Page images
PDF
EPUB

This is what is meant by 'praescriptis verbis agere'-a proceeding $66.
which is available in all cases where, on the one hand, the existence
of a liability is undoubted, but, on the other hand, doubts exist con-
cerning the legal nature of the underlying facts, in other words,
concerning the possibility of making the agreement in question tally
with any of the traditional categories of contracts. And this is what
occurs in the cases of innominate real contracts, i. e. the plaintiff
must sue for counter-performance praescriptis verbis, because there
is no settled category, no fully developed pattern-as there is in the
case, say, of a loan, a deposit, or a sale-to which the facts of this
contract are strictly applicable. But precisely the same thing occurs
in all those other cases where the fixed categories of the law are
found to be too narrow for the exhaustless profusion of legal
relations 1.

pr. I. quib. mod. re contrahitur obl. (3, 14): Re contrahitur
obligatio veluti mutui datione. Mutui autem obligatio in
his rebus consistit, quae pondere, numero mensurave con-
stant, veluti vino, oleo, frumento, pecunia numerata, aere,
argento, auro: quas res aut numerando, aut metiendo, aut
adpendendo in hoc damus, ut accipientium fiant, et quando-
que nobis non eaedem res, sed aliae ejusdem naturae et

The following examples will illustrate the manner in which the procedure pracscriptis verbis was adapted to different purposes. A delivers a thing to B for purposes of valuation (1. 1 § 2 D. 19, 5), or of inspection (1. 23 eod.). These being neither cases of depositum (because the thing is not delivered for safe custody) nor of commodatum (because it is not delivered for use), the plaintiff must proceed praescriptis verbis. Or again, if it is doubtful whether the facts of a case constitute a contract of locatio conductio (1. 23 D. 10, 3), and, if they do, whether it is a locatio conductio rei or a locatio conductio operis (l. 1 § 1 D 19, 5), the plaintiff must sue praescriptis verbis. În the same way proceedings praescriptis verbis must be resorted to where a donor wishes to enforce a trust expressly accepted by the donee in his (the donor's) favour (a trust, say, binding the donee to pay for the donor's

maintenance), or where a person who,
in pursuance of a compromise, has per-
formed his part, wishes to exact counter-
performance from his adversary.-On
the actio praescriptis verbis cp. Pernice,
ZS. d. Sav. St. vol. ix. p. 248 ff.;
Gradenwitz, Interpolationen in d. Pan-
dekten (1887), p. 122 ff. (with Lenel's
remarks thereon in the ZS. d. Sav. St.

The

vol. ix. p. 181). Gradenwitz has suc-
ceeded in proving that the 'actio'
praescriptis verbis was originated by the
Byzantine jurisprudence, and that the
compilers inserted it in the Corpus juris
by means of an interpolation.
term used by the classical Roman jurists
is never actio praescriptis verbis, it being
just the essence of these cases that they
are not covered by a fixed individual
actio, but always praescriptis verbis
agere, i. e. a general form of action
available in numerous cases of a widely
different character.

$66.

$67.

qualitatis reddantur. Unde etiam mutuum appellatum sit,
quia ita a me tibi datur, ut ex meo tuum fiat. Ex eo con-
tractu nascitur actio, quae vocatur condictio.

§ 2 eod.: Item is, cui res aliqua utenda datur, id est commodatur,
re obligatur et tenetur commodati actione. Sed is ab eo,
qui mutuum accepit, longe distat. Namque non ita res
datur, ut ejus fiat; et ob id de ea re ipsa restituenda tenetur.
Et is quidem, qui mutuum accepit, si quolibet fortuito casu
quod accepit amiserit, veluti incendio, ruina, naufragio, aut
latronum hostiumve incursu: nihilo minus obligatus permanet.
At is, qui utendum accepit, sane quidem exactam diligentiam
custodiendae rei praestare jubetur, nec sufficit ei, tantam
diligentiam adhibuisse, quantam suis rebus adhibere solitus
est. . . Commodata autem res tunc proprie intellegitur, si,
nulla mercede accepta vel constituta, res tibi utenda data
est. Alioquin, mercede interveniente, locatus tibi usus rei
videtur. Gratuitum enim debet esse commodatum.
L. 5 pr. D. de praescr. verb. (19, 5) (PAULUS): Naturalis meus
filius servit tibi et tuus filius mihi. Convenit inter nos, ut
et tu meum manumitteres, et ego tuum. Ego manumisi, tu
non manumisisti; qua actione mihi teneris, quaesitum est.
In hac quaestione totius ob rem dati tractatus inspici potest,
qui in his competit speciebus: aut enim do tibi, ut des;
aut do, ut facias; aut facio, ut des; aut facio, ut facias.

§ 67. The Verbal Contract.

The verbal contract of Roman law is Stipulatio. It arises 'verbis,' i. e. by the employment of words in a particular form, in the form, namely, of question and answer. The creditor asks the debtor : spondesne mihi centum dare? The debtor answers: spondeo. This form of sponsio was regarded as specifically Roman (i. e. as being juris civilis), and could only be employed, therefore, among Roman citizens'. But instead of saying 'spondesne,' the creditor

As to the manner in which sponsio was developed from a religious act v. sup. p. 38, n. 13. The fact that such a sponsio originally only gave rise to a moral obligation (i. e. an obligation towards the gods), left its traces even in

classical Roman law, where certain kinds of stipulationes, e.g. the stipulatio by which a betrothal was effected (v. inf. at the end of § 79) were not enforceable by action.

might also use the word 'promittisne' or some similar term. And § 67. these latter forms were regarded as being juris gentium and could therefore be validly employed by aliens as well as citizens. In Justinian's law it is immaterial what words are used. All that is essential is that the obligatory consensus shall be established by a question on the part of the creditor and a corresponding answer on the part of the debtor. Given these conditions the contract is valid and actionable on the ground of the form in which the words are put, and it is immaterial whether the debtor received any consideration for his promise or not. All that the creditor need prove is that, as a matter of fact, the stipulatio was concluded. The debtor's obligation rests on the verba and on them alone.

In consequence of this its peculiar nature stipulatio is employed to fulfil a twofold function, the function namely (1) of originating an obligation and (2) of transforming an obligation.

I. Stipulatio as originating an obligation.

Stipulatio serves the purpose of originating an obligation in so far as it is used to convert an informal promise into a formal one. An informal promise, as such, is not actionable according to the Roman law of contract (sup. p. 288). As soon however as it is clothed in the form of a stipulatio it becomes actionable. By means of a stipulatio any promise can be raised to the rank of a 'contract.' The following are examples in point: a stipulatio for the payment of interest, a stipulatio for the payment of a specified penalty, and the contract of suretyship.

(1) Stipulatio for the payment of interest.

If the debtor in a contract of loan gives an informal promise to pay interest, such promise is not actionable (sup. § 66). Whenever it is intended to bind a borrower, on receiving his loan, to pay interest, a second contract is needed over and above the real contract of mutuum, viz. the verbal contract of stipulatio. The creditor asks the debtor: Will you pay me such and such monthly interest?' The debtor answers in the affirmative. He is now under an obligation to pay interest, an obligation which is actionable, not indeed re (for the contract of loan cannot create any obligation to pay interest), but verbis. The Romans were in the habit of calculating interest by

§ 67. the month, though it does not follow that it was paid by the month. The rate of interest is expressed as follows:

centesimae usurae = 1 per cent. per month or 12 per cent. per ann.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]

The interest' stipulated' for is not allowed to exceed a certain limit.

The Twelve Tables fixed the maximum at of the capital (foenus unciarium). This was subsequently reduced to of the capital (foenus semunciarium). From the close of the republic centesimae usurae became the usual legal maximum. Justinian finally fixed semisses usurae-apart from one exception-as the highest allowable rate of interest in all cases. Anatocismus, or the payment of interest upon interest, is forbidden. A stipulatio for the payment of interest is void to the extent to which it exceeds the legal maximum. Arrears of interest can only be recovered to the extent of the capital debt, i. e. not'ultra alterum tantum.'

(2) Stipulatio to pay a specified penalty.

The stipulatio to pay a specified penalty was of considerable practical importance in Roman law. It was resorted to in all cases where a direct civil law title could not be validly created, and yet the parties felt the need of a title which should be legally secure (cp. e. g. the case of servitudes, sup. p. 264).

(3) Suretyship (Fidejussio).

A contract of suretyship is a contract whereby a man binds himself to be personally answerable (i. e. answerable with his own credit) for the debt of another, as accessory debtor, in addition to the person principally liable. Here again an informal promise to the

2 In the oldest times the 'vadimonium' served the purposes of a suretyship. Vadimonium was a solemn promise to pay a specified penalty, if a certain third party failed to meet a particular obligation (e. g. to pay a debt or answer a summons before court). A 'vas' is not a surety in our sense of the word, because the liability he undertakes is not the same as that of the principal, but is a new liability with

different contents; cp. Voigt, Die Zwölf Tafeln, vol. ii. p. 490 ff. On the other hand sponsio (which originated in the religious vows of the earliest times, v. note 1) is a suretyship in our sense of the term (idem dare spondes?). And when the forms of stipulatio were further developed, another kind of suretyship grew up side by side with sponsio, viz. fidepromissio (idem fidepromittis?). Sponsio, whether used for purposes of

Hence the forms of § 67. centum, quae Titius

same effect would have been void at civil law.
stipulatio are resorted to. The creditor asks:
mihi debet, eadem fide tua esse jubes? The surety replies: fide
mea esse jubeo. The effect of such a fidejussio is to make the
surety correal debtor (§ 61) with the principal debtor, his correal
liability being accessory to that of the principal, i. e. he (the surety)
is liable after the principal debtor. It is for this reason that, in the
first place, the liability of the surety depends on the existence of the
principal debt, and that, in the second place, the surety has the
'beneficium excussionis' (sometimes called the 'beneficium ordinis')
-not granted however till Justinian (Novel 4)-which consists in the
right to demand that the principal debtor, being present and solvent,
shall be sued first. An epistola divi Hadriani gave several co-sureties
the exceptio divisionis, i. e. the right to demand that the creditor
should divide his claim pro rata between such sureties as were
present and solvent (sup. p. 283).

Suretyship is a species of so-called 'intercessio.'

suretyship or any other purpose, is invariably juris civilis; fidepromissio, on the other hand (like fidejussio), is also open to aliens. The youngest form of suretyship, and one which was, from the very outset, secular in character, is probably fidejussio (idem fide tua esse jubes?). Fidejussio (which is discussed in the text) is the only form of suretyship known in Justinian's law. Formally speaking, it implies neither a sponsio nor a promissio, but merely, in the most general way, a desire (jussio) that the principal debtor shall be given credit on the faith of the credit of the surety. Hence fidejussio was applicable to any liability (including e. g. a liability ex delicto), whereas sponsio and fidepromissio were only applicable to liabilities arising from a verbal contract (stipulatio). Again, the liability of a sponsor or fidepromissor, being originally of a purely religious character (cp. Pernice, Berliner Sitzungsberichte, vol. li. p. 1191), did not pass to his heir, and was moreover limited to two years (by the lex Furia de sponsu, 345 B. C.). The liability of a fidejussor, on the other hand, passed to his heir,

Intercessio

and the action against him was an actio
perpetua. The same lex Furia further
enacted that, as between several co-
sponsors and co-fidepromissors, the
debt guaranteed should be ipso jure
divided according to the number of the
sureties, without taking the solvency of
individual suretics into account. Co-
fidejussors, on the other hand, were
severally liable for the whole debt. It
was not till Hadrian that they were
granted the beneficium divisionis, not
however ipso jure, but only ope excep-
tionis (p. 283), the solvency of the other
sureties being moreover taken into ac-
count in determining the share of each
(see text). Cp. Gaj. iii. § 115 ff. Every-
thing points to the conclusion that,
whereas, from the very outset, fidejus-
sio was possible even after the prin-
cipal debt had come into existence,
sponsio and fidepromissio could origin-
ally only be effected simultaneously
with the sponsio of the principal debtor,
i.e. by means of conspondere and con-
promittere. Hence the duty to 'prae-
dicere' subsequently required from the
creditor (Gaj. iii. § 123).

« PreviousContinue »