nem transire debet. nam, ut supra diximus, eadem formula et de peculio et de in rem verso agitur. 75. Ex maleficiis filiorum familias servorumve, veluti si furtum fecerint aut iniuriam commiserint, noxales actiones proditae sunt, uti liceret patri dominove aut litis aestimationem sufferre aut noxae dedere: erat enim iniquum nequitiam eorum ultra ipsorum corpora parentibus dominisve damnosam esse. (76.) Constitutae sunt autem noxales actiones aut legibus aut edicto. legibus, velut furti lege XII tabularum, damni iniuriae [velut] lege Aquilia. edicto Praetoris, velut iniuriarum et vi bonorum raptorum. (77.) Omnes autem noxales actiones capita sequuntur. nam si filius tuus servusve noxam commiserit, quamdiu in tua potestate est, tecum est actio; si in alterius potestatem pervenerit, cum illo incipit actio esse; si sui iuris coeperit business of the father or master. For, as we said above', the same formula deals both with the peculium and with outlays for the father's or master's profit. 75. For the wrongful acts of sons under potestas or of slaves, such as furtum or injuria, noxal actions have been provided, with the view of allowing the father or master either to pay the value of the damage done or to give up (the offender) as a noxa: for it would be inequitable that the offence of such persons should inflict damage on their parents or masters beyond the value of their persons. 76. Now noxal actions have been established either by leges or by the edict. By leges, as the action for theft under a law of the Twelve Tables3, or that for wrongful damage under the Lex Aquilia*: by the edict of the Praetor, as the actions for injury and for goods taken by force. 77. Again, all noxal actions follow the persons (of the delinquents). For if your son or slave have committed a noxal act, so long as he is in your potestas the action lies against you: 1 IV. 73. 2 "Noxa est corpus quod nocuit, id est servus, noxia ipsum maleficium." Inst. IV. 8. I. See Festus, sub verb. noxia. The terminology of Justinian does not accord with that of Gaius, who in §§ 77 and 78 below uses noxa where accord ing to Justinian's rule we should have had noxia. 3 Tab. XII. 1. 2, where the word noxia is used in the sense affixed to it by Justinian. 4 III. 210. 5 D. 9. 4. 43. Actio noxalis sequitur personam. 297 esse, directa actio cum ipso est, et noxae deditio extinguitur. ex diverso quoque directa actio noxalis esse incipit: nam si pater familias noxam commiserit, et hic se in adrogationem tibi dederit aut servus tuus esse coeperit, quod quibusdam casibus accidere primo commentario tradidimus, incipit tecum noxalis actio esse quae ante directa fuit. (78.) Sed si filius patri aut servus domino noxam commiserit, nulla actio nascitur: nulla enim omnino inter me et eum qui in potestate mea est obligatio nascitur. ideoque et si in alienam potestatem pervenerit aut sui iuris esse coeperit, neque cum ipso, neque cum eo cuius nunc in potestate est agi potest. unde quaeritur, si alienus servus filiusve noxam commiserit mihi, et is postea in mea esse coeperit potestate, utrum intercidat actio, an quiescat. nostri praeceptores intercidere putant, quia in eum casum deducta sit in quo actio consistere non potuerit, ideoque licet but if he pass into the potestas of another, the action forthwith lies against that other; if he become sui juris, there is a direct action against himself, and the possibility of giving him up as a noxa is at an end. Conversely, a direct action may become a noxal one: for if a paterfamilias have committed a noxal act, and then have arrogated' himself to you, or become your slave, which we have shown in our first commentary may happen in certain cases, then the action which previously was directly against the offender begins to be a noxal action against you. 78. But if a son have committed a noxal act against his father, or a slave against his master, no action arises for there can be no obligation at all between me and a person in my potestas. And so, though he may have passed into the potestas of another, or have become sui juris, there can be no action either against him or against the person in whose potestas he now is. Hence this question has been raised, whether in the event of an injury being committed against me by a slave or son of another person, who subsequently passes into my potestas, the right of action is altogether lost, or is only in abeyance. The authorities of our school think that it is lost, because the matter has been brought into a state in which there cannot possibly exierit de mea potestate, agere me non posse. diversae scholae auctores, quamdiu in mea potestate sit, quiescere actionem putant, cum ipse mecum agere non possum; cum vero exierit de mea potestate, tunc eam resuscitari. (79.) Cum autem filius familias ex noxali causa mancipio datur, diversae scholae auctores putant ter eum mancipio dari debere, quia lege XII tabularum cautum sit, ne aliter filius de potestate patris exeat, quam si ter fuerit mancipatus: Sabinus et Cassius ceterique nostrae scholae auctores sufficere unam mancipationem; crediderunt enim tres lege XII tabularum ad voluntarias mancipationes pertinere. 80. Haec ita de his personis quae in potestate sunt, sive ex contractu sive ex maleficio earum controversia esset. quod vero ad eas personas quae in manu mancipiove sunt, ita ius dicitur, ut cum ex contractu earum ageretur, nisi ab eo cuius iuri subiectae sint in solidum defendantur, bona quae earum futura be an action, and that therefore I cannot sue, although the wrongdoer have passed subsequently from under my potestas. The authorities of the other school think that the right of action is in abeyance so long as he is in my potestas, since I cannot bring an action against myself; but that when the person has passed out of my potestas, then it is revived. 79. Again, when a son under potestas is given in mancipium for a noxal cause, the authorities of the opposite school hold that he ought to be given in mancipium thrice', because by a law of the Twelve Tables it has been provided that unless a son be thrice mancipated he cannot escape from the potestas of his father: but Sabinus and Cassius and the other authorities of our school hold that one mancipation is sufficient; for in their opinion the three sales specified by the law of the Twelve Tables refer to voluntary mancipations. 80. So much for those persons who are under potestas, when an action arises in consequence either of their contract or their delict. But so far as those who are in manus or mancipium are concerned the law is thus stated: if an action be brought on their contract, unless they be defended to the Actiones alieno nomine. forent, si eius iuri subiectae non essent, veneant. 299 sed cum rescissa capitis diminutione imperio continenti iudicio [desunt 24 lin.]. (81.) quamquam diximus permissum fuisse ei mortuos homines dedere, tamen et si quis eum dederit qui fato suo vita excesserit, aeque liberatur. 82. Nunc admonendi sumus agere posse quemlibet aut suo nomine aut alieno. alieno, veluti cognitorio, procuratio, tutorio, curatorio: cum olim, quo tempore erant legis actiones, in usu fuisset alterius nomine agere non licere, nisi pro populo et libertatis causa. (83.) Cognitor autem certis verbis in litem coram adversario substituitur. nam actor ita cognitorem dat: QUOD full amount by him to whose authority they are subject, all the property which would have been theirs, if they had not been subject to such authority, must be sold. But when the capitis diminutio is treated as non-existent1 in an action based on the imperium3. 81. ...although, as we have said, it was never permitted to a defendant to surrender dead slaves (instead of paying the damage they had done); yet if a man give up a slave who has died a natural death he is free from liability, as in the other case. 82. We must next be reminded that a man can bring an action either in his own name or in the name of another: he brings one in the name of another, when, for instance, he sues as a cognitor, procurator, tutor, or curator: although formerly, when the legis actiones were in use, it was not allowable for a man to sue in the name of another, save in the case of a popular action3 or in defence of freedom'. 83. A cognitor then is substituted (for a principal) in a set form of words, in order to carry on a suit, and in the opponent's 1 III. 84, IV. 38. 2 IV. 103-109. 3 These actions are treated of in D. 47. 23. 4 That is, as assertor libertatis ; see IV. 14, and note thereon. 5 The institution of cognitores was precedent in point of time to that of procuratores, and naturally so, because the invasion of the principle that one person could not represent another was much less bare, faced in the one case than in the "Cognitor est qui litem ulterius 300 Form of appointing a Cognitor or Procurator. EGO A TE verbi gratia FUNDUM PETO, IN EAM REM LUCIUM TITIUM TIBI COGNITOREM DO; adversarius ita: QUANDOQUE TU A ME FUNDUM PETIS, IN EAM REM PUBLIUM MAEVIUM COGNITOREM DO. potest, ut actor ita dicat: QUOD EGO TECUM AGERE VOLO, IN EAM REM COGNITOREM DO; adversarius ita: QUANDOQUE TU MECUM AGERE VIS, IN EAM REM COGNITOREM DO. nec interest, praesens an absens cognitor detur: sed si absens datus fuerit, cognitor ita erit, si cognoverit et susceperit officium cognitoris. (84.) Procurator vero nullis certis verbis in litem substituitur; sed ex solo mandato, et absente et ignorante adversario, constituitur. quinetiam sunt qui putant vel eum procuratorem videri cui non sit mandatum, si modo bona fide accedat ad negotium et caveat ratam rem dominum habiturum. igitur et si non edat presence. 66 For the method in which the plaintiff appoints one is as follows: 'Inasmuch as I am suing you for an estate," to take an example, "I appoint Lucius Titius to be my cognitor against you for that matter:" that in which the opposite party does so is: "Since you are suing me for the estate, I appoint Publius Maevius as my cognitor for that matter." Or it may be that the plaintiff uses these words: "As I desire to bring an action against you, I appoint a cognitor for the purpose;" and the defendant these: "Since you desire to bring an action against me, I appoint a cognitor for the purpose." The presence or absence of the cognitor at the time of appointment is not a material point: but if he be absent at the time he is appointed, he will become agent only on receipt of notice and acceptance of the duty. 84. A procurator, on the other hand, is substituted for the purposes of the suit without any special form of words: and is appointed by simple mandate', and even in the absence or ignorance of the opposite party. Nay, there are some who think that even if there be no mandate given, a person may be considered a procurator, provided only he act in the business in good faith, and give sureties that what he does shall be ratified by his principal. Therefore, even though the pro 1 III. 155 et seqq. 2 Such a person was called negotiorum gestor, and the obligation between him and the person he represents is of the class styled quasi ex contractu. See App. (I). |