us for injuries inflicted upon themselves, but not even for such as are inflicted upon those whom it is to their interest should not suffer injury. 8It is clear that if the son of a freedman, or his wife, should wish to bring an action for injury sustained, this ought not to be refused them because the action is not granted to the father or the husband, since they bring suit in their own names. 9There is no doubt that anyone who is said to be a slave and asserts that he is free can bring the action for injury against one who alleges that he is his master. This is true, whether from being free he desires to introduce him into slavery, or whether the slave wishes to obtain his freedom, for we use this law without making any distinction.

Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LVII. The action for injury sustained is not granted in favor of, or against an heir. The same rule applies where an injury has been inflicted upon my slave, for, in this instance, the action for injury will not be granted to my heir. But after issue has once been joined, this right of action passes even to successors. 1He who has recourse to a public law is not understood to do so for the purpose of causing injury, for the execution of the law does not inflict injury. 2Where anyone is arrested for not having obeyed the decree of the Prætor, he is not in a position to bring suit for injury founded on the order of the Prætor. 3If anyone should unjustly summon me before a tribunal of the magistrate, in order to annoy me, I can bring the action for injury against him. 4If, when honors are to be conferred, anyone should not suffer this to be done, as, for instance, where a statue, or something else of this kind has been decided upon, will he be liable to the action for injury? Labeo says that he will not be liable, even though he may do this for the sake of insult; for he says it makes a great deal of difference where something is done by way of insult, or where a person does not permit an act to be performed in honor of another. 5Labeo also says that where one person was entitled to an embassy, and the duumvir imposed this duty upon another, the action for injury cannot be brought on the ground of labor enjoined; for it is one thing to impose a duty upon a person, and another to inflict an injury upon him. This rule should be adopted with reference to other offices and duties which are unjustly bestowed. Hence, if anyone should render a decision for the purpose of causing injury, the same opinion should prevail. 6No act of a magistrate performed by virtue of his judicial authority renders the action for injury applicable. 7Where anyone prevents me from fishing, or casting a net in the sea, can I bring the action for injury against him? Some authorities hold that I can do so, and among them is Pomponius. The majority, however, hold that the case is similar to that of a person who is not suffered to bathe publicly, or seat himself in a theatre, or go into, sit down, or associate with others in any public place, or where anyone does not permit me to make use of my own property, for he can be sued in an action for injury. The ancients granted an interdict to anyone who leased these public places, for it was necessary to prevent force from being used against him by which he would be unable to enjoy his lease. But if I prevent anyone from fishing in front of my residence, or farm-house, what must be said? Am I liable to an action for injury, or not? For the sea, as well as the shore and the air, is common to all persons, and it has very frequently been stated in rescripts that no one can be prevented from fishing, or hunting birds, but he can be prevented from entering upon land belonging to another. It has, nevertheless, improperly, and without the authority of law, been assumed that anyone can be prohibited from fishing in front of my residence or my farm-house; therefore, when anyone is prevented from doing so, he can still bring the action for injury. I, however, can prevent anyone from fishing in a lake which is my property.

Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LVII. If, however, I have done this with the permission of one alone, and thinking that he was the sole owner of the slave, the action for injury will not lie in favor of anyone. If I knew that the slave belonged to several persons, the action will not lie in favor of the owner who permitted me to strike the slave, but it will lie in favor of the others. 1Where torture has been inflicted by order of a guardian, an agent, or a curator, it must be said that the action for injury will not lie. 2My slave was scourged by our magistrate at your solicitation, or upon your complaint. Mela thinks that an action for injury should be granted me against you for an amount which may seem to the court to be equitable. And Labeo says that if the slave should die, his master can bring suit, because damage committed by means of injury is involved. This opinion was adopted by Trebatius. 3Some injuries inflicted by freemen seem to be slight and of no importance, but when inflicted by slaves they are serious; for the insult increases on account of the person who offered it. 4When a slave inflicts an injury, it is clear that he commits an offence. Therefore, it is reasonable, as in the case of other crimes, that a noxal action for damages sustained should be granted under such circumstances. The master, however, if he prefers to do so, can bring the slave into court in order to have him whipped, and in this way satisfy the person who sustained the injury. It will not be necessary for the master to give him up to be whipped, but the power will be granted him to surrender his slave for that purpose; or if the injured party is not satisfied with having him whipped, the slave should be surrendered by way of reparation, or the amount of damages appraised in court should be paid. 5The Prætor says, “In the discretion of the judge,” which means that of a good citizen, in order that he may impose the measure of the punishment. 6If, before the master produces the slave in court to be whipped, in order to satisfy the complainant, this having been done by the authority of a magistrate, the plaintiff afterwards should insist upon bringing an action for injury, he should not be heard, for he who has received satisfaction has abandoned the injury he sustained; for if he acted voluntarily, it may undoubtedly be said that the right of action for injury will be extinguished no less than if it had been annulled by lapse of time. 7If a slave should inflict an injury by the order of his master, the latter can certainly be sued, even in his own name. Where, however, it is stated that the slave has been manumitted, it is held by Labeo that an action can be granted against him, because the injury follows the person, and a slave should not obey his master in all things. But if he should kill anyone by order of his master, we exempt him from the operation of the Cornelian Law. 8It is clear when he commits some act for the purpose of defending his master, that he has reason in his favor, and that he can plead an exception if he is prosecuted for what he has done. 9If the slave, in whom I have the usufruct, commits an injury against me, I can bring a noxal action against his owner, nor should my condition be rendered any worse because I have only an usufruct in him, than if I did not have it. The rule is otherwise where the slave is owned in common, for then we will not grant an action to the other joint-owner, for the reason that he himself is liable to one for injury. 10The Prætor says: “If someone is alleged to have committed an injury against a person who is under the control of another, and he to whose authority he is subject, or anyone who can act in his name as agent is not present, I will, upon proper cause being shown, grant an action to him who is said to have sustained the injury.” 11When a son under paternal control has suffered an injury, and his father was present, but cannot bring suit on account of being insane, or because of some other affection of the mind, I think that an action for injury will lie; for in this instance the father is considered as being absent. 12If the father is present, but is unwilling to bring suit, either because he wishes to postpone it, or abandon, or pardon the injury, the better opinion is that the right of action should not be granted to the son; for, when the father is absent, the action is granted to the son for the reason that it is probable that his father would have brought it if he had been present. 13Sometimes, however, we think that even if the father excuses the injury, the action should be granted to the son, for instance, if the character of the father is vile and abject, and that of the son is honorable; for a father who is extremely contemptible should not estimate the insult offered to his son by his own degradation. Suppose, for example, the father to be a person for whom, by law and reason, a curator should be appointed by the Prætor. 14If, however, the father, after issue has been joined, should depart or neglect to prosecute the case, or is of inferior rank, it must be said that the right of action can be transferred to the son, if proper cause is shown. The same rule will apply where the son is emancipated. 15The Prætor gave the preference to the agent of the father over the persons themselves who suffered the injury. When, however, the agent neglects the case, is in collusion with the other parties, or is not able to prosecute those who have committed the injury, the action will rather lie in favor of him who suffered it. 16We understand an agent to be not a person who has been specially appointed an attorney to conduct an action for injury, but it will be sufficient if the administration of all the property has been entrusted to him. 17Where, however, the Prætor says that if proper cause is shown an action will be granted to him who is said to have sustained the injury, this must be understood to mean that when the investigation is made, it must be ascertained how long the father has been absent, and when he is expected to return, and whether the person who desires to bring suit for injury is indolent, or altogether worthless, and not capable of transacting any business, and on this account is not fitted to bring this action. 18When he afterwards says, “Who has sustained the injury,” this must sometimes be understood to mean that his father will be entitled to bring the action; for instance, where the injury has been inflicted upon a grandson, and his father was present, but his grandfather was not. Julianus says that the action for injury should be granted to the father rather than to the grandson himself, for he holds it is the duty of the father, even while the grandfather is living, to protect his son against everything. 19Julianus also says that the son can not only bring the action himself, but can also appoint an attorney to do so. Otherwise, he says, if we do not permit him to appoint an attorney, and he should happen to be prevented from appearing by illness, and there is no one to conduct the action for injury, it must be dismissed. 20He also says that when an injury is inflicted upon a grandson, and there is no one to bring suit in the name of the grandfather, the father should be permitted to do so, and can appoint an attorney; for the power of appointing an attorney is conceded to all those who have the right to bring suit in their own names. Moreover, he asserts that a son should be considered as bringing the action in his own name, for, when his father fails to do so, the Prætor will give him permission to bring it. 21If a son under the control of his father brings the action for injury, it will not lie in favor of his father. 22He also says that an action on account of injury is granted to a son under paternal control when there is no one who can act in the name of the father, and that, in this instance, he is considered the head of the household. Wherefore, if he has been emancipated, or should be appointed a testamentary heir, or even if he is disinherited or has rejected his father’s estate, authority to conduct the case shall be granted him; for it would be perfectly absurd that anyone, whom the Prætor would permit to bring the action, while he was under the control of his father, should be rendered incapable of avenging his injuries, after he had once become the head of a household, and that this privilege should be transferred to his father, who had abandoned him as far as it was in his power to do so; or (which is still more improper) if it should be transferred to the heirs of the father, who, there is no doubt, are not in any way interested in an injury inflicted upon a son under paternal control.

The Same, On the Edict, Book LVII. If slaves are not defended by their masters, they should not, for this reason, immediately be conducted to punishment, but should be permitted to defend themselves, or be defended by another; and the judge who hears the case shall inquire as to their innocence.

Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LVII. The terms “disgrace” and “infamy” have the same signification. Some things are disgraceful from their very nature, others are made so by the Civil Law, and, as it were, by national custom; for example, theft and adultery are by their nature dishonorable. To be condemned to administer a guardianship is not disgraceful by nature, but is so by the custom of the State, for that is not of itself disgraceful which may happen to a man of good repute.