Interdictorum libri
Ex libro VI
Dig. 41,1,66Venuleius libro sexto interdictorum. Cum praegnas mulier legata aut usucapta aliove quo modo alienata pariat, eius fient partus, cuius est ea, cum eniteretur, non cuius tunc fuisset, cum conciperet.
Venuleius, Interdicts, Book VI. When a pregnant woman is bequeathed, acquired by usucaption, or alienated in any other way, and brings forth a child, it will become the property of him who purchased her, and not of him to whom she belonged when she conceived.
Dig. 42,8,8Venuleius Saturninus libro sexto interdictorum. Ex his colligi potest ne quidem portionem emptori reddendam ex pretio: posse tamen dici eam rem apud arbitrum ex causa animadvertendam, ut, si nummi soluti in bonis exstent, iubeat eos reddi, quia ea ratione nemo fraudetur.
Venuleius Saturninus, Interdicts, Book VI. From this it may be gathered that not even a part of the price paid by the purchaser should be returned to him. It can, however, be said that the matter ought to be investigated by an arbiter, to the end that he may order the money to be refunded, if it still is among the effects of the debtor; because, in this way, no one will be defrauded.
Dig. 42,8,11Venuleius Saturninus libro sexto interdictorum. Cassius actionem introduxit in id quod ad heredem pervenit.
Venuleius Saturninus, Interdicts, Book VI. Cassius introduced an action having reference to property which comes into the hands of an heir.
Dig. 42,8,25Venuleius libro sexto interdictorum. Si fraudator fideiussori suo scienti acceptum tulerit, si et reus non ignoraverit, uterque tenebitur, si minus, is qui scierit. si tamen ille, cui acceptum factum est, solvendo non sit, videndum est, an in reum, etiamsi ignoraverit, actio danda sit, quia ex donatione capit. contra si reo scienti acceptum latum sit, fideiussor quoque, si et ipse scierit, tenebitur: si vero ignoraverit, numquid non aeque actio in eum dari debeat, quoniam magis detrimentum non patitur, quam lucrum faciat? in duobus autem reis par utriusque causa est. 1Ssi a socero fraudatore sciens gener accepit dotem, tenebitur hac actione et, si restituerit eam, desinit dotem habere: nec quicquam emancipatae divortio facto restituturum Labeo ait, quia haec actio rei restituendae gratia, non poenae nomine daretur ideoque absolvi solet reus, si restituerit. sed si priusquam creditores cum eo experirentur, reddiderit filiae dotem iudicio dotis nomine conventus, nihilo minus eum hac actione teneri Labeo ait nec ullum regressum habiturum ad mulierem: sin vero sine iudice, videndum, an ulla repetitio competat ei. quod si is ignoraverit, filia autem scierit, tenebitur filia: si vero uterque scierit, uterque tenebitur. at si neuter scierit, quidam existimant nihilo minus in filiam dandam actionem, quia intellegitur quasi ex donatione aliquid ad eam pervenisse, aut certe cavere eam debere, quod consecuta fuerit se restituturam: in maritum autem, qui ignoraverit, non dandam actionem, non magis quam in creditorem, qui a fraudatore quod ei deberetur acceperit, cum is indotatam uxorem ducturus non fuerit. 2Item si extraneus filiae familiae nomine fraudandi causa dotem dederit, tenebitur maritus, si scierit: aeque mulier: nec minus et pater, si non ignoraverit, ita ut caveat, si ad se dos pervenerit, restitui eam. 3Si procurator ignorante domino, cum sciret debitorem eius fraudandi cepisse consilium, iussit servo ab eo accipere, hac actione ipse tenebitur, non dominus. 4Non solum autem ipsam rem alienatam restitui oportet, sed et fructus, qui alienationis tempore terrae cohaerent, quia in bonis fraudatoris fuerunt, item eos, qui post inchoatum iudicium recepti sint: medio autem tempore perceptos in restitutionem non venire. item partum ancillae per fraudem alienatae medio tempore editum in restitutionem non venire, quia in bonis non fuerit. 5Proculus ait, si mulier post alienationem conceperit et antequam ageretur, pepererit, nullam esse dubitationem, quin partus restitui non debeat: si vero, cum alienaretur, praegnas fuerit, posse dici partum quoque restitui oportere. 6Fructus autem fundo cohaesisse non satis intellegere se Labeo ait, utrum dumtaxat qui maturi an etiam qui inmaturi fuerint, praetor significet: ceterum etiamsi de his senserit, qui maturi fuerint, nihilo magis possessionem restitui oportere. nam cum fundus alienaretur, quod ad eum fructusque eius attineret, unam quandam rem fuisse, id est fundum, cuius omnis generis alienationem fructus sequi: nec eum, qui hiberno habuerit fundum centum, si sub tempus messis vindemiaeve fructus eius vendere possit decem, idcirco duas res, id est fundum centum et fructus decem eum habere intellegendum, sed unam, id est fundum centum, sicut is quoque unam rem haberet, qui separatim solum aedium vendere possit. 7Haec actio etiam in ipsum fraudatorem datur, licet Mela non putabat in fraudatorem eam dandam, quia nulla actio in eum ex ante gesto post bonorum venditionem daretur et iniquum esset actionem dari in eum, cui bona ablata essent. si vero quaedam disperdidisset, si nulla ratione reciperari possent, nihilo minus actio in eum dabitur et praetor non tam emolumentum actionis intueri videtur in eo, qui exutus est bonis, quam poenam.
Venuleius, Interdicts, Book VI. When a fraudulent debtor gives a release to someone who owes him, with the knowledge of the surety of the latter, and the principal debtor was not ignorant of the fact, both parties will be liable, or at least the one who was familiar with the circumstances. Where, however, he who was released was not solvent, let us see whether the action should be granted against the principal debtor, even if he was ignorant of the facts, because he received the debt as a donation. On the other hand, if the release was given to the principal debtor and he was aware of the fraud, his surety will also be liable, if he also was aware of it; but if he did not know of it, why should not an action also be granted against him, as he does not sustain any more damage than he obtains benefit? Where there are two principal debtors, the case of both is the same. 1Where a son-in-law accepts a dowry from his father-in-law, knowing that he intends to defraud his creditors, he will be liable under this action. If he returns the property, he will cease to have the dowry, and Labeo says that nothing should be returned to an emancipated daughter, after a divorce has taken place, because this action is granted for the purpose of recoyering the property and not to inflict a penalty; and hence the defendant, by making restitution, is discharged from liability. If, however, before the creditors have brought suit against the father-in-law, the son-in-law should return the dowry to the daughter, he can be sued in an action on dowry; and Labeo holds that he will still be liable under this action, without having any recourse against the woman. But let us see whether he will have a right to claim anything without instituting judicial proceedings. If he was ignorant of the fraudulent intent of the father-in-law, but the daughter knew it, she will be liable; and if both of them knew it, they will both be liable. If neither of them knew it, some authorities hold that an action against the daughter ought, nevertheless, to be granted, because it is understood that something in the form of a donation has come into her hands; or, at all events, she should give security to return whatever she may obtain. An action, however, should not be granted against the husband, if he was ignorant of the intended fraud, as he would not have married a wife who had no dowry; any more than it should be granted against a creditor who receives what is due to him from a debtor intending to commit a fraudulent act. 2Likewise, if a stranger, for the purpose of defrauding his creditors, gives a dowry to a girl under paternal control, her husband will be liable if he was aware of his intent, and the woman also, as well as her father, if he was not ignorant of it; so that the husband must give security to return the dowry if it should come into his hands. 3If an agent, without the knowledge of his principal, orders a slave to receive property from a debtor who has the intention of defrauding his creditors, and he is aware of this, he himself, and not his principal, will be liable to this action. 4Ad Dig. 42,8,25,4Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 463, Note 17.Not only must the property which has been alienated be returned, but also any crops which have taken root in the earth at the time of the alienation, because they constitute part of the property of the fraudulent debtor, as well as those which were gathered after the suit was begun. Any crops gathered in the meantime will not, however, be included in the restitution. In like manner, the offspring of a female slave who has been fraudulently alienated, which was born in the meantime, will not be included in the restitution, because it did not form part of the property of the debtor. 5Ad Dig. 42,8,25,5Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 463, Note 17.Proculus says that, if a female slave conceives after the alienation took place, and has a child before suit is brought, there is no doubt that the child should not be returned. If, however, she was pregnant at the time she was sold, it may be said that the child must also be returned. 6Ad Dig. 42,8,25,6Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 463, Note 17.With reference to crops attached to the soil, Labeo says that by this expression it is not clear whether the Prætor meant the crops which were ripe, or also those which had not yet matured. Moreover, if he referred to those which were ripe, possession need not be restored on that account, for when a tract of land is alienated, the land and everything attached to it are held to constitute but one thing, that is to say, the crops are included in an alienation of any kind; nor should he be understood to have two different things, who, during the winter, has a tract of land which is worth a hundred aurei, and at the time of harvest or vintage, can sell the crops for ten aurei, that is to say, the land is worth a hundred aurei, and the crops are worth ten; but as he has but one thing, that is, the tract of land worth a hundred aurei, so also he has but one thing who can sell his house separate from the land. 7Ad Dig. 42,8,25,7ROHGE, Bd. 13 (1874), Nr. 122, S. 381: Besitz als Voraussetzung der actio Pauliana.Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 463, Note 25.This action is also granted against a fraudulent debtor, although Mela does not think that it ought to be done, because none is granted against him for anything which took place before the sale of his property, and it would be unjust for an action to be granted against one who had been deprived of all his possessions. If, however, he should lose some of them and they cannot be recovered in any way, an action will, nevertheless, be granted against him. The Prætor is not considered to take into account the benefit of this proceeding in the case of one who had been deprived of his property by way of penalty.