Ad Massurium Sabinum libri
Ex libro XXXIV
Dig. 12,1,4Ulpianus libro trigensimo quarto ad Sabinum. Si quis nec causam nec propositum faenerandi habuerit et tu empturus praedia desideraveris mutuam pecuniam nec volueris creditae nomine antequam emisses suscipere atque ita creditor, quia necessitatem forte proficiscendi habebat, deposuerit apud te hanc eandem pecuniam, ut, si emisses, crediti nomine obligatus esses, hoc depositum periculo est eius qui suscepit. nam et qui rem vendendam acceperit, ut pretio uteretur, periculo suo rem habebit. 1Res pignori data pecunia soluta condici potest. et fructus ex iniusta causa percepti condicendi sunt: nam et si colonus post lustrum completum fructus perceperit, condici eos constat ita demum, si non ex voluntate domini percepti sunt: nam si ex voluntate, procul dubio cessat condictio. 2Ea, quae vi fluminum importata sunt, condici possunt.
Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXXIV. Where a party has no reason or intention to lend at interest, but you being about to purchase certain land, desire to borrow money, although you do not desire to do so until you actually buy the property, and the creditor having perhaps some urgent need to go upon a journey, deposits the money with you on the condition that if you make the purchase you will be liable on account of the credit, this deposit is at the risk of the party who received it; for where anyone receives something for the purpose of selling it in order to make use of the purchase-money, he will hold the property at his own risk. 1Where an article is given in pledge, and the money advanced is paid, suit can be brought for its recovery. Again, if a tenant gathers crops after the period of five years has elapsed, it is established that they can be recovered by a personal action, provided they have not been gathered with the consent of the owner of the land; for if this has been done, then there is no doubt that an action for their recovery will not lie. 2Ad Dig. 12,1,4,2ROHGE, Bd. 22 (1878), Nr. 66, S. 299: Cond. possessionis gegen den aus Irrthum Besitzenden. Besitz ein Vermögensobject.Things which have been carried on shore by the force of a stream can also be recovered by a personal action.
Dig. 18,1,25Idem libro trigesimo quarto ad Sabinum. Si ita distrahatur ‘illa aut illa res’, utram eliget venditor, haec erit empta. 1Qui vendidit necesse non habet fundum emptoris facere, ut cogitur qui fundum stipulanti spopondit.
The Same, On Sabinus, Book XXXIV. If the sale is made in the following terms: “Either this or that property,” the purchase will apply to whichever property the vendor may select. 1The person who sells the property is not required to transfer it to the purchaser, as he who makes a promise of land to a stipulator is compelled to do.
Dig. 23,2,13Idem libro trigesimo quarto ad Sabinum. Si patrona tam ignobilis sit, ut ei honestae sint vel saltem liberti sui nuptiae, officio iudicis super hoc cognoscentis hae prohiberi non debent.
The Same, On Sabinus, Book XXXV. Where a patroness is so degraded that she even thinks that marriage with her freedman is honorable, it should not be prohibited by a judge to whom application is made to prevent it.
Dig. 23,3,10Idem libro trigesimo quarto ad Sabinum. Plerumque interest viri res non esse aestimatas idcirco, ne periculum rerum ad eum pertineat, maxime si animalia in dotem acceperit vel vestem, qua mulier utitur: eveniet enim, si aestimata sit et eam mulier adtrivit, ut nihilo minus maritus aestimationem eorum praestet. quotiens igitur non aestimatae res in dotem dantur, et meliores et deteriores mulieri fiunt. 1Si praediis inaestimatis aliquid accessit, hoc ad compendium mulieris pertinet: si aliquid decessit, mulieris damnum est. 2Si servi subolem ediderunt, mariti lucrum non est. 3Sed fetus dotalium pecorum ad maritum pertinent, quia fructibus computantur, sic tamen, ut suppleri proprietatem prius oporteat et summissis in locum mortuorum capitum ex adgnatis residuum in fructum maritus habeat, quia fructus dotis ad eum pertineat. 4Si ante matrimonium aestimatae res dotales sunt, haec aestimatio quasi sub condicione est: namque hanc habet condicionem ‘si matrimonium fuerit secutum’. secutis igitur nuptiis aestimatio rerum perficitur et fit vera venditio. 5Inde quaeri potest, si ante nuptias mancipia aestimata deperierint, an mulieris damnum sit, et hoc consequens est dicere: nam cum sit condicionalis venditio, pendente autem condicione mors contingens exstinguat venditionem, consequens est dicere mulieri perisse, quia nondum erat impleta venditio, quia aestimatio venditio est. 6Si res in dotem datae fuerint quamvis aestimatae, verum convenerit, ut aut aestimatio aut res praestentur, si quidem fuerit adiectum ‘utrum mulier velit’, ipsa eliget, utrum malit petere rem aestimationem: verum si ita fuerit adiectum ‘utrum maritus velit’, ipsius erit electio. aut si nihil de electione adiciatur, electionem habebit maritus, utrum malit res offerre an pretium earum: nam et cum illa aut illa res promittitur, rei electio est, utram praestet. sed si res non exstet, aestimationem omnimodo maritus praestabit.
The Same, On Sabinus, Book XXXIV. It is generally to the interest of the husband that the property which he receives as dowry should not be appraised, in order that he may not be compelled to be responsible for the same; and especially if he receives animals, or woman’s garments by way of dowry. For if the latter are appraised, and the wife wears them out, the husband will, nevertheless, be liable for the amount at which they were estimated. Therefore, whenever property is given as dowry, without having been appraised, if it is increased in value she will profit by it, but if it is depreciated she must bear the loss. 1Where land which has not been appraised receives some accession, this will be for the benefit of the woman, and if it loses anything in value the loss will be hers. 2Where slaves are given by way of dowry, and have children, this profit does not belong to the husband. 3The increase of cattle given by way of dowry, however, belongs to the husband, because it is considered as profit; still, as it is necessary before everything else, for the property to be kept up, and where any animals die, the same number of head must be replaced with their offspring, the husband is only entitled to the remainder by way of profit, because the profit derived from the dowry belongs to him. 4Where property to be given by way of dowry is appraised before marriage, this appraisement is, as it were, conditional, for it depends upon whether the marriage takes place. Therefore, where the nuptials are celebrated, the appraisement of the property is perfected, and a genuine sale is made. 5Hence it may be asked whether the woman must bear the loss if slaves who have been appraised should die before her marriage. On this point it must be said that, as the sale is conditional, if death occurs while the condition is pending, it annuls the sale; and it must be held in consequence that the loss should be borne by the woman, for the reason that the sale was not yet complete, because the appraisement takes the place of a sale. 6If property is given by way of dowry, even though it may have been appraised, but an agreement is made that either the amount of the appraisement or the property itself shall be returned, and this clause is added, namely: “Whichever the wife may desire,” she herself can choose whether she prefers to demand the property or the value of the same. If, however, this clause is added, namely: “Whichever her husband wishes,” he will have the right of selection, or where nothing is said about the selection, the husband will be entitled to choose whether he would rather surrender the property or pay the price of it; for where one thing or another is promised, the party has a right to select which he will give, but where the property is no longer in existence, the husband must, by all means, pay its appraised value.
Dig. 23,3,12Ulpianus libro trigesimo quarto ad Sabinum. Si res aestimata post contractum matrimonium donationis causa adprobetur, nulla est aestimatio, quia nec res distrahi donationis causa potest, cum effectum inter virum et uxorem non habeat: res igitur in dote remanebit. sed si ante matrimonium, magis est, ut in matrimonii tempus collata donatio videatur: atque ideo non valet. 1Si mulier se dicat circumventam minoris rem aestimasse, ut puta servum, si quidem in hoc circumventa est, quod servum dedit, non tantum in hoc, quod minoris aestimavit: in eo acturam, ut servus sibi restituatur. enimvero si in aestimationis modo circumventa est, erit arbitrium mariti, utrum iustam aestimationem an potius servum praestet. et haec, si servus vivit. quod si decessit, Marcellus ait magis aestimationem praestandam, sed non iustam, sed eam quae facta est: quia boni consulere mulier debet, quod fuit aestimatus: ceterum, si simpliciter dedisset, procul dubio periculo eius moreretur, non mariti. idemque et in minore circumventa Marcellus probat. plane si emptorem habuit mulier iusti pretii, tunc dicendum iustam aestimationem praestandam idque dumtaxat uxori minori annis praestandum Marcellus scribit: Scaevola autem in marito notat, si dolus eius adfuit, iustam aestimationem praestandam: et puto verius, quod Scaevola ait. 2Si cum marito debitore mulier pacta sit, ut id quod debeat in dotem habeat, dotis actione scilicet eam agere posse existimo: licet enim ipso iure priore debito liberatus non sit, sed tamen exceptionem habere potest.
Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXXIV. Where the property is appraised after the marriage has been contracted, and this is approved as a donation, the appraisement is void, because property cannot be sold for the purpose of making a donation, as such a transaction has no force as between man and wife; therefore the property will still remain as part of the dowry. Where a similar donation is made before marriage, the better opinion is that it is to be referred to the time when the marriage takes place, and therefore it will not be valid. 1Where a woman states that she has been deceived in the appraisement of her property, because it is too low; as, for instance, if she has been deceived with reference to the value of a slave whom she has given, it must be ascertained whether she has been taken advantage of in the delivery of the slave, in which case the slave should be returned to her; or whether she has been overreached in the appraisement, since, if she was only deceived in the appraisement, the husband will have the choice as to whether he will prefer to pay her the actual value of the slave, or surrender the slave himself. This rule applies if the slave is living, but if he is dead, Marcellus says that the husband must pay his value, not his true value but that which was established by his appraisement, because the woman ought to congratulate herself that the slave was appraised. Where, however, the woman simply, gives the slave, there is no doubt that the risk remains with her, and not the husband; and Marcellus holds the same opinion where a minor has been deceived. It is evident that if the wife has a purchaser who is willing to pay a just price, then it must be said that a proper appraisement should be made; and Marcellus states that this ought only to be done where the wife is a minor. Scævola, however, holds with reference to the husband that, if there is bad faith on his part, a just appraisement must be made, and I think that what Scævola says is perfectly correct. 2Where a wife agreed with her husband, who was her debtor, that he should have as dowry what he owed her, I think that she can bring an action on dowry; for although he will not be released from liability for a former debt by operation of law, still, he will be entitled to an exception.
Dig. 23,3,16Ulpianus libro trigesimo quarto ad Sabinum. Quotiens res aestimata in dotem datur, evicta ea virum ex empto contra uxorem agere et quidquid eo nomine fuerit consecutus, dotis actione soluto matrimonio ei praestare oportet. quare et si duplum forte ad virum pervenerit, id quoque ad mulierem redigetur. quae sententia habet aequitatem, quia non simplex venditio sit, sed dotis causa, nec debeat maritus lucrari ex damno mulieris: sufficit enim maritum indemnem praestari, non etiam lucrum sentire.
Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXXIV. Whenever property which has been appraised is given by way of dowry, and is then evicted, the husband can bring an action on purchase against his wife, and whatever he recovers on that ground he must surrender to his wife in an action on dowry, if the marriage should be dissolved. Wherefore, if double the amount should come into the hands of the husband, the whole of it must be given up to his wife. This opinion is equitable because, as the transaction is not an ordinary sale but made on account of the dowry, the husband should not profit by his wife’s loss, for it is sufficient for him to be indemnified, and not to acquire any gain.
Dig. 23,3,19Ulpianus libro trigesimo quarto ad Sabinum. Etiamsi alii iussu mariti dos detur, nihilo minus maritus de dote obligatur.
Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXXIV. Even if the dowry is given to another person by order of the husband, the latter will still be obliged to return it.
Dig. 38,1,9Ulpianus libro trigensimo quarto ad Sabinum. Operae in rerum natura non sunt. 1Sed officiales quidem futurae nec cuiquam alii deberi possunt quam patrono, cum proprietas earum et in edentis persona et in eius cui eduntur constitit: fabriles autem aliaeve eius generis sunt, ut a quocumque cuicumque solvi possint. sane enim, si in artificio sint, iubente patrono et alii edi possunt.
Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXXIV. Services are not property which, in the nature of things, exists. 1Services, however, to be performed from a sense of obligation, and which are to be rendered hereafter, are not due to anyone but the patron; as their ownership attaches to the person of the one who performs them, and to that of him to whom they are rendered. Services relating to a trade, and others of the same description, can be rendered by anyone and to anyone whomsoever; for where they have reference to some trade, they can be rendered to another by order of the patron.
Dig. 45,1,20Ulpianus libro trigesimo quarto ad Sabinum. Huiusmodi stipulationes non sunt inutiles: ‘quod tibi Titius debet, cum debitor esse desierit, dare spondes?’ nam valet stipulatio quasi sub quavis alia condicione concepta.
Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXXIV. Stipulations like the following are not void, namely, “Do you promise to pay what Titius owes you when he ceases to be your debtor?” for this stipulation is just as valid as if it had been made under any other condition.
Dig. 46,2,5Idem libro trigensimo quarto ad Sabinum. In diem obligatio novari potest et prius quam dies advenerit. et generaliter constat et stipulatione in diem facta novationem contingere, sed non statim ex ea stipulatione agi posse, antequam dies venerit.
The Same, On Sabinus, Book XXXIV. An obligation can be subjected to novation at a prescribed time, and even before the time arrives. Generally speaking, it is settled that a stipulation made for a specified period can become a novation; but that suit cannot be brought under the stipulation before the time arrives.
Dig. 46,4,5Ulpianus libro trigensimo quarto ad Sabinum. In diem acceptilatio facta nullius est momenti: nam solutionis exemplo acceptilatio solet liberare.
Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXXIV. A release to date from a certain time is of no force or effect, for a release discharges a person from liability in the same way as a payment.
Dig. 47,10,28Ulpianus libro trigensimo quarto ad Sabinum. Iniuriarum actio in bonis nostris non computatur, antequam litem contestemur.
Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXXIV. The action for injury does not affect our property until issue has been joined.