iudicio omnimodo condemnatur actor, si causam non tenuerit, nec requiritur an scierit non recte se agere, ita etiam restipulationis poena omnimodo damnatur actor. (181.) Sane si ab actore ea restipulationis poena petatur, ei neque calumniae iudicium opponitur, neque iurisiurandi religio iniungitur: nam contrarium iudicium in his causis locum non habere palam est. 182. Quibusdam iudiciis damnati ignominiosi fiunt, velut furti, vi bonorum raptorum, iniuriarum ; item pro socio, fiduciae, tutelae, mandati, depositi. sed furti aut vi bonorum raptorum aut iniuriarum non solum damnati notantur ignominia, sed etiam pacti: idque ita in edicto Praetoris scriptum est. et recte pluri mum enim interest utrum ex delicto aliquis, an ex contractu debitor sit. et Praetor illa parte edicti id ipsum notat. nam con› as in the cross-action the plaintiff' is in all cases condemned to pay when he has failed in the original suit, and the question whether he did or did not know that he was suing improperly is never raised, so in the case of the restipulatory penalty is he condemned to pay in every instance. 181. Clearly, if. a restipulatory penalty be claimed from the plaintiff, no action of calumnia can be brought against him, nor can the obligation of an oath be laid upon him: for it is plain enough that there can in such cases be no cross-action. 182. In some actions those against whom a judgment is given are branded with infamy, for instance the actions for theft, robbery with violence, injuries, also those in respect of partnership, fiduciary engagement, guardianship, mandate, deposit. But not only those condemned for theft, robbery, or injury are branded with ignominy, but even those who have bought the plaintiff off, and thus it is laid down, and very properly too, in the edict of the Praetor: for there is a considerable difference between the position of a debtor upon a delict and one upon a contract*, a point which the Praetor takes note of 1 The plaintiff in the original action, i. e. the defendant in the crossaction. 2 The meaning of this paragraph is very simple. We are told in § 174 that the calumnia of the plaintiff can be met in four different ways, we are now informed that the defendant must select one of these remedies, and that he cannot employ first one and then another. The doctrine agrees with that in § 179. 3 See D. 3. 2. 6. 3. 4 The latter portion of the section is filled in according to Heffter's conjectural reading. 342 Status of the plaintiff and defendant. tractus separavit a delictis. ceterum si quis alieno nomine convenitur, velut procuratorio, ab ignominia liber erit. idem est si quis · fideiussorio nomine iudicio convenitur. etenim et hic pro alio damnatur. 183. In summa sciendum est eum qui aliquem in ius vocare vult et cum eo agere, et eum qui vocatus est naturali ratione ac lege iustam personam habere debere. quare etiam sine permissu Praetoris nec liberis cum parentibus constituetur actio, nec patrono et liberto, si non impetrabitur venia edicti, et in eum qui adversus ea egerit poena pecuniaria statuitur. (184.) Quando autem in ius vocatus fuerit adversarius, ni eo die finitum fuerit negotium, in the portion of the edict just alluded to'. For he has drawn a line of demarcation between contracts and delicts. Where, however, a person is sued in another's name, for instance, as his procurator, he is exempt from ignominy. The same rule applies to the case of a person sued as a fidejussor, because he too is condemned to pay on behalf of another. 183. In conclusion, be it known that both he who wishes to summon another into court and sue him and he who is so summoned ought upon principles of equity as well as law to have a status invested with full legal attributes". Hence, therefore, without permission of the Praetor no action can be brought by children against their parents; nor between a patron and his libertus unless special exemption be granted them from the rule of the edict; and should any one act in contravention of these regulations a pecuniary penalty" is imposed on him. 184. When a defendant has been summoned to court, unless the business be concluded on the day of sum 1 The subject of infamia or ignominia is treated of in D. 3. 2. See especially 3. 2. 1, 3. 2. 4. 5, 3. 2. 6, and 3. 2. 7. 2 Naturalis ratio here means equitable as opposed to civil law, civil law being denoted by the word lex. See II. 65, 66, 67 and D. 4. 5. 8. The phrase personam habere is identical with personam aliquam sustinere, agere, capere, etc., which occur in Cicero, e. g. in Pro Sulla, 3, Pro 23-25. See The penalty was 5000 sesterces, IV. 46. Just. Inst. IV. 16. 3. also D. 2. 4. 4. vadimonium ei faciendum est, id est ut promittat se certo die sisti. (185.) Fiunt autem vadimonia quibusdam ex causis pura, id est sine satisdatione, quibusdam cum satisdatione, quibusdam iureiurando, quibusdam recuperatoribus suppositis, id est ut qui non steterit, is protinus a recuperatoribus in summam vadimonii condemnetur: eaque singula diligenter Praetoris edicto significantur. (186.) Et si quidem iudicati depensive agetur, tanti fiet vadimonium, quanti ea res erit; si vero ex ceteris causis, quanti actor iuraverit non calumniae causa postulare sibi vadimonium promitti, nec tamen pluris quam partis dimidiae, nec pluribus quam sestertium c milibus fit vadimonium. itaque si centum milium res erit, nec iudicati depensive agetur, non plus quam sestertium quinquaginta milium fit vadimonium. (187.) Quas autem personas sine permissu Praetoris impune in ius vocare non possumus, easdem nec vadimonio mons, he must enter into a vadimonium, that is, he must promise that he will appear on a day fixed. 185. In some cases the vadimonia are simple, that is, without sureties, in some they are with sureties, in some they are with an oath, in some with recuperatores interposed, which means that if a man fail to make appearance he will at once be condemned by the recuperatores for the amount of his vadimonium: and each of these matters is carefully explained in the Praetor's edict. 186. If then the action be upon a judgment or for money laid down by a sponsor', the amount of vadimonium will be the value of the matter in dispute; but if it be on other grounds, the vadimonium will be such amount as the plaintiff shall fix after having sworn that he does not demand a promise of vadimonium to himself with any vexatious object; but its amount cannot be fixed higher than half the value of the subject of the suit, or than 100,000 sesterces. If then the subject be worth 100,000 sesterces, and the action be not one on judgment or for money laid down by a sponsor, the vadimonium cannot exceed 50,000 sesterces. 187. All persons whose appearance in court we cannot legally compel without the Praetor's permission3, we are also unable to com invitas obligare nobis possumus, praeterquam si Praetor aditus permittit. pel to furnish vadimonium to us against their will, save in cases where the Praetor allows them to be brought before him'. 1 That is to say, in order to secure their attendance at the trial by means of a vadimonium the plaintiff must first obtain leave from the Praetor to summon them for the preliminary proceedings. |