10 If a person entitled does not apply for the possession of goods within the time specified, his portion goes by accrual to those in the same degree or class with himself: or, if there be none, the praetor promises by his successory edict the possession to those in the next degree, exactly as if the person in the preceding one were nonexistent. If any one refuses the possession of goods which he has the opportunity of accepting, it is not unusual to wait until the aforesaid interval, within which possession must be applied for, has elapsed, but the next degree is admitted immediately under the same edict.

11 In reckoning the interval, only those days are considered upon which the persons entitled could have made application.

12 Earlier emperors, however, have judiciously provided that no one need trouble himself expressly to apply for the possession of goods, but that, if he shall within the prescribed time in any manner have signified his intention to accept, he shall have the full benefit of such tacit acceptance.



TITLE X. OF ACQUISITION BY ADROGATION

There is another kind of universal succession which owes its introduction neither to the statute of the Twelve Tables nor to the praetor's Edict, but to the law which is based upon custom and consent.

1 When an independent person gives himself in adrogation, all his property, corporeal and incorporeal, and all debts due to him formerly passed in full ownership to the adrogator, except such rights as are extinguished by loss of status, for instance, bounden services of freedmen and rights of agnation. Use and usufruct, though formerly enumerated among such rights, have now been saved by our constitution from extinction by the least loss of status.

2 But we have now confined acquisition by adrogation within the same limits as acquisition through their children by natural parents; that is to say, adoptive as well as natural parents acquire no greater right in property which comes to children in their power from any extraneous source than a mere usufruct; the ownership is vested in the children themselves. But if a son who has been adrogated dies in his adoptive family, the whole of his property vests in the adrogator, failing those persons who, under our constitution, are preferred to the father in succession to property which is not acquired immediately from him.

3 Conversely, the adrogator is not, by strict law, suable for the debts of his adoptive son, but an action may be brought against him as his representative; and if he declines to defend the latter, the creditors are allowed, by an order of the magistrates having jurisdiction in such cases, to take possession of the property of which the usufruct as well as the ownership would have belonged to the son, had he not subjected himself to the power of another, and to dispose of it in the mode prescribed by law.



TITLE XI. OF THE ADJUDICATION OF A DECEASED PERSON'S ESTATE TO PRESERVE THE GIFTS OF LIBERTY

A new form of succession was added by a constitution of the Emperor Marcus, which provided that if slaves, who have received a bequest of liberty from their master in a will under which no heir takes, wish to have his property adjudged to them, their application shall be entertained.

1 Such is the substance of a rescript addressed by the Emperor Marcus to Popilius Rufus, which runs as follows: 'If there is no successor to take on the intestacy of Virginius Valens, who by his will has conferred freedom on certain of his slaves, and if, consequently, his property is in danger of being sold, the magistrate who has cognizance of such matters shall on application entertain your desire to have the property adjudged to you, in order to give effect to the bequests of liberty, direct and fiduciary, provided you give proper security to the creditors for payment of their claims in full. Slaves to whom liberty has been directly bequeathed shall become free exactly as if the inheritance had been actually accepted, and those whom the heir was requested to manumit shall obtain their liberty from you; provided that if you will have the property adjudged to you only upon the condition, that even the slaves who have received a direct bequest of liberty shall become your freedmen, and if they, whose status is now in question, agree to this, we are ready to authorize compliance with your wishes. And lest the benefit afforded by this our rescript be rendered ineffectual in another way, by the Treasury laying claim to the property, be it hereby known to those engaged in our service that the cause of liberty is to be preferred to pecuniary advantage, and that they must so effect such seizures as to preserve the freedom of those who could have obtained it had the inheritance been accepted under the will.'

2 This rescript was a benefit not only to slaves thus liberated, but also to the deceased testators themselves, by saving their property from being seized and sold by their creditors; for it is certain that such seizure and sale cannot take place if the property has been adjudged on this account, because some one has come forward to defend the deceased, and a satisfactory defender too, who gives the creditors full security for payment.

3 Primarily, the rescript is applicable only where freedom is conferred by a will. How then will the case stand, if a man who dies intestate makes gifts of freedom by codicils, and on the intestacy no one accepts the inheritance? We answer, that the boon conferred by the constitution ought not here to be refused. No one can doubt that liberty given, in codicils, by a man who dies having made a will, is effectual.

4 The terms of the constitution show that it comes into application when there is no successor on an intestacy; accordingly, it is of no use so long as it is uncertain whether there will be one or not; but, when this has been determined in the negative, it at once becomes applicable.

5 Again, it may be asked whether, if a person who abstains from accepting an inheritance can claim a judicial restoration of rights, the constitution can still be applied, and the goods adjudged under it? And what, if such person obtains a restoration after they have been actually adjudged in order to give effect to the bequest of freedom? We reply that gifts of liberty to which effect has once been given cannot possibly be recalled.

6 The object with which this constitution was enacted was to give effect to bequests of liberty, and accordingly it is quite inapplicable where no such bequests are made. Supposing, however, that a man manumits certain slaves in his lifetime, or in contemplation of death, and in order to prevent any questions arising whether the creditors have thereby been defrauded, the slaves are desirous of having the property adjudged to them, should this be permitted? and we are inclined to say that it should, though the point is not covered by the terms of the constitution.

7 Perceiving, however, that the enactment was wanting in many minute points of this kind, we have ourselves issued a very full constitution, in which have been collected many conceivable cases by which the law relating to this kind of succession has been completed, and with which any one can become acquainted by reading the constitution itself.



TITLE XII. OF UNIVERSAL SUCCESSIONS, NOW OBSOLETE, IN SALE OF GOODS UPON BANKRUPTCY, AND UNDER THE SC. CLAUDIANUM

There were other kinds of universal succession in existence prior to that last before mentioned; for instance, the 'purchase of goods' which was introduced with many prolixities of form for the sale of insolvent debtors' estates, and which remained in use under the socalled 'ordinary' system of procedure. Later generations adopted the 'extraordinary' procedure, and accordingly sales of goods became obsolete along with the ordinary procedure of which they were a part. Creditors are now allowed to take possession of their debtor's property only by the order of a judge, and to dispose of it as to them seems most advantageous; all of which will appear more perfectly from the larger books of the Digest.

1 There was too a miserable form of universal acquisition under the SC. Claudianum, when a free woman, through indulgence of her passion for a slave, lost her freedom by the senatusconsult, and with her freedom her property. But this enactment we deemed unworthy of our times, and have ordered its abolition in our Empire, nor allowed it to be inserted in our Digest.



TITLE XIII. OF OBLIGATIONS

Let us now pass on to obligations. An obligation is a legal bond, with which we are bound by a necessity of performing some act according to the laws of our State.

1 The leading division of obligations is into two kinds, civil and praetorian. Those obligations are civil which are established by statute, or at least are sanctioned by the civil law; those are praetorian which the praetor has established by his own jurisdiction, and which are also called honorary.

2 By another division they are arranged in four classes, contractual, quasicontractual, delictal, and quasidelictal. And first, we must examine those which are contractual, and which again fall into four species, for contract is concluded either by delivery, by a form of words, by writing, or by consent: each of which we will treat in detail.



TITLE XIV. OF REAL CONTRACTS, OR THE MODES IN WHICH OBLIGATIONS ARE CONTRACTED BY DELIVERY

Real contracts, or contracts concluded by delivery, are exemplified by loan for consumption, that is to say, loan of such things as are estimated by weight, number, or measure, for instance, wine, oil, corn, coined money, copper, silver, or gold: things in which we transfer our property on condition that the receiver shall transfer to us, at a future time, not the same things, but other things of the same kind and quality: and this contract is called mutuum, because thereby meum or mine becomes tuum or thine. The action to which it gives rise is called a condiction.

1 Again, a man is bound by a real obligation if he takes what is not owed him from another who pays him by mistake; and the latter can, as plaintiff, bring a condiction against him for its recovery, after the analogy of the action whose formula ran 'if it be proved that he ought to convey,' exactly as if the defendant had received a loan from him. Consequently a pupil who, by mistake, is paid something which is not really owed him without his guardian's authority, will no more be bound by a condiction for the recovery of money not owed than by one for money received as a loan: though this kind of liability does not seem to be founded on contract; for a payment made in order to discharge a debt is intended to extinguish, not to create, an obligation.

2 So too a person to whom a thing is lent for use is laid under a real obligation, and is liable to the action on a loan for use. The difference between this case and a loan for consumption is considerable, for here the intention is not to make the object lent the property of the borrower, who accordingly is bound to restore the same identical thing. Again, if the receiver of a loan for consumption loses what he has received by some accident, such as fire, the fall of a building, shipwreck, or the attack of thieves or enemies, he still remains bound: but the borrower for use, though responsible for the greatest care in keeping what is lent him—and it is not enough that he has shown as much care as he usually bestows on his own affairs, if only some one else could have been more diligent in the charge of it—has not to answer for loss occasioned by fire or accident beyond his control, provided it did not occur through any fault of his own. Otherwise, of course, it is different: for instance, if you choose to take with you on a journey a thing which has been lent to you for use, and lose it by being attacked by enemies or thieves, or by a shipwreck, it is beyond question that you will be liable for its restoration. A thing is not properly said to be lent for use if any recompense is received or agreed upon for the service; for where this is the case, the use of the thing is held to be hired, and the contract is of a different kind, for a loan for use ought always to be gratuitous.

3 Again, the obligation incurred by a person with whom a thing is deposited for custody is real, and he can be sued by the action of the deposit; he too being responsible for the restoration of the identical thing deposited, though only where it is lost through some positive act of commission on his part: for for carelessness, that is to say, inattention and negligence, he is not liable. Thus a person from whom a thing is stolen, in the charge of which he has been most careless, cannot be called to account, because, if a man entrusts property to the custody of a careless friend, he has no one to blame but himself for his want of caution.

4 Finally, the creditor who takes a thing in pledge is under a real obligation, and is bound to restore the thing itself by the action of pledge. A pledge, however, is for the benefit of both parties; of the debtor, because it enables him to borrow more easily, and of the creditor, because he has the better security for repayment; and accordingly, it is a settled rule that the pledgee cannot be held responsible for more than the greatest care in the custody of the pledge; if he shows this, and still loses it by some accident, he himself is freed from all liability, without losing his right to sue for the debt.



TITLE XV. OF VERBAL OBLIGATION

An obligation is contracted by question and answer, that is to say, by a form of words, when we stipulate that property shall be conveyed to us, or some other act be performed in our favour. Such verbal contracts ground two different action, namely condiction, when the stipulation is certain, and the action on stipulation, when it is uncertain; and the name is derived from stipulum, a word in use among the ancients to mean 'firm,' coming possibly from stipes, the trunk of a tree.

1 In this contract the following forms of words were formerly sanctioned by usage: 'Do you engage yourself to do so and so?' 'I do engage myself.' 'Do you promise?' 'I do promise.' 'Do you pledge your credit?' 'I pledge my credit.' 'Do you guarantee?' 'I guarantee.' 'Will you convey?' 'I will convey.' 'Will you do?' 'I will do.' Whether the stipulation is in Latin, or Greek, or any other language, is immaterial, provided the two parties understand one another, so that it is not necessary even that they should both speak in the same tongue, so long as the answer corresponds to the question, and thus two Greeks, for instance, may contract an obligation in Latin. But it was only in former times that the solemn forms referred to were in use: for subsequently, by the enactment of Leo's constitution, their employment was rendered unnecessary, and nothing was afterwards required except that the parties should understand each other, and agree to the same thing, the words in which such agreement was expressed being immaterial.

2 The terms of a stipulation may be absolute, or performance may either be postponed to some future time, or be made subject to a condition. An absolute stipulation may be exemplified by the following: 'Do you promise to give five aurei?' and here (if the promise be made) that sum may be instantly sued for. As an instance of stipulation in diem, as it is called where a future day is fixed for payment, we may take the following: 'Do you promise to give ten aurei on the first of March?' In such a stipulation as this, an immediate debt is created, but it cannot be sued upon until the arrival of the day fixed for payment: and even on that very day an action cannot be brought, because the debtor ought to have the whole of it allowed to him for payment; for otherwise, unless the whole day on which payment was promised is past, it cannot be certain that default has been made.

3 If the terms of your stipulation run 'Do you promise to pay me ten aurei a year so long as I live?' the obligation is deemed absolute, and the liability perpetual, for a debt cannot be owed till a certain time only; though if the promisee's heir sues for payment, he will be successfully met by the plea of contrary agreement.

4 A stipulation is conditional, when performance is made to depend on some uncertain event in the future, so that it becomes actionable only on something being done or omitted: for instance, 'Do you promise to give five aurei if Titius is made consul?' If, however, a man stipulates in the form 'Do you promise to give so and so, if I do not go up to the Capitol?' the effect is the same as if he had stipulated for payment to himself at the time of his death. The immediate effect of a conditional stipulation is not a debt, but merely the expectation that at some time there will be a debt: and this expectation devolves on the stipulator's heir, supposing he dies himself before fulfilment of the condition.

5 It is usual in stipulations to name a place for payment; for instance, 'Do you promise to give at Carthage?' Such a stipulation as this, though in its terms absolute, implies a condition that enough time shall be allowed to the promisor to enable him to pay the money at Carthage. Accordingly, if a man at Rome stipulates thus, 'Do you promise to pay today at Carthage?' the stipulation is void, because the performance of the act to be promised is a physical impossibility.

6 Conditions relating to past or present time either make the obligation void at once, or have no suspensive operation whatever. Thus, in the stipulation 'Do you promise to give so and so, if Titius has been consul, or if Maevius is alive?' the promise is void, if the condition is not satisfied; while if it is, it is binding at once: for events which in themselves are certain do not suspend the binding force of an obligation, however uncertain we ourselves may be about them.

7 The performance or nonperformance of an act may be the object of a stipulation no less than the delivery of property, though where this is the case, it will be best to connect the nonperformance of the act to be performed, or the performance of the act to be omitted, with a pecuniary penalty to be paid in default, lest there be doubt as to the value of the act or omission, which will make it necessary for the plaintiff to prove to what damages he is entitled. Thus, if it be a performance which is stipulated for, some such penalty should be added as in the following: 'If so and so is not done, do you promise to pay ten aurei as a penalty?' And if the performance of some acts, and the nonperformance of others, are bargained for in the same stipulation, a clause of the following kind should be added, 'If any default is made, either as contrary to what is agreed upon, or by way of nonperformance, do you promise to pay a penalty of ten aurei?'



TITLE XVI. OF STIPULATIONS IN WHICH THERE ARE TWO CREDITORS OR TWO DEBTORS

There may be two or more parties on either side in a stipulation, that is to say, as promisors or promisees. Joint promises are so constituted by the promisor answering, 'I promise,' after they have all first asked the question; for instance, if after two promises have separately stipulated from him, he answers, 'I promise to give so and so to each of you.' But if he first promises to Titius, and then, on another's putting the question to him, promises to him too, there will be two distinct obligations, namely, one between him and each of the promisees, and they are not considered joint promisees at all. The usual form to constitute two or more joint promisors is as follows,—'Maevius, do you promise to give five aurei? Seius, do you promise to give the same five aurei?' and in answer they reply separately, 'I promise.'

1 In obligations of this kind each joint promisee is owed the whole sum, and the whole sum can be claimed from each joint promisor; and yet in both cases but one payment is due, so that if one joint promisee receives the debt, or one joint promisor pays it, the obligation is thereby extinguished for all, and all are thereby released from it.

2 Of two joint promisors one may be bound absolutely, while performance by the other is postponed to a future day, or made to depend on a condition; but such postponement or such condition in no way prevents the stipulator from at once suing the one who was bound absolutely.



TITLE XVII. OF STIPULATIONS MADE BY SLAVES

From his master's legal capacity a slave derives ability to be promisee in a stipulation. Thus, as an inheritance in most matters represents the legal 'person' of the deceased, whatever a slave belonging to it stipulates for, before the inheritance is accepted, he acquires for the inheritance, and so for the person who subsequently becomes heir.

1 All that a slave acquires by a stipulation he acquires for his master only, whether it was to that master, or himself, or his fellow slave, or no one in particular that performance was to be made under the contract; and the same principle applies to children in power, so far as they now are instruments of acquisition for their father.

2 When, however, what is stipulated for is permission to do some specific act, that permission cannot extend beyond the person of the promisee: for instance, if a slave stipulates for permission to cross the promisor's land, he cannot himself be denied passage, though his master can.

3 A stipulation by a slave belonging to joint owners enures to the benefit of all of them in proportion to the shares in which they own him, unless he stipulated at the bidding, or expressly in favour, of one of them only, in which case that one alone is benefited. Where a jointly owned slave stipulates for the transfer of property which cannot be acquired for one of his two masters, the contract enures to the benefit of the other only: for instance, where the stipulation is for the transfer of a thing which already belongs to one of them.



TITLE XVIII. OF THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF STIPULATIONS

Stipulations are either judicial, praetorian, conventional, or common: by the latter being meant those which are both praetorian and judicial.

1 Judicial stipulations are those which it is simply part of the judge's duty to require; for instance, security against fraud, or for the pursuit of a runaway slave, or (in default) for payment of his value.

2 Those are praetorian, which the praetor is bound to exact simply in virtue of his magisterial functions; for instance, security against apprehended damage, or for payment of legacies by an heir. Under praetorian stipulations we must include also those directed by the aedile, for these too are based upon jurisdiction.

3 Conventional stipulations are those which arise merely from the agreement of the parties, apart from any direction of a judge or of the praetor, and which one may almost say are of as many different kinds as there are conceivable objects to a contract.

4 Common stipulations may be exemplified by that by which a guardian gives security that his ward's property will not be squandered or misappropriated, which he is sometimes required to enter into by the praetor, and sometimes also by a judge when the matter cannot be managed in any other way; or, again, we might take the stipulation by which an agent promises that his acts shall be ratified by his principal.



TITLE XIX. OF INVALID STIPULATIONS

Anything, whether movable or immovable, which admits of private ownership, may be made the object of a stipulation; 1 but if a man stipulates for the delivery of a thing which either does not or cannot exist, such as Stichus, who is dead but whom he though alive, or an impossible creature, like a hippocentaur, the contract will be void.

2 Precisely the same principles applies where a man stipulates for the delivery of a thing which is sacred or religious, but which he thought was a subject of human ownership, or of a thing which is public, that is to say, devoted in perpetuity to the use and enjoyment of the people at large, like a forum or theatre, or of a free man whom he thought a slave, or of a thing which he is incapable of owning, or which is his own already. And the fact that a thing which is public may become private property, that a free man may become a slave, that the stipulator may become capable of owning such and such a thing, or that such and such a thing may cease to belong to him, will not avail to merely suspend the force of the stipulation in these cases, but it is void from the outset. Conversely, a stipulation which originally was perfectly good may be avoided by the thing, which is its object, acquiring any of the characters just specified through no fault of the promisor. And a stipulation, such as 'do you promise to convey Lucius Titius when he shall be a slave' and others like it, are also void from the beginning; for objects which by their very nature cannot be owned by man cannot either in any way be made the object of an obligation.

3 If one man promises that another shall convey, or do so and so, as, for instance, that Titius shall give five aurei, he will not be bound, though he will if he promises to get Titius to give them.

4 If a man stipulates for conveyance to, or performance in favour of, another person who is not his paterfamilias, the contract is void; though of course performance to a third person may be bargained for (as in the stipulation 'do you promise to give to me or to Seius?'); where, though the obligation is created in favour of the stipulator only, payment may still be lawfully made to Seius, even against the stipulator's will, the result of which, if it is done, being that the promisor is entirely released from his obligation, while the stipulator can sue Seius by the action of agency. If a man stipulates for payment of ten aurei to himself and another who is not his paterfamilias, the contract will be good, though there has been much doubt whether in such a case the stipulator can sue for the whole sum agreed upon, or only half; the law is now settled in favour of the smaller sum. If you stipulate for performance in favour of one in your power, all benefit under the contract is taken by yourself, for your words are as the words of your son, as his words are as yours, in all cases in which he is merely an instrument of acquisition for you.

5 Another circumstance by which a stipulation may be avoided is want of correspondence between question and answer, as where a man stipulates from you for payment of ten aurei, and you promise five, or vice versa; or where his question is unconditional, your answer conditional, or vice versa, provided only that in this latter case the difference is express and clear; that is to say, if he stipulates for payment on fulfilment of a condition, or on some determinate future day, and you answer: 'I. promise to pay today,' the contract is void; but if you merely answer: 'I promise,' you are held by this laconic reply to have undertaken payment on the day, or subject to the condition specified; for it is not essential that every word used by the stipulator should be repeated in the answer of the promise.

6 Again, no valid stipulation can be made between two persons of whom one is in the power of the other. A slave indeed cannot be under an obligation to either his master or anybody else: but children in power can be bound in favour of any one except their own paterfamilias.

7 The dumb, of course, cannot either stipulate or promise, nor can the deaf, for the promisee in stipulation must hear the answer, and the promisor must hear the question; and this makes it clear that we are speaking of persons only who are stone deaf, not of those who (as it is said) are hard of hearing.

8 A lunatic cannot enter into any contract at all, because he does not understand what he is doing.

9 On the other hand a pupil can enter into any contract, provided that he has his guardian's authority, when necessary, as it is for incurring an obligation, though not for imposing an obligation on another person.

10 This concession of legal capacity of disposition is manifestly reasonable in respect of children who have acquired to some understanding, for children below the age of seven years, or who have just passed that age, resemble lunatics in want of intelligence. Those, however, who have just completed their seventh year are permitted, by a beneficent interpretation of the law, in order to promote their interests, to have the same capacity as those approaching the age of puberty; but a child below the latter age, who is in paternal power, cannot bind himself even with his father's sanction.

11 An impossible condition is one which, according to the course of nature, cannot be fulfilled, as, for instance, if one says: 'Do you promise to give if I. touch the sky with my finger?' But if the stipulation runs: 'Do you promise to give if I do not touch the sky with my finger?' it is considered unconditional, and accordingly can be sued upon at once.

12 Again, a verbal obligation made between persons who are not present with one another is void. This rule, however, afforded contentious persons opportunities of litigation, by alleging, after some interval, that they, or their adversaries, had not been present on the occasion in question; and we have therefore issued a constitution, addressed to the advocates of Caesarea, in order with the more dispatch to settle such disputes, whereby it is enacted that written documents in evidence of a contract which recite the presence of the parties shall be taken to be indisputable proof of the fact, unless the person, who resorts to allegations usually so disgraceful, proves by the clearest evidence, either documentary or borne by credible witnesses, that he or his adversary was elsewhere than alleged during the whole day on which the document is stated to have been executed.

13 Formerly, a man could not stipulate that a thing should be conveyed to him after his own death, or after that of the promisor; nor could one person who was in another's power even stipulate for conveyance after that person's death, because he was deemed to speak with the voice of his parent or master; and stipulations for conveyance the day before the promisee's or promisor's decease were also void. Stipulation, however, as has already been remarked, derive their validity from the consent of the contracting parties, and we therefore introduced a necessary emendation in respect also of this rule of law, by providing that a stipulation shall be good which bargains for performance either after the death, or the day before the death, of either promisee or promisor.

14 Again, a stipulation in the form: 'Do you promise to give today, if such or such a ship arrives from Asia tomorrow?' was formerly void, as being preposterous in its expression, because what should come last is put first. Leo, however, of famous memory held that a preposterous stipulation in the settlement of a dowry ought not to be rejected as void, and we have determined to allow it perfect validity in every case, and not merely in that in which it was formerly sanctioned.

15 A stipulation, say by Titius, in the form: 'Do you promise to give when I shall die' or 'when you shall die'? is good now, as indeed it always was even under the older law.

16 So too a stipulation for performance after the death of a third person is good.

17 If a document in evidence of a contract states that so and so promised, the promise is deemed to have been given in answer to a preceding question.

18 When several acts of conveyance or performance are comprised in a single stipulation, if the promisor simply answers: 'I promise to convey,' he becomes liable on each and all of them, but if he answers that he will convey only one or some of them, he incurs an obligation in respect of those only which are comprised in his answer, there being in reality several distinct stipulations of which only one or some are considered to have acquired binding force: for for each act of conveyance or performance there ought to be a separate question and a separate answer.

19 As has been already observed, no one can validly stipulate for performance to a person other than himself, for the purpose of this kind of obligation is to enable persons to acquire for themselves that whereby they are profited, and a stipulator is not profited if the conveyance is made to a third person. Hence, if it be wished to make a stipulation in favour of any such third person, a penalty should be stipulated for, to be paid, in default of performance of that which is in reality the object of the contract, to the party who otherwise would have no interest in such performance; for when one stipulates for a penalty, it is not his interest in what is the real contract which is considered, but only the amount to be forfeited to him upon nonfulfilment of the condition. So that a stipulation for conveyance to Titius, but made by some one else, is void: but the addition of a penalty, in the form 'If you do not convey, do you promise to pay me so many aurei?' makes it good and actionable.

20 But where the promisor stipulates in favour of a third person, having himself an interest in the performance of the promise, the stipulation is good. For instance, if a guardian, after beginning to exercise his tutorial functions, retires from their exercise in favour of his fellow guardian, taking from him by stipulation security for the due charge of the ward's property, he has a sufficient interest in the performance of this promise, because the ward could have sued him in case of maladministration, and therefore the obligation is binding. So too a stipulation will be good by which one bargains for delivery to one's agent, or for payment to one's creditor, for in the latter case one may be so far interested in the payment that, if it not be made, one will become liable to a penalty or to having a foreclosure of estates which one has mortgaged.

21 Conversely, he who promises that another shall do so and so is not bound unless he promises a penalty in default;

22 and, again, a man cannot validly stipulate that property which will hereafter be his shall be conveyed to him as soon as it becomes his own.

23 If a stipulator and the promisor mean different things, there is no contractual obligation, but it is just as if no answer had been made to the question; for instance, if one stipulates from you for Stichus, and you think he means Pamphilus, whose name you believed to be Stichus.

24 A promise made for an illegal or immoral purpose, as, for instance, to commit a sacrilege or homicide, is void.

25 If a man stipulates for performance on the fulfilment of a condition, and dies before such fulfilment, his heir can sue on the contract when it occurs: and the heir of the promisor can be sued under the same circumstances.

26 A stipulation for a conveyance this year, or this month, cannot be sued upon until the whole year, or the whole month, has elapsed:

27 and similarly the promisee cannot sue immediately upon a stipulation for the conveyance of an estate or a slave, but only after allowing a sufficient interval for the conveyance to be made.



TITLE XX. OF FIDEJUSSORS OR SURETIES

Very often other persons, called fidejussors or sureties, are bound for the promisor, being taken by promises as additional security.

1 Such sureties may accompany any obligation, whether real, verbal, literal or consensual: and it is immaterial even whether the principal obligation be civil or natural, so that a man may go surety for the obligation of a slave either to a stranger or to his master.

2 A fidejussor is not only bound himself, but his obligation devolves also on his heir' 3 and the contract of suretyship may be entered into before no less than after the creation of the principal obligation.

4 If there are several fidejussors to the same obligation, each of them, however many they are, is liable for the whole amount, and the creditor may sue whichever he chooses for the whole; but by the letter of Hadrian he may be compelled to sue for only an aliquot part, determined by the number of sureties who are solvent at the commencement of the action: so that if one of them is insolvent at that time the liability of the rest is proportionately increased. Thus, if one fidejussor pay the whole amount, he alone suffers by the insolvency of the principal debtor; but this is his own fault, as he might have availed himself of the letter of Hadrian, and required that the claim should be reduced to his rateable portion.

5 Fidejussors cannot be bound for more than their principal, for their obligation is but accessory to the latter's, and the accessory cannot contain more than the principal; but they can be bound for less. Thus, if the principal debtor promised ten aurei, the fidejussor can well be bound for five, but not vice versa; and if the principal's promise is absolute, that of the fidejussor may be conditional, though a conditional promise cannot be absolutely guaranteed, for more and less is to be understood of time as well as of quantity, immediate payment being regarded as more, and future payment as less.

6 For the recovery of anything paid by him for the principal the fidejussor can sue the latter by the action on agency.

7 A fidejussor may be taken in Greek, by using the expressions 'tei emei pistei keleuo,' 'lego,' 'thelo,' or 'boulomai'; and 'phemi' will be taken as equivalent to 'lego.'

8 It is to be observed that in the stipulations of fidejussors the general rule is that whatever is stated in writing to have been done is taken to have really been done; and, accordingly, it is settled law that if a man signs his name to a paper stating that he became a fidejussor, all formalities are presumed to have been duly observed.



TITLE XXI. OF LITERAL OBLIGATION

Formerly there was a kind of obligation made by writing, and said to be contracted by the entry of a debt in a ledger; but such entries have nowadays gone out of use. Of course, if a man states in writing that he owes money which has never been paid over to him, he cannot be allowed, after a considerable interval, to defend himself by the plea that the money was not, in fact, advanced; for this is a point which has frequently been settled by imperial constitutions. The consequence is, that even at the present day a person who is estopped from this plea is bound by his written signature, which (even of course where there is no stipulation) is ground for a condiction. The length of time after which this defence could not be pleaded was formerly fixed by imperial constitutions at five years; but it has been reduced by our constitution, in order to save creditors from a more extended risk of being defrauded of their money, so that now it cannot be advanced after the lapse of two years from the date of the alleged payment.



TITLE XXII. OF OBLIGATION BY CONSENT

Obligations contracted by mere consent are exemplified by sale, hire, partnership and agency, which are called consensual contracts because no writing, nor the presence of the parties, nor any delivery is required to make the obligation actionable, but the consent of the parties is sufficient. Parties who are not present together, therefore, can form these contracts by letter, for instance, or by messenger: and they are in their nature bilateral, that is, both parties incur a reciprocal obligation to perform whatever is just and fair, whereas verbal contracts are unilateral, one party being promisee, and the other alone promisor.



TITLE XXIII. OF PURCHASE AND SALE

The contract of purchase and sale is complete immediately the price is agreed upon, and even before the price or as much as any earnest is paid: for earnest is merely evidence of the completion of the contract. In respect of sales unattested by any written evidence this is a reasonable rule, and so far as they are concerned we have made no innovations. By one of our constitutions, however, we have enacted, that no sale effected by an agreement in writing shall be good or binding, unless that agreement is written by the contracting parties themselves, or, if written by some one else, is at least signed by them, or finally, if written by a notary, is duly drawn by him and executed by the parties. So long as any of these requirements is unsatisfied, there is room to retract, and either purchaser or vendor may withdraw from the agreement with impunity—provided, that is to say, that no earnest has been given. Where earnest has been given, and either party refuses to perform the contract, that party, whether the agreement be in writing or not, if purchaser forfeits what he has given, and if vendor is compelled to restore double of what he has received, even though there has been no express agreement in the matter of earnest.

1 It is necessary that the price should be settled, for without a price there can be no purchase and sale, and it ought to be a fixed and certain price. For instance, where the parties agreed that the thing should be sold at a price to be subsequently fixed by Titius, the older jurists doubted much whether this was a valid contract of sale or not. The doubt has been settled in the following way by our decision; if the third person named actually fixes the price, it must certainly be paid, as settled by him, and the thing must be delivered, in order to give effect to the sale; the purchaser (if not fairly treated) suing by the action on purchase, and the vendor by the action on sale. But if the third person named will not or cannot fix the price, the sale will be void, because no price has been settled. This rule, which we have adopted with regard to sales, may reasonably be extended also to contracts of hire.

2 The price, too, should be in money; for it used to be much disputed whether anything else, such as a slave, a piece of land, or a robe, could be treated as a price. Sabinus and Cassius held the affirmative, explaining thus the common theory that exchange is a species, and the oldest species, of purchase and sale; and in their support they quoted the lines of Homer, who says in a certain passage that the army of the Greeks procured themselves wine by giving other things in exchange, the actual words being as follow: 'then the longhaired Greeks bought themselves wine, some with bronze, some with shining iron, some with hides, some with live oxen, some with slaves.' The other school maintained the negative, and distinguished between exchange on the one hand, and purchase and sale on the other: for if an exchange were the same thing as a sale, it would be impossible to determine which is the thing sold, and which is the price, and both things cannot be regarded in each of these characters. The opinion, however, of Proculus, who affirmed that exchange was a species of contract apart by itself, and distinct from sale, has deservedly prevailed, as it is confirmed by other lines from Homer, and by still more cogent reasons, and this has been admitted by preceding Emperors, and is fully stated in our Digest.

3 As soon as the contract of sale is concluded—that is, as we have said, as soon as the price is agreed upon, if the contract is not in writing—the thing sold is immediately at the risk of the purchaser, even though it has not yet been delivered to him. Accordingly, if a slave dies, or is injured in any part of his body, or if a house is either totally or partially burnt down, or if a piece of land is wholly or partially swept away by a river flood, or is reduced in acreage by an inundation, or made of less value by a storm blowing down some of its trees, the loss falls on the purchaser, who must pay the price even though he has not got what he purchased. The vendor is not responsible and does not suffer for anything not due to any design or fault of his own. If, however, after the purchase of a piece of land, it receives an increase by alluvion, it is the purchaser who profits thereby: for the profit ought to belong to him who also bears the risk. And if a slave who has been sold runs away, or is stolen, without any design or fault of the vendor, one should look to see whether the latter expressly undertook to keep him safely until delivery was made; for, if he did this, the loss falls upon him, though otherwise he incurs no liability: and this is a rule which applies to all animals and other objects whatsoever. The vendor, however, will be bound to transfer to the purchaser all his rights of action for the recovery of the object or damages, for, not having yet delivered it to the purchaser, he still remains its owner, and the same holds good of the penal actions on theft and on unlawful damage.

4 A sale may be made conditionally as well as absolutely. The following is an example of a conditional sale: 'If Stichus meets with your approval within a certain time, he shall be purchased by you for so many aurei.'

5 If a man buys a piece of land which is sacred, religious, or public, such as a forum or basilica, knowing it to be such, the purchase is void. But if the vendor has fraudulently induced him to believe that what he was buying was not sacred, or was private property, as he cannot legally have what he contracted for, he can bring the action on purchase to recover damages for what he has lost by the fraud; and the same rule applies to the purchase of a free man represented by the vendor to be a slave.



TITLE XXIV. OF LETTING AND HIRING

The contract of hire resembles very closely the contract of sale, and the same rules of law apply to both. Thus, as the contract of sale is concluded as soon as the price is agreed upon, so the contract of hire is held to be concluded as soon as the sum to be paid for the hiring is settled, and from that moment the letter has an action on the letting, and the hirer on the hiring.

1 What we have said above as to a sale in which the price is left to be fixed by a third person must be understood to apply also to a contract of hire in which the amount to be paid for hire is left to be fixed in the same way. Consequently, if a man gives clothes to a fuller to clean or finish, or to a tailor to mend, and the amount of hire is not fixed at the time, but left to subsequent agreement between the parties, a contract of hire cannot properly be said to have been concluded, but an action is given on the circumstances, as amounting to an innominate contract.

2 Again, a question often arose in connexion with the contract of hire similar to that which was so common, namely, whether an exchange was a sale. For instance, what is the nature of the transaction if a man gives you the use or enjoyment of a thing, and receives in return the use or enjoyment of another thing from you? It is now settled that this is not a contract of hire, but a kind of contract apart by itself. Thus, if a man had one ox, and his neighbour another, and they agreed that each should in turn lend the other his ox for ten days to make use of, and then one of the oxen died while working for the man to whom it did not belong, an action cannot be brought on hire, nor on a loan for use, for a loan for use ought to be gratuitous: but an action should be brought as on an innominate contract.

3 So nearly akin, indeed, is purchase and sale, to letting and hiring, that in some cases it is a question to which class of the two a contract belongs. As an instance may be taken those lands which are delivered over to be enjoyed for ever, upon the terms, that is to say, that so long as the rent is paid to the owner it shall not be lawful for the latter to take the lands away from either the original hirer, or his heir, or any one else to whom he or his heirs has conveyed them by sale, gift, dowry, or in any other way whatsoever. The questionings of the earlier lawyers, some of whom thought this kind of contract a hiring, and others a sale, occasioned the enactment of the statute of Zeno, which determined that this contract of emphyteusis, as it is called, was of a peculiar nature, and should not be included under either hire or sale, but should rest on the terms of the agreement in each particular case: so that if anything were agreed upon between the parties, this should bind them exactly as if it were inherent in the very nature of the contract; while if they did not agree expressly at whose risk the land should be, it should be at that of the owner in case of total destruction, and at that of the tenant, if the injury were merely partial. And these rules we have adopted in our legislation.

4 Again, if a goldsmith agrees to make Titius rings of a certain weight and pattern out of his own gold for, say, ten aurei, it is a question whether the contract is purchase and sale or letting and hiring. Cassius says the material is bought and sold, the labour let and hired; but it is now settled that there is only a purchase and sale. But if Titius provided the gold, and agreed to pay him for his work, the contract is clearly a letting and hiring.

5 The hirer ought to observe all the terms of the contract, and in the absence of express agreement his obligations should be ascertained by reference to what is fair and equitable. Where a man has either given or promised for hire for the use of clothes, silver, or a beast of burden, he is required in his charge of it to show as much care as the most diligent father of a family shows in his own affairs; if he do this, and still accidentally lose it, he will be under no obligation to restore either it or its value.

6 If the hirer dies before the time fixed for the termination of the contract has elapsed, his heir succeeds to his rights and obligations in respect thereof.



TITLE XXV. OF PARTNERSHIP

A partnership either extends to all the goods of the partners, when the Greeks call it by the special name of 'koinopraxia,' or is confined to a single sort of business, such as the purchase and sale of slaves, oil, wine, or grain.

1 If no express agreement has been made as to the division of the profit and loss, an equal division of both is understood to be intended, but if it has, such agreement ought to be carried into effect; and there has never been any doubt as to the validity of a contract between two partners that one shall take twothirds of the profit and bear twothirds of the loss, and that the remaining third shall be taken and borne respectively by the other.

2 If Titius and Seius agreed that the former should take twothirds of the profits, and bear only onethird of the loss, and that the latter should bear twothirds of the loss, and take only onethird of the profits, it has been made a question whether such an agreement ought to be held valid. Quintus Mucius thought such an arrangement contrary to the very nature of partnership, and therefore not to be supported: but Servius Sulpicius, whose opinion has prevailed, was of a different view, because the services of a particular partner are often so valuable that it is only just to admit him to the business on more favourable terms than the rest. It is certain that a partnership may be formed on the terms that one partner shall contribute all the capital, and that the profits shall be divided equally, for a man's services are often equivalent to capital. Indeed, the opinion of Quintus Mucius is now so generally rejected, that it is admitted to be a valid contract that a partner shall take a share of the profits, and bear no share in the loss, which indeed Servius, consistently with his opinion, maintained himself. This of course must be taken to mean that if there is a profit on one transaction, and a loss on another, a balance should be struck, and only the net profit be considered as profits.

3 It is quite clear that if the shares are expressed in one event only, as for instance in the event of profit, but not in the event of loss, or vice versa, the same proportions must be observed, in the event of which no mention has been made, as in the other.

4 The continuance of partnership depends on the continuing consent of the members; it is dissolved by notice of withdrawal from any one of them. But of course if the object of a partner in withdrawing from the partnership is to fraudulently keep for himself some accruing gain—for instance, if a partner in all goods succeeds to an inheritance, and withdraws from the partnership in order to have exclusive possession thereof—he will be compelled to divide this gain with his partners; but what he gains undesignedly after withdrawing he keeps to himself, and his partner always has the exclusive benefit of whatever accrues to him after such withdrawal.

5 Again, a partnership is dissolved by the death of a partner, for when a man enters into a contract of partnership, he selects as his partner a definite person. Accordingly, a partnership based on the agreement of even several persons is dissolved by the death of one of them, even though several others survive, unless when the contract was made it was otherwise agreed.

6 So too a partnership formed for the attainment of some particular object is terminated when that object is attained.

7 It is clear too that a partnership is dissolved by the forfeiture of the property of one of the partners, for such an one, as he is replaced by a successor, is reckoned civilly dead.

8 So again, if one of the partners is in such embarrassed circumstances as to surrender all his property to his creditors, and all that he possessed is sold to satisfy the public or private claims upon him, the partnership is dissolved, though if the members still agree to be partners, a new partnership would seem to have begun.

9 It has been doubted whether one partner is answerable to another on the action of partnership for any wrong less than fraud, like the bailee in a deposit, or whether he is not suable also for carelessness, that is to say, for inattention and negligence; but the latter opinion has now prevailed, with this limitation, that a partner cannot be required to satisfy the highest standard of carefulness, provided that in partnership business he shows as much diligence as he does in his own private affairs: the reason for this being that if a man chooses as his partner a careless person, he has no one to blame but himself.



TITLE XXVI. OF AGENCY

Of the contract of agency there are five modes. A man gives you a commission either for his own exclusive benefit, or for his own and yours together, or for that of some third person, or for his own and the third person's, or for the third person's and yours. A commission given simply for the sake of the agent gives rise in reality to no relation of agency, and accordingly no obligation comes into existence, and therefore no action.

1 A commission is given solely for the benefit of the principal when, for instance, the latter instructs you to manage his business, to buy him a piece of land, or to enter into a stipulation as surety for him.

2 It is given for your benefit and for that of your principal together when he, for instance, commissions you to lend money at interest to a person who borrows it for your principal's benefit; or where, on your wishing to sue him as surety for some one else, he commissions you to sue his principal, himself undertaking all risk: or where, at his risk, you stipulate for payment from a person whom he substitutes for himself as your debtor.

3 It is given for the benefit of a third person when, for instance, some one commissions you to look after Titius's affairs as general agent, or to buy Titius a piece of land, or to go surety for him.

4 It is for the benefit of the principal and a third person when, for instance, some one instructs you to look after affairs common to himself and Titius, or to buy an estate for himself and Titius, or to go surety for them jointly.

5 It is for the benefit of yourself and a third person when, for instance, some one instructs you to lend money at interest to Titius; if it were to lend money free of interest, it would be for the benefit of the third person only.

6 It is for your benefit alone if, for instance, some one commissions you to invest your money in the purchase of land rather than to lend it at interest, or vice versa. But such a commission is not really so much a commission in the eye of the law as a mere piece of advice, and consequently will not give rise to an obligation, for the law holds no one responsible as on agency for mere advice given, even if it turns out ill for the person advised, for every one can find out for himself whether what he is advised to do is likely to turn out well or ill. Consequently, if you have money lying idle in your cashbox, and on so and so's advice buy something with it, or put it out at interest, you cannot sue that person by the action on agency although your purchase or loan turns out a bad speculation; and it has even been questioned, on this principle, whether a man is suable on agency who commissions you to lend money to Titius; but the prevalent opinion is that of Sabinus, that so specific a recommendation is sufficient to support an action, because (without it) you would never have lent your money to Titius at all.

7 So too instructions to commit an unlawful or immoral act do not create a legal obligation—as if Titius were to instigate you to steal, or to do an injury to the property or person of some one else; and even if you act on his instructions, and have to pay a penalty in consequence, you cannot recover its amount from Titius.

8 An agent ought not to exceed the terms of his commission. Thus, if some one commissions you to purchase an estate for him, but not to exceed the price of a hundred aurei, or to go surety for Titius up to that amount, you ought not in either transaction to exceed the sum specified: for otherwise you will not be able to sue him on the agency. Sabinus and Cassius even thought that in such a case you could not successfully sue him even for a hundred aurei, though the leaders of the opposite school differed from them, and the latter opinion is undoubtedly less harsh. If you buy the estate for less, you will have a right of action against him, for a direction to buy an estate for a hundred aurei is regarded as an implied direction to buy, if possible, for a smaller sum.

9 The authority given to an agent duly constituted can be annulled by revocation before he commences to act upon it.

10 Similarly, the death of either the principal or the agent before the latter commences to act extinguishes the agent's authority; but equity has so far modified this rule that if, after the death of a principal and without having notice of his decease, an agent executes his commission, he can sue on the agency: for otherwise the law would be penalizing a reasonable and unavoidable ignorance. Similar to this is the rule, that debtors who pay a manumitted steward, say, of Titius, without notice of his manumission, are discharged from liability, though by the strict letter of the law they are not discharged, because they have not paid the person whom they were bound to pay.

11 It is open to every one to decline a commission of agency, but acceptance must be followed by execution, or by a prompt resignation, in order to enable the principal to carry out his purpose either personally or by the appointment of another agent. Unless the resignation is made in such time that the principal can attain his object without suffering any prejudice, an action will lie at his suit, in default of proof by the agent that he could not resign before, or that his resignation, though inconvenient, was justifiable.

12 A commission of agency may be made to take effect from a specified future day, or may be subject to a condition.

13 Finally, it should be observed that unless the agent's services are gratuitous, the relation between him and the principal will not be agency proper, but some other kind of contract; for if a remuneration is fixed, the contract is one of hiring. And generally we may say that in all cases where, supposing a man's services are gratuitous, there would be a contract of agency or deposit, there is held to be a contract of hiring if remuneration is agreed upon; consequently, if you give clothes to a fuller to clean or to finish, or to a tailor to mend, without agreeing upon or promising any remuneration, you can be sued by the action on agency.



TITLE XXVII. OF QUASI-CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION

Having enumerated the different kinds of contracts, let us now examine those obligations also which do not originate, properly speaking, in contract, but which, as they do not arise from a delict, seem to be quasicontractual.

1 Thus, if one man has managed the business of another during the latter's absence, each can sue the other by the action on uncommissioned agency; the direct action being available to him whose business was managed, the contrary action to him who managed it. It is clear that these actions cannot properly be said to originate in a contract, for their peculiarity is that they lie only where one man has come forward and managed the business of another without having received any commission so to do, and that other is thereby laid under a legal obligation even though he knows nothing of what has taken place. The reason of this is the general convenience; otherwise people might be summoned away by some sudden event of pressing importance, and without commissioning any one to look after and manage their affairs, the result of which would be that during their absence those affairs would be entirely neglected: and of course no one would be likely to attend to them if he were to have no action for the recovery of any outlay he might have incurred in so doing. Conversely, as the uncommissioned agent, if his management is good, lays his principal under a legal obligation, so too he is himself answerable to the latter for an account of his management; and herein he must show that he has satisfied the highest standard of carefulness, for to have displayed such carefulness as he is wont to exercise in his own affairs is not enough, if only a more diligent person could have managed the business better.

2 Guardians, again, who can be sued by the action on guardianship, cannot properly be said to be bound by contract, for there is no contract between guardian and ward: but their obligation, as it certainly does not originate in delict, may be said to be quasicontractual. In this case too each party has a remedy against the other: not only can the ward sue the guardian directly on the guardianship, but the guardian can also sue the ward by the contrary action of the same name, if he has either incurred any outlay in managing the ward's property, or bound himself on his behalf, or pledged his own property as security for the ward's creditors.

3 Again, where persons own property jointly without being partners, by having, for instance, a joint bequest or gift made to them, and one of them is liable to be sued by the other in a partition suit because he alone has taken its fruits, or because the plaintiff has laid out money on it in necessary expenses: here the defendant cannot properly be said to be bound by contract, for there has been no contract made between the parties; but as his obligation is not based on delict, it may be said to be quasicontractual.

4 The case is exactly the same between joint heirs, one of whom is liable to be sued by the other on one of these grounds in an action for partition of the inheritance.

5 So, too, the obligation of an heir to discharge legacies cannot properly be called contractual, for it cannot be said that the legatee has contracted at all with either the heir or the testator: yet, as the heir is not bound by a delict, his obligation would seem to be quasicontractual.

6 Again, a person to whom money not owed is paid by mistake is thereby laid under a quasicontractual obligation; an obligation, indeed, which is so far from being contractual, that, logically, it may be said to arise from the extinction rather than from the formation of a contract; for when a man pays over money, intending thereby to discharge a debt, his purpose is clearly to loose a bond by which he is already bound, not to bind himself by a fresh one. Still, the person to whom money is thus paid is laid under an obligation exactly as if he had taken a loan for consumption, and therefore he is liable to a condiction.

7 Under certain circumstances money which is not owed, and which is paid by mistake, is not recoverable; the rule of the older lawyers on this point being that wherever a defendant's denial of his obligation is punished by duplication of the damages to be recovered—as in actions under the lex Aquilia, and for the recovery of a legacy—he cannot get the money back on this plea. The older lawyers, however, applied this rule only to such legacies of specific sums of money as were given by condemnation; but by our constitution, by which we have assimilated legacies and trust bequests, we have made this duplication of damages on denial an incident of all actions for their recovery, provided the legatee or beneficiary is a church, or other holy place honoured for its devotion to religion and piety. Such legacies, although paid when not due, cannot be reclaimed.



TITLE XXVIII. OF PERSONS THROUGH WHOM WE CAN ACQUIRE OBLIGATIONS

Having thus gone through the classes of contractual and quasicontractual obligations, we must remark that rights can be acquired by you not only on your own contracts, but also on those of persons in your power—that is to say, your slaves and children. What is acquired by the contracts of your slaves becomes wholly yours; but the acquisitions of children in your power by obligations must be divided on the principle of ownership and usufruct laid down in our constitution: that is to say, of the material results of an action brought on an obligation made in favour of a son the father shall have the usufruct, though the ownership is reserved to the son himself: provided, of course, that the action is brought by the father, in accordance with the distinction drawn in our recent constitution.

1 Freemen also, and the slaves of another person, acquire for you if you possess them in good faith, but only in two cases, namely, when they acquire by their own labour, or in dealing with your property.

2 A usufructuary or usuary slave acquires under the same conditions for him who has the usufruct or use.

3 It is settled law that a slave jointly owned acquires for all his owners in the proportion of their property in him, unless he names one exclusively in a stipulation, or in the delivery of property to himself, in which case he acquires for him alone; as in the stipulation 'do you promise to convey to Titius, my master?' If it was by the direction of one of his joint owners only that he entered into a stipulation, the effect was formerly doubted; but now it has been settled by our decision that (as is said above) under such circumstances he acquires for him only who gave him the order.



TITLE XXIX. OF THE MODES IN WHICH OBLIGATIONS ARE DISCHARGED

An obligation is always extinguished by performance of what is owed, or by performance of something else with the creditor's assent. It is immaterial from whom the performance proceeds—be it the debtor himself, or some one else on his behalf: for on performance by a third person the debtor is released, whether he knows of it or not, and even when it is against his will. Performance by the debtor releases, besides himself, his sureties, and conversely performance by a surety releases, besides himself, the principal debtor.

1 Acceptilation is another mode of extinguishing an obligation, and is, in its nature, an acknowledgement of a fictitious performance. For instance, if something is due to Titius under a verbal contract, and he wishes to release it, it can be done by his allowing the debtor to ask 'that which I promised thee has thou received?' and by his replying 'I have received it.' An acceptilation can be made in Greek, provided the form corresponds to that of the Latin words, as 'exeis labon denaria tosa; exo labon.' This process, as we said, discharges only obligations which arise from verbal contract, and no others, for it seemed only natural that where words can bind words may also loose: but a debt due from any other cause may be transformed into a debt by stipulation, and then released by an imaginary verbal payment or acceptilation. So, too, as a debt can be lawfully discharged in part, so acceptilation may be made of part only.

2 A stipulation has been invented, commonly called Aquilian, by which an obligation of any kind whatsoever can be clothed in stipulation form, and then extinguished by acceptilation; for by this process any kind of obligation may be novated. Its terms, as settled by Gallus Aquilius, are as follow: 'Whatever, and on whatsoever ground, you are or shall be compellable to convey to or do for me, either now or on a future specified day, and for whatsoever I have or shall have against you an action personal or real, or any extraordinary remedy, and whatsoever of mine you hold or possess naturally or civilly, or would possess, or now fail to possess through some wilful fault of your own—as the value of each and all of these claims Aulua Agerius stipulated for the payment of such and such a sum, and payment was formally promised by Numerius Negidius.' Then conversely, Numerius Negidius asked Aulus Agerius, 'hast thou received the whole of what I have today engaged, by the Aquilian stipulation, to pay thee?' to which Aulus Agerius replied 'I have it, and account it received.'

3 Novation is another mode of extinguishing an obligation, and takes place when you owe Seius a sum, and he stipulates for payment thereof from Titius; for the intervention of a new person gives birth to a new obligation, and the first obligation is transformed into the second, and ceases to exist. Sometimes indeed the first stipulation is avoided by novation even though the second is of no effect: for instance, if you owe Titius a sum, and he stipulates for payment thereof from a pupil without his guardian's authority, he loses his claim altogether, for you, the original debtor, are discharged, and the second obligation is unenforceable. The same does not hold if one stipulate from a slave; for then the former debtor continues bound as fully as if one had stipulated from no one. But when the original debtor is the promisor, a second stipulation produces a novation only if it contains something new—if a condition, for instance, or a term, or a surety be added, or taken away—though, supposing the addition of a condition, we must be understood to mean that a novation is produced only if the condition is accomplished: if it fails, the prior obligation continues in force. Among the older lawyers it was an established rule, that a novation was effected only when it was with that intention that the parties entered into the second obligation; but as this still left it doubtful when the intention was present and when absent, various presumptions were established as to the matter by different persons in different cases. We therefore issued our constitution, enacting most clearly that no novation shall take place unless the contracting parties expressly state their intention to be the extinction of the prior obligation, and that in default of such statement, the first obligation shall subsist, and have the second also added to it: the result being two obligations resting each on its own independent ground, as is prescribed by the constitution, and as can be more fully ascertained by perusing the same.

4 Moreover, those obligations which are contracted by consent alone are dissolved by a contrary agreement. For instance, if Titius and Seius agree that the latter shall buy an estate at Tusculum for a hundred aurei, and then before execution on either side by payment of the price or delivery of the estate they arrange to abandon the sale, they are both released. The case is the same with hire and the other contracts which are formed by consent alone.



BOOK IV.



TITLE I. OF OBLIGATIONS ARISING FROM DELICT

Having treated in the preceding Book of contractual and quasicontractual obligations, it remains to inquire into obligations arising from delict. The former, as we remarked in the proper place, are divided into four kinds; but of these latter there is but one kind, for, like obligations arising from real contracts, they all originate in some act, that is to say, in the delict itself, such as a theft, a robbery, wrongful damage, or an injury.

1 Theft is a fraudulent dealing with property, either in itself, or in its use, or in its possession: an offence which is prohibited by natural law.

2 The term furtum, or theft, is derived either from furvum, meaning 'black,' because it is effected secretly and under cover, and usually by night: or from fraus, or from ferre, meaning 'carrying off'; or from the Greek word phor, thief, which indeed is itself derived from pherein, to carry off.

3 There are two kinds of theft, theft detected in the commission, and simple theft: the possession of stolen goods discovered upon search, and the introduction of stolen goods, are not (as will appear below) so much specific kinds of theft as actionable circumstances connected with theft. A thief detected in the commission is termed by the Greeks ep'autophoro; in this kind is included not only he who is actually caught in the act of theft, but also he who is detected in the place where the theft is committed; for instance, one who steals from a house, and is caught before he has got outside the door; or who steals olives from an olive garden, or grapes from a vineyard, and is caught while still in the olive garden or vineyard. And the definition of theft detected in the commission must be even further extended, so as to include the thief who is caught or even seen with the stolen goods still in his hands, whether the place be public or private, and whether the person who sees or catches him be the owner of the property, or some third person, provided he has not yet escaped to the place where he intended to take and deposit his booty: for if he once escapes there, it is not theft detected in the commission, even if he be found with the stolen goods upon him. What is simple theft is clear from what has been said: that is to say, it is all theft which is not detected in the commission.

4 The offence of discovery of stolen goods occurs when a person's premises are searched in the presence of witnesses, and the stolen property is found thereon; this makes him liable, even though innocent of theft, to a special action for receiving stolen goods. To introduce stolen goods is to pass them off to a man, on whose premises they are discovered, provided this be done with the intent that they shall be discovered on his premises rather than on those of the introducer. The man on whose premises they are found may sue the latter, though innocent of theft, in an action for the introduction of stolen goods. There is also an action for refusal of search, available against him who prevents another who wishes to look in the presence of witnesses for stolen property; and finally, by the action for nonproduction of stolen goods, a penalty is imposed by the praetor's edict on him who has failed to produce stolen property which is searched for and found on his premises. But the lastnamed actions, namely, those for receiving stolen goods, for introducing them, for refusal of search, and for nonproduction, have now become obsolete: for the search for such property is no longer made in the old fashion, and accordingly these actions went out of use also. It is obvious, however, that any one who knowingly receives and hides stolen property may be sued by the action for simple theft.

5 The penalty for theft detected in the commission is four times the value, and for simple theft twice the value, of the property stolen, whether the thief be a slave or a free person.

6 Theft is not confined to carrying away the property of another with the intent of appropriation, but comprises also all corporeal dealing with the property of another against the will of the owner. Thus, for a pawnee to use the thing which he has in pawn, or to use a thing committed to one's keeping as a deposit, or to put a thing which is lent for use to a different use than that for which it was lent, is theft; to borrow plate, for instance, on the representation that the borrower is going to entertain his friends, and then to carry it away into the country: or to borrow a horse for a drive, and then to take it out of the neighbourhood, or like the man in the old story, to take it into battle.

7 With regard, however, to those persons who put a thing lent for use to a different purpose than the lender contemplated, the rule is that they are guilty of theft only if they know it to be contrary to the will of the owner, and that if he had notice he would refuse permission; but if they believe that he would give permission, it is not theft: and the distinction is just, for there is no theft without unlawful intention.

8 It is also said not to be theft if a man turns a thing lent for use to a use other than he believes its owner would sanction, though in point of fact its owner is consenting. Whence arose the following question: if Antoninus solicits the slave of Peri to steal property of the latter, and convey it to him, and the slave informs Peri of it, who, wishing to detect Antoninus in the very act, allows the slave to convey the property to him; can an action of theft, or for corrupting the slave, or neither, be maintained against Antoninus? The case was submitted to us, and we examined the conflicting opinions of the earlier jurists on the matter: some of whom thought that neither action lay, and others, that Peri might sue on theft only. But we, in order to put an end to such quibbles, have enacted by our decision that in such case both the action on theft and that for corrupting a slave shall lie. It is true that the slave has not been corrupted by the advances made to him, so that the case does not come within the rules which introduced the action for such corruption: yet the wouldbe corrupter's intention was to make him dishonest, so that he is liable to a penal action, exactly as if the slave had actually been corrupted, lest his immunity from punishment should encourage others to perpetrate a similar wrong on a slave less strong to resist temptation.

9 A free man too may be the subject of a theft—for instance, a child in my power, if secretly removed from my control.

10 So too a man sometimes steals his own property—for instance, a debtor who purloins the goods which he has pledged to a creditor.

11 Theft may be chargeable on a person who is not the perpetrator; on him, namely, by whose aid and abetment a theft is committed. Among such persons we may mention the man who knocks money out of your hand for another to pick up, or who stands in your way that another may snatch something from you, or scatters your sheep or your oxen, that another may steal them, like the man in the old books, who waved a red cloth to frighten a herd. If the same thing were done as a frolic, without the intention of assisting a theft, the proper action is not theft, but on the case. Where, however, Titius commits theft with the aid of Maevius, both are liable to an action on theft. A man, too, is held to have aided and abetted a theft who places a ladder under a window, or breaks open a window or a door, in order that another may steal, or who lends tools for the breaking of them open, or a ladder to place under a window, if he knows the object for which they are borrowed. It is clear that a man is not liable on theft, who, though he advises and instigates an offence, does not actually aid in its commission.

12 If a child in power, or a slave, steal property of his father or master, it is theft, and the property is deemed stolen, so that no one can acquire it by usucapion until it has returned into the hands of the owner; but no action will lie on the theft, because between a son in power and his father, or between a slave and his master, no action will lie on any ground whatsoever. But if the offender is aided and abetted by a third person, the latter is liable to an action on theft, because a theft has in fact been committed, and by his aid and abetment.

13 The action on theft will lie at the suit of any person interested in the security of the property, even though he be not its owner: indeed, even the owner cannot maintain the action unless he suffers damage from the loss.

14 Hence, when a pawn is stolen the pawnee can sue, even though his debtor be perfectly able to pay the debt; for it is more advantageous to him to rely on the pledge, than to bring a personal action: and this rule is so unbending that even the pawnor who steals a pawn is suable for theft by the pawnee.

15 So, if clothes are delivered to be cleaned or finished or mended for a certain remuneration, and then are stolen, it is the fuller or tailor who can sue on the theft, and not the owner; for the owner suffers nothing by the loss, having the action of letting against the fuller or tailor for the recovery of his property. Similarly a purchaser in good faith, even though a good title as owner is not given to him, can bring the action of theft if the property is stolen, exactly like the pawnee. The action is, however, not maintainable at the suit of a fuller or tailor, unless he is solvent, that is to say, unless he is able to fully indemnify the owner; if he is insolvent, the owner cannot recover from him, and so can maintain an action against the thief, being, on this hypothesis, interested in the recovery of the property. Where the fuller or tailor is only partly instead of wholly solvent the rule is the same.

16 The older lawyers held that what has been said of the fuller and tailor applied also to the borrower for use, on the ground that as the remuneration which the fuller receives makes him responsible for custody, so the advantages which the borrower derives from the use requires him to keep it safely at his peril. Our wisdom, however, has amended the law in this particular in our decisions, by allowing the owner the option of suing either the borrower by action on the loan, or the thief by action of theft; though when his choice has been determined he cannot change his mind, and resort to the other action. If he prefers to sue the thief, the borrower is absolutely released from liability; but if he proceeds against the borrower, he cannot in any way himself sue the thief on the stealing, though this may be done by the borrower, who is defendant in the other action, provided that the owner knew, at the time when he began his action against the borrower, that the thing had been stolen. If he is ignorant of this, or even if he is merely doubtful whether the borrower still has the property in his possession or not, and sues him on the loan, he may, on subsequently learning the facts, and if he wishes to drop the action which he has commenced, and sue the thief instead, adopt this course, in which case no obstacle is to be thrown in his way, because it was in ignorance that he took action and sued the borrower on the loan. If, however, the owner has been indemnified by the borrower, in no case can he bring the action of theft against the thief, as his rights of action pass to the person who has compensated him for the loss of his property. Conversely it is clear, that if, at the outset, the owner began an action on the loan against the borrower, not knowing that the property had been stolen, and subsequently, on learning this, proceeded against the thief instead, the borrower is absolutely released from liability, whatever may be the result of the owner's action against the thief; the rule being the same, whether the borrower be wholly or only partially insolvent.

17 As a depositary is not answerable for the safe keeping of the thing deposited, but only for fraud, and, if it is stolen, is not compellable to make restitution by action of deposit, he has no interest if it is lost, and therefore the action of theft is maintainable only by the depositor.

18 Finally, it has been a question whether a child below the age of puberty, who carries away the property of another, is guilty of theft. The answer is that, as theft depends on intention, obligation by theft is not incurred unless the child is near puberty, and so understands its delinquency.

19 The object of the action on theft, whether it be for double or quadruple the value of the goods stolen, is merely the recovery of the penalty; to recover the goods themselves or their value the owner has an independent remedy by vindication or condiction. The former is the proper remedy when it is known who is in possession of the goods, whether this be the thief or any one else: the latter lies against the thief or his heir, whether in possession of the stolen property or not.



TITLE II. OF ROBBERY

Robbery is chargeable also as theft; for who deals with the property of another more against that other's will than the robber? And thus the description of the robber as an audacious thief is a good one. However, as a special remedy for this offence the praetor has introduced the action for robbery, or rapine with violence, which may be brought within a year for four times the value, after a year for simple damages, and while lies even when only a single thing of the slightest value has been taken with violence. This fourfold value, however, is not all penalty, nor is there an independent action for the recovery of the property or its value, as we observed was the case in the action of theft detected in the commission; but the thing or its value is included in the fourfold, so that, in point of fact, the penalty is three times the value of the property, and this whether the robber be taken in the act or not; for it would be absurd to treat a robber more lightly than one who carries off property merely secretly.

1 This action is maintainable only where the robbery is attended with wrongful intention; consequently, if a man by mistake thought that property was his own, and, in his ignorance of law, forcibly carried it off in the belief that it was lawful for an owner to take away, even by force, a thing belonging to himself from a person in whose possession it was, he cannot be held liable to this action; and similarly on principle he would not in such a case be suable for theft. Lest, however, robbers, under the cloak of such a plea, should discover a method of gratifying a grasping habit with impunity, the law has been amended upon this point by imperial constitutions, by which it is enacted that it shall not be lawful for any one to forcibly carry off movable property, inanimate or animate, even though he believe it to belong to him; and that whosoever disobeys this shall forfeit the property, if, in fact, it be his, and if it be not, shall restore it, and along with it its value in money. And by the said constitutions it is also declared that this provision relates not only to movables (of which alone robbery can be committed), but also to forcible entries on land and houses, so as to deter men from all violent seizing upon property whatsoever under the cloak of such excuses.

2 In order to support this action it is not necessary that the goods of which robbery has been committed should belong to the plaintiff, provided they were taken from among his property. Thus, if a thing be let, or lent, or pledged to Titius, or even deposited with him under such circumstances that he has an interest in its not being carried off—for instance, by his having undertaken the entire responsibility for its safe custody;—or if he possesses it in good faith, or has a usufruct or any other right in it whereby he suffers loss or incurs liability through its being forcibly taken from him, the action will be maintainable by him; not necessarily in order to restore to him the ownership, but only to compensate him for what it is alleged he has lost by its being taken from his goods or withdrawn from his means. In fact, it may be said generally that where, supposing property to be taken secretly, the action of theft will lie, the action on robbery will lie at suit of the same person, if it be taken with violence.



TITLE III. OF THE LEX AQUILIA

Unlawful damage is actionable under the lex Aquilia, whose first chapter provides that if a slave of another man, or a quadruped from his flocks or herds, be unlawfully killed, the offender shall pay to the owner whatever was the highest value thereof within the year next immediately preceding.

1 From the fact that this enactment does not speak of quadrupeds simply, but only of such quadrupeds as are usually included under the idea of flocks and herds, it is to be inferred that it has no application to wild animals or to dogs, but only to such beasts as can properly be said to graze in herds, namely horses, mules, asses, oxen, sheep, and goats. It is settled, too, that swine come under its operation, for they are comprehended in 'herds' because they feed in this manner; thus Homer in his Odyssey, as quote by Aelius Marcianus in his Institutes, says, You will find him sitting among his swine, and they are feeding by the Rock of Corax, over against the spring Arethusa.'

2 To kill unlawfully is to kill without any right; thus a man who kills a robber is not liable to this action, if he could in no other way escape the danger by which he was threatened.

3 So, too, where one man kills another by misadventure, he is not liable under this statute, provided there is no fault or carelessness on his part; otherwise it is different, for under this statute carelessness is as punishable as wilful wrongdoing.

4 Accordingly, if a man, while playing or practising with javelins, runs your slave through as he passes by, a distinction is drawn. If it be done by a soldier in his exercising ground, that is to say, where such practice is usually conducted, he is in no way to blame; but if it be done by some one else, his carelessness will make him liable; and so it is with the soldier, if he do it in some place other than that appropriated to military exercises.

5 So, too, if a man is trimming a tree, and kills your slave as he passes by with a bough which he lets fall, he is guilty of negligence, if it is near a public way, or a private path belonging to a neighbour, and he does not call out to give people warning; but if he calls out, and the slave takes no pains to get out of the way, he is not to blame. Nor would such a man be liable, if he was cutting a tree far away from a road, or in the middle of a field, even if he did not call out; for strangers had no business to be there.

6 Again, if a surgeon operates on your slave, and then neglects altogether to attend to his cure, so that the slave dies in consequence, he is liable for his carelessness.

7 Sometimes, too, unskilfulness is undistinguishable from carelessness—as where a surgeon kills your slave by operating upon him unskilfully, or by giving him wrong medicines;

8 and similarly, if your slave is run over by a team of mules, which the driver has not enough skill to hold, the latter is suable for carelessness; and the case is the same if he was simply not strong enough to hold them, provided they could have been held by a stronger man. The rule also applies to runaway horses, if the running away is due to the rider's deficiency either in skill or strength.

9 The meaning of the words of the statute 'whatever was of the highest value thereof within the year' is that if any one, for instance, kills a slave of yours, who at the moment of his death is lame, or maimed, or blind of one eye, but within the year was sound and worth a price, the person who kills him is answerable not merely for his value at the time of his death, but for his highest value within the year. It is owing to this that the action under this statute is deemed to be penal, because a defendant is sometimes bound to pay a sum not merely equivalent to the damage he has done, but far in excess of it; and consequently, the right of suing under the statute does not pass against the heir, though it would have done so if the damages awarded had never exceeded the actual loss sustained by the plaintiff.

10 By juristic construction of the statute, though not so enacted in its terms, it has been settled that one must not only take account, in the way we have described, of the value of the body of the slave or animal killed, but must also consider all other loss which indirectly falls upon the plaintiff through the killing. For instance, if your slave has been instituted somebody's heir, and, before he has by your order accepted, he is slain, the value of the inheritance you have missed must be taken into consideration; and so, too, if one of a pair of mules, or one of four chariot horses, or one of a company of slave players is killed, account is to be taken not only of what is killed, but also of the extent to which the others have been depreciated.

11 The owner whose slave is killed has the option of suing the wrongdoer for damages in a private action under the lex Aquilia, or of accusing him on a capital charge by indictment.

12 The second chapter of the lex Aquilia is now obsolete;

13 the third makes provision for all damage which is not covered by the first. Accordingly, if a slave or some quadruped which comes within its terms, is wounded, or if a quadruped which does not come within its terms, such as a dog or wild animal, is wounded or killed, an action is provided by this chapter; and if any other animal or inanimate thing is unlawfully damaged, a remedy is herein afforded; for all burning, breaking, and crushing is hereby made actionable, though, indeed, the single word 'breaking' covers all these offences, denoting as it does every kind of injury, so that not only crushing and burning, but any cutting, bruising, spilling, destroying, or deteriorating is hereby denominated. Finally, it has been decided that if one man mixes something with another's win or oil, so as to spoil its natural goodness, he is liable under this chapter of the statute.

14 It is obvious that, as a man is liable under the first chapter only where a slave or quadruped is killed by express design or through negligence on his part, so, too, he is answerable for all other damage under this chapter only where it results from some wilful act or carelessness of his. Under this chapter, however, it is not the highest value which the thing had within a year, but that which it had within the last thirty days, which is chargeable on the author of the mischief.

15 It is true that here the statute does not expressly say 'the highest value,' but Sabinus rightly held that the damages must be assessed as if the words 'highest value' occurred also in this chapter; the Roman people, who enacted this statute on the proposal of Aquilius the tribune, having thought it sufficient to use them in the first chapter only.

16 It is held that a direct action lies under this statute only when the body of the offender is substantially the instrument of mischief. If a man occasions loss to another in any other way, a modified action will usually lie against him; for instance, if he shuts up another man's slave or quadruped, so as to starve him or it to death, or drives his horse so hard as to knock him to pieces, or drives his cattle over a precipice, or persuades his slave to climb a tree or go down a well, who, in climbing the one or going down the other, is killed or injured in any part of his body, a modified action is in all these cases given against him. But if a slave is pushed off a bridge or bank into a river, and there drowned, it is clear from the facts that the damage is substantially done by the body of the offender, who is consequently liable directly under the lex Aquilia. If damage be done, not by the body or to a body, but in some other form, neither the direct nor the modified Aquilian action will lie, though it is held that the wrongdoer is liable to an action on the case; as, for instance, where a man is moved by pity to loose another's slave from his fetters, and so enables him to escape.



TITLE IV. OF INJURIES

By injury, in a general sense, is meant anything which is done without any right. Besides this, it has three special significations; for sometimes it is used to express outrage, the proper word for which—contumely—is derived from the verb 'to contemn,' and so is equivalent to the Greek 'ubris': sometimes it means culpable negligence, as where damage is said to be done (as in the lex Aquilia) 'with injury,' where it is equivalent to the Greek 'adikema'; and sometimes iniquity and injustice, which the Greeks express by 'adikia'; thus a litigant is said to have received an 'injury' when the praetor or judge delivers an unjust judgement against him.