Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXXV. If a party against whom an action De peculio is brought should, through carelessness, pay more than there is in the peculium, he cannot bring an action to recover it.

Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXXV. Mere consent is sufficient to contract a betrothal. 1It is settled that parties who are absent can be betrothed, and this takes place every day.

Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXXV. Finally Cinna says that, where a man marries a woman who is absent and then, returning from a banquet on the other side of the Tiber, loses his life; it is held that his wife should mourn for him.

Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXXV. It is settled that a stipulation made on account of a dowry, and which contains the condition, “If the marriage should take place,” can only be a ground for legal proceedings where the marriage is solemnized; even though the condition may not have been stated. Wherefore, if notice of repudiation is served, the condition of the stipulation is said not to have been fulfilled.

Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXXV. But, for the reason that it is not necessary to insert this addition in the stipulation for the dowry, we hold also that it is not necessary to mention it when the dowry is delivered.

Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXXV. Where marriage is dissolved, the dowry should be delivered to the woman. The husband is not compelled, in the beginning, to promise it by stipulation to another, unless this will not in any way prejudice his rights; for it must be held that if he has reason to apprehend anything that may inconvenience himself, he should not be compelled to promise the dowry to anyone else but his wife. This is the case where the woman is her own mistress. 1But if she is under the control of her father, and the dowry comes from him, it belongs to him and to his daughter. Hence the father cannot, either in his own proper person or by an agent, claim the dowry without the consent of his daughter; and therefore Sabinus says that it should be promised in this manner. Hence, it ought to be promised to whomever both parties direct this to be done. Again, if the father alone orders this, the right to bring suit for the dowry will not be taken away from his daughter after she becomes her own mistress. Moreover, if the father alone makes a promise with the consent of his daughter, the right of action will remain unimpaired so far as he is concerned. But can he act alone, or can he institute proceedings conjointly with his daughter? I think that the right of action to which the father, conjointly with his daughter, is entitled, is not lost; but if the daughter becomes her own mistress, this stipulation will prejudice him. 2When the father brings an action on dowry should we understand the consent of the daughter to mean that she expressly consents, or that she does not offer any opposition? It is stated in a Rescript of the Emperor Antoninus that a daughter is held to give her consent to her father where she does not clearly manifest opposition. Julianus states in the Forty-eighth Book of the Digest that a father is considered to institute proceedings with the consent of his daughter, when the latter is insane; for where she cannot manifest opposition on account of insanity, he thinks very reasonably that she gives her consent. But where the daughter is absent, it must be said that her father does not act with her consent, and he must furnish security that she will ratify what he does. Where the daughter is in possession of her senses, we require her to have knowledge of the proceedings, in order that it may appear that she does not oppose them.

Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXXV. Where a legacy is bequeathed under the following condition, “If she should marry in my family,” the condition is held to have been complied with as soon as the marriage ceremony has been performed, although the woman has not yet entered the bed-chamber of her husband, for consent and not cohabitation constitutes marriage.

Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXXV. If a father should give himself in adoption, and his son should not follow him on account of his having been previously emancipated, the son will not be permitted to demand prætorian possession of his father’s estate, because the latter belonged to one family and the son is a member of another. This opinion was also adopted by Julianus. Marcellus, however, says that it seems to him to be unjust that the son should be excluded from prætorian possession of the estate, for the reason that his father gave himself in adoption, for when a son does not give himself in adoption and his father does, this leaves the son without any father; which opinion is not unreasonable.

Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXXV. A criminal prosecution is annulled by the death of the defendant of either sex.

Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXXV. Under all the rules of law, anyone who does not return from the enemy is considered to have died at the time when he was captured.