Ad edictum aedilium curulium libri
Ex libro II
Dig. 21,1,38Idem libro secundo ad edictum aedilium curulium. Aediles aiunt: ‘Qui iumenta vendunt, palam recte dicunto, quid in quoque eorum morbi vitiique sit, utique optime ornata vendendi causa fuerint, ita emptoribus tradentur. si quid ita factum non erit, de ornamentis restituendis iumentisve ornamentorum nomine redhibendis in diebus sexaginta, morbi autem vitiive causa inemptis faciendis in sex mensibus, vel quo minoris cum venirent fuerint, in anno iudicium dabimus. si iumenta paria simul venierint et alterum in ea causa fuerit, ut redhiberi debeat, iudicium dabimus, quo utrumque redhibeatur’. 1Loquuntur aediles in hoc edicto de iumentis redhibendis. 2Causa autem huius edicti eadem est, quae mancipiorum redhibendorum. 3Et fere eadem sunt in his, quae in mancipiis, quod ad morbum vitiumve attinet: quidquid igitur hic diximus, huc erit transferendum. et si mortuum fuerit iumentum, pari modo redhiberi poterit, quemadmodum mancipium potest. 4Iumentorum autem appellatione an omne pecus contineatur, videamus. et difficile est, ut contineatur: nam aliud significant iumenta, aliud significatur pecoris appellatione. 5Idcirco elogium huic edicto subiectum est, cuius verba haec sunt: ‘quae de iumentorum sanitate diximus, de cetero quoque pecore omni venditores faciunto’. 6Unde dubitari desiit, an hoc edicto boves quoque contineantur: etenim iumentorum appellatione non contineri eos verius est, sed pecoris appellatione continebuntur. 7Sed enim sunt quaedam, quae in hominibus quidem morbum faciunt, in iumentis non adeo: ut puta si mulus castratus est, neque morbi neque vitii quid habere videtur, quia neque de fortitudine quid eius detrahitur neque de utilitate, cum ad generandum numquam sit habilis. Caelius quoque scribit non omnia animalia castrata ob id ipsum vitiosa esse, nisi propter ipsam castrationem facta sunt inbecilliora: et ideo mulum non esse vitiosum. idem refert Ofilium existimasse equum castratum sanum esse, sicuti spado quoque sanus est, sed si emptor ignoravit, venditor scit, ex empto esse actionem: et verum est quod Ofilius. 8Quaesitum est, si mula talis sit, ut transiungi non possit, an sana sit. et ait Pomponius sanam esse: plerasque denique carrucariasaaDie Großausgabe liest carrucharias statt carrucarias. tales esse, ut non possint transiungi. 9Idem ait, si nata sit eo ingenio aut corpore, ut alterum iugum non patiatur, sanam non esse. 10Non tantum autem ob morbum vitiumve redhibitio locum habebit in iumentis, verum etiam si contra dictum promissumve, erit locus redhibitioni exemplo mancipiorum. 11Vendendi autem causa ornatum iumentum videri Caelius ait non, si sub tempus venditionis, hoc est biduo ante venditionem ornatum sit, sed si in ipsa venditione ornatum sit, aut ideo, inquit, venale cum esset sic ornatum inspiceretur: semperque cum de ornamentis agitur, et in actione et in edicto adiectum est: ‘vendendi causa ornata ducta esse’: poterit enim iumentum ornatum itineris causa duci, deinde venire. 12Si plura iumenta venierint, non omnia erunt redhibenda propter unius ornamentum: nam et si vitiosum sit unum iugum, non tamen propter hoc cetera iuga redhibebuntur. 13Si forte iugum mularum sit, quarum altera vitiosa est, non ex pretio tantum vitiosae, sed ex utriusque erit componendum, quanti minoris sit: cum enim uno pretio utraeque venierint, non est separandum pretium, sed quanto minoris cum veniret utrumque fuit, non alterum quod erat vitiosum. 14Cum autem iumenta paria veneunt, edicto expressum est, ut, cum alterum in ea causa sit, ut redhiberi debeat, utrumque redhibeatur: in qua re tam emptori quam venditori consulitur, dum iumenta non separantur. simili modo et si triga venierit, redhibenda erit tota, et si quadriga, redhibeatur. sed si duo paria mularum sint et una mula vitiosa sit vel par, solum par redhibebitur, alterum non: si tamen nondum sint paria constituta, sed simpliciter quattuor mulae uno pretio venierint, unius erit mulae redhibitio, non omnium: nam et si polia venierit, dicemus unum equum qui vitiosus est, non omnem poliam redhiberi oportere. haec et in hominibus dicemus pluribus uno pretio distractis, nisi si separari non possint, ut puta si tragoedi vel mimi.
The Same, On the Edict of the Curule Ædiles, Book II. The Ædiles say: “Those who sell beasts of burden shall state openly and fairly if they have any disease or defect; and if they have been splendidly caparisoned for the purpose of selling them, they shall be delivered to the purchasers in this condition. If this has not been done, we will grant an action for the return of the ornaments, or for the return of the animals on account of the ornaments, within sixty days; or where the sale should be rescinded by reason of any disease or defect, within six months; or for the return of the purchase-money where the animals were worth less than they were sold for within a year. If a pair of beasts of burden are sold at the time, and one of them is in such a condition that he should be returned, we will grant an action to enable both of them to be returned.” 1The Ædiles mention the return of beasts of burden in this Edict. 2The reason for the promulgation of this Edict is the same as the one which prompted that for the return of slaves. 3Ad Dig. 21,1,38,3ROHGE, Bd. 10 (1874), S. 275: Actio redhibitoria. Zurückgabe der fehlerhaften Sache. Untergang derselben ohne Verschulden des Empfängers nach erklärtem Rücktritte.Substantially the same rules are to be observed with reference to them as with respect to slaves, so far as diseases and defects are concerned. Therefore what we have already said on this point is also applicable here, and if the animal should die, he can be returned in the same way as is done in the case of a slave. 4But let us see whether all kinds of cattle are included under the head of beasts of burden. It is difficult to include them all, for the term “beasts of burden” means one thing, and that of cattle means another. 5Hence a clause has been added to this Edict, the words of which are as follows: “In the case of all kinds of cattle, vendors must observe the same rules which we have laid down with reference to the soundness of beasts of burden.” 6Wherefore a doubt can no longer exist whether oxen are included in the terms of this Edict, for although they are not embraced in the designation of beasts of burden, it is certain that they are included in the term cattle. 7There are certain things which are classed as diseases in men which are not considered such in animals; as, for example, where a horse is castrated, it is neither considered a disease nor a defect; because this does not detract either from his strength or his usefulness, although he will never be fit for reproduction. Cælius also stated that all animals which have been castrated are not defective on this account, unless they have become weaker through the operation, and therefore a mule is not unsound. He says that Ofilius entertained the same opinion, namely, that a castrated horse is sound, just as an eunuch is also sound; but if the buyer was ignorant of this and the vendor knew it, an action on purchase will lie. What Ofilius states is correct. 8The question arose, if a mule is such that it cannot be changed when harnessed, whether it is sound. Pomponius says that it is, for very many carriage animals are such that their position in harness cannot be changed. 9He also says that if an animal is born with such a disposition or form of body that it cannot be harnessed with another, it is not sound. 10An animal can be returned not only on account of some disease, but also where there is ground for doing so because it does not conform to the representations or guarantee of the vendor; just as in the case of slaves. 11Cælius says that the rule with reference to the adornment of horses for the purpose of making a better sale does not apply where this has been done before the time of the sale, that is to say, two days before; but at the very time the sale was made, or, when offered for sale, it is exhibited caparisoned in this manner to those to whom it is expected to sell it. And every time that such decoration takes place, it is stated both in the action and in the Edict that the animals have been produced, caparisoned for the purpose of selling them, as an animal can be produced, caparisoned for the purpose of making a journey, and afterwards be sold. 12Where several animals have been sold, all of them will not be subject to return on account of the trappings of one of them; for although one team may be defective, the other should not be returned on this account. 13Where a pair of mules is disposed of, one of which is unsound, the value of the latter is not to be taken into consideration in estimating the difference; but the value of the team should be taken into account; for where both were sold for the same price this must not be divided in two, but the loss of value of both of them together must be considered, and not merely the deterioration of the one which is blemished. 14Where a pair of match-horses is sold, it is stated in the Edict that if there is cause for the return of one of them both should be returned; in which instance the interest of the purchaser as well as that of the vendor should be considered, since the animals are not separated. Likewise, where a team of three horses, or one of four is sold, all of them should be returned. Where, however, there are two pairs of mules, and one mule is unsound, only the pair to which it belongs shall be returned, and not the others. But if they are not divided into pairs, but four mules are merely sold for one price, there will be the return of one mule, and not of all, as, where a number of horses are sold for breeding purposes, we hold that if one of them should be unsound, it is not necessary for all of them to be returned. We hold the same opinion where several slaves are sold for one price, unless they cannot be separated; as, for instance, where they are actors, or buffoons.
Dig. 21,1,40Ulpianus libro secundo ad edictum aedilium curulium. hi enim non erunt separandi. 1Deinde aiunt aediles: ‘ne quis canem, verrem vel minorem aprum, lupum, ursum, pantheram, leonem’,
Ultpianus, On the Edict of the Curule Ædiles, Book II. For these should not be separated. 1Next, the Ædiles say, “That a dog, a hog, a small wild boar, a wolf, a bear, a panther, a lion,”
Dig. 21,1,42Ulpianus libro secundo ad edictum aedilium curulium. ‘qua vulgo iter fiet, ita habuisse velit, ut cuiquam nocere damnumve dare possit. si adversus ea factum erit et homo liber ex ea re perierit, solidi ducenti, si nocitum homini libero esse dicetur, quanti bonum aequum iudici videbitur, condemnetur, ceterarum rerum, quanti damnum datum factumve sit, dupli’.
Ulpianus, On the Edict of the Curule Ædiles, Book II. Cannot be kept in a place where people are constantly passing, and where the said animal may injure anyone, or cause any damage. If these provisions should be violated, and a freeman lose his life in consequence, two hundred solidi shall be paid; and if a freeman should be injured, the party responsible shall have judgment rendered against him for a sum which may seem in the wisdom and justice of the judge to be proper; and where any other person or any property is injured, the said party shall be compelled to pay double the amount of the damage caused.
Dig. 21,2,55Ulpianus libro secundo ad edictum aedilium curulium. Si ideo contra emptorem iudicatum est, quod defuit, non committitur stipulatio: magis enim propter absentiam victus videtur quam quod malam causam habuit. quid ergo, si ille quidem contra quem iudicatum est ad iudicium non adfuit, alius autem adfuit et causam egit: quid dicemus? ut puta acceptum quidem cum pupillo tutore auctore fuit iudicium, sed absente pupillo tutor causam egit et iudicatum est contra tutorem: quare non dicemus committi stipulationem? etenim actam esse causam palam est. et satis est ab eo cui ius agendi fuit causam esse actam. 1Praesenti autem venditori denuntiandum est: sive autem absit, sive praesens sit et per eum fiat quo minus denuntietur, committetur stipulatio.
Ulpianus, On the Edict of the Curule Ædiles, Book II. Where judgment was rendered against a purchaser because he failed to appear, the stipulation does not become operative, and he is held to have been defeated rather on account of his absence, than because he had a bad case. But what if he against whom judgment was rendered was not present at the trial, but another party was present and conducted his case? What shall we decide? For example, where issue has been joined with a ward who was granted authority by his guardian, but the ward being absent, the guardian conducted the suit, and judgment was rendered against him; why should we not in this instance hold that the stipulation was operative, for it is evident that the case was tried? It is sufficient if the case was tried by the party who had the right to do so. 1The vendor should be notified if he is present, but if he is absent, or if, being present, he does something to prevent his being notified, the stipulation will become operative.