1 dedere. Noxa autem est corpus quod nocuit, id est servus: noxia ipsum maleficium, veluti furtum damnum rapina iniuria. 2 Summa autem ratione permissum est noxae deditione defungi: namque erat iniquum nequitiam eorum ultra ipsorum 3 corpora dominis damnosam esse. Dominus noxali iudicio servi sui nomine conventus servum actori noxae dedendo liberatur. nec minus perpetuum eius dominium a domino transfertur: si autem damnum ei cui deditus est resarcierit quaesita pecunia, auxilio praetoris invito domino manumitSunt autem constitutae noxales actiones aut legibus

4 tetur.

called noxalis because the defendant had the option, if the guilt of the slave was proved, of surrendering him to the plaintiff in lieu of paying the damages assessed: 'praetor ait... si servus insciente domino fecisse dicetur, in iudicio adiciam "aut noxam dedere Dig. 9. 3. 1. pr. Noxal actions are thus not a class of remedies apart by themselves, but only ordinary actions on delict or quasi-delict (Dig. loc. cit.), in which the defendant, being sued on a wrong not of his own commission, is allowed by special provision (§ 4 inf.) a privilege which, had the offence been his own, he would not have enjoyed. In principle, though not in form, they are arbitrariae (Tit. 6. 31 supr.); the noxae deditio is not made in accordance with the judge's arbitrium, but the defendant is condemned in the alternative, Tit. 17. I inf. If the slave died before litis contestatio in the action, the master's liability ended, even though his death was unknown, Dig. 9. 4. 39. 4; ib. 42. 1: by his death during the action the master's liability in damages became absolute, ib. 3.

It has been conjectured that noxal actions were originally the expression of an absolute claim to have the offender delivered up for the exercise of private vengeance, whether his offence were delictual or merely breach of contract. The surrender of Postumius to the Samnites by the Romans with all the forms of noxae deditio (Livy ix. 10) was made as atonement for non-observance of the treaty which he had concluded with them, and from which the Romans wished to release themselves-ut populus religione solvatur. Under Roman municipal law non-fulfilment of a promise made by sponsio entailed, in the end, quasi-slavery (manus iniectio); and the idea was consistently applied by them in international relations; cf. Ihering, Geist des r. Rechts i. p. 131; Mr. O. W. Holmes' Common Law pp. 8-12, and Mr. Poste's note on Gaius iv. 81.

§ 3. The rule that if the surrendered slave subsequently contrived to pay the damages he could demand his manumission, appears to have originally held only where the deditus was a child in power; 'per hominem liberum noxiae deditum si tantum adquisitum sit, quantum damnum dedit, manumittere cogendus est a praetore qui noxa deditum accepit, sed fiduciae iudicio non tenetur' Papinian, Coll. 2. 3.

§ 4. The four delicts are mentioned only exempli gratia, as appears

aut edicto praetoris: legibus veluti furti lege duodecim tabularum, damni iniuriae lege Aquilia: edicto praetoris veluti iniuriarum et vi bonorum raptorum. Omnis autem noxalis actio 5 caput sequitur. nam si servus tuus noxiam commiserit, quamdiu in tua potestate sit, tecum est actio: si in alterius potestatem pervenerit, cum illo incipit actio esse, aut si manumissus fuerit, directo ipse tenetur et extinguitur noxae deditio. ex diverso quoque directa actio noxalis esse incipit: nam si liber homo noxiam commiserit et is servus tuus esse coeperit (quod casibus quibusdam effici primo libro tradidimus), incipit tecum esse noxalis actio, quae ante directa fuisset. Si servus domino 6 noxiam commiserit, actio nulla nascitur: namque inter dominum et eum qui in eius potestate est nulla obligatio nasci potest. ideoque et si in alienam potestatem servus pervenerit aut manumissus fuerit, neque cum ipso neque cum eo, cuius nunc in potestate sit, agi potest. unde si alienus servus noxiam tibi commiserit et is postea in potestate tua esse coeperit, intercidit actio, quia in eum casum deducta sit, in quo consistere non potuit: ideoque licet exierit de tua potestate, agere non potes, quemadmodum si dominus in servum suum aliquid commiserit, nec si manumissus vel alienatus fuerit servus, ullam actionem contra dominum habere potest.

from veluti... veluti: a noxal action was given upon quasi-delicts as well, Dig. 9. 4. 2. I; 47. I. I. 2 47.7.7. 5.

§ 5. For the modes in which a free man could become a slave see Bk. i. 3. 4, and notes supr.

§ 6. The first few lines of this section are open to misconception. It was not merely that no action lay upon a delict committed by a slave against his dominus, but it gave rise to no obligation whatever-doubtless because the master could get him punished by an appeal to the extraordinaria cognitio of the praetor, or even inflict the penalty in person if the offence were a light one. Nor is it true that 'inter dominum et eum qui in potestate eius est nulla obligatio nasci potest:' between master and slave, pater and filiusfamilias, there could be naturalis but not civilis obligatio, Tit. 7. 3 supr., Dig. 12. 6. 64; 44. 7. 14.

The Proculians had maintained that the action for the delict of a slave was not extinguished by his coming under the power of the injured person, but only suspended, 'cum vero exierit de mea potestate, tunc eam resuscitari' Gaius iv. 78.

For applications of the rule 'quae in eam causam pervenerunt a qua incipere non poterant pro non scriptis habentur' cf. Bk. ii. 20. 14; iii. 19. 2 supr., and Dig. 5. 1. 11; 8. 1. 11 ; 9. 2. 16; 34. 8. 3. 2.

7 Sed veteres quidem haec et in filiis familias masculis et feminis admiserunt. nova autem hominum conversatio huiusmodi asperitatem recte respuendam esse existimavit et ab usu communi haec penitus recessit: quis enim patitur filium suum et maxime filiam in noxam alii dare, ut paene per corpus pater magis quam filius periclitetur, cum in filiabus etiam pudicitiae favor hoc bene excludit? et ideo placuit in servos tantummodo noxales actiones esse proponendas, cum apud veteres legum commentatores invenimus saepius dictum ipsos filios familias pro suis delictis posse conveniri.

IX.

SI QUADRUPES PAUPERIEM FECISSE DICITUR.

Animalium nomine, quae ratione carent, si quidem lascivia aut fervore aut feritate pauperiem fecerint, noxalis actio lege duodecim tabularum prodita est (quae animalia si noxae dedantur, proficiunt reo ad liberationem, quia ita lex duodecim tabularum scripta est): puta si equus calcitrosus calce percusserit aut bos cornu petere solitus petierit. haec autem actio in his, quae contra naturam moventur, locum habet: ceterum si genitalis sit feritas, cessat. Denique si ursus fugit a domino et sic nocuit, non potest quondam dominus conveniri, quia desinit dominus esse, ubi fera evasit. pauperies autem est damnum sine iniuria facientis datum: nec enim potest animal iniuriam fecisse dici, quod sensu caret. haec quod ad noxalem actionem pertinet.

§ 7. The noxal surrender of filiifamilias (Gaius iv. 74. 79 speaks only of sons) was effected by mancipatio; they stood in mancipio to the surrenderee (note on Bk. i. 8 supr.), the Sabinians holding that one sale was sufficient for this purpose, 'crediderunt enim tres lege duodecim tabularum ad voluntarias mancipationes pertinere' Gaius iv. 79.

Among the 'veteres legum commentatores' are Gaius himself, Dig. 44. 7. 39; Pomponius, Dig. 9. 4. 33; Julianus, ib. 34, and Ulpian, Dig. 5. 1. 57; 9. 3. 1.7; 9. 4. 35. For Justinian's affectation of legal conservatism cf. Bk. ii. 14. pr., ii. 20. 34 supr.

Tit. IX. The conditions under which the noxal actio de pauperie lay are accurately stated in this Title. By the Twelve Tables the animal must be four-footed (Dig. 9. 1. 1. 2), but by construction the remedy was

Ceterum sciendum est aedilicio edicto prohiberi nos canem 1 verrem aprum ursum leonem ibi habere, qua vulgo iter fit: et si adversus ea factum erit et nocitum homini libero esse dicetur, quod bonum et aequum iudici videtur, tanti dominus condemnetur, ceterarum rerum, quanti damnum datum sit, dupli. praeter has autem aedilicias actiones et de pauperie

extended: 'haec actio utilis competit, si non quadrupes sed aliud animal pauperiem fecit' Dig. ib. 4. If the damage was done under provocation, the noxal action did not lie, but the person who was its indirect cause was liable: et generaliter haec actio locum habet, quotiens contra naturam fera mota pauperiem dedit. Ideoque si equus dolore concitatus calce petierit, cessare istam actionem, sed eum, qui equum percusserit aut vulneraverit, in factum . . . teneri: at si cum equum permulsisset quis vel palpatus esset, calce eum percusserit, erit actioni locus' Dig. ib. 7. Damage done by an animal which fell within the rule was treated exactly like a delict committed by a slave: 'et cum etiam in quadrupedibus noxa caput sequitur, adversus dominum haec actio datur, non cuius fuerit quadrupes, cum noceret, sed cuius nunc est. Plane si ante litem contestatam decesserit animal, extincta erit actio' Dig. ib. 12 and 13. So too if the animal died naturally or by accident, the owner's liability was extinguished, Dig. ib. 16.

The illustration of the bear might lead one to suppose that no noxal action lay where the animal which did the damage was ferae naturae. But this assumption is contradicted in the text below (§ 1 'praeter has autem aedilicias actiones et de pauperie locum habet'); and though many are for rejecting this as bad law, it seems better to say that the actio de pauperie was available at any rate in the case of an animal which, though by birth ferae naturae, no longer enjoyed its natural liberty, but was in some degree tamed or domesticated, and so in doing injury might be said to be acting against its nature.'

6

The only case in which the owner of a domestic beast was liable for damage done secundum naturam suam was where grazing animals strayed and pastured on another's land (when an action lay under the Twelve Tables), or fed on mast which fell on their owner's land from a neighbour's trees: 'si glans ex arbore tua in meum fundum cadat, eamque ego immisso pecore depascam, Aristo scribit, non sibi occurrere legitimam actionem, qua experiri possis, nam neque ex lege duodecim tabularum de pastu pecoris, quia non in tuo pascitur, neque de pauperie, neque damni iniuriae agi posse: in factum itaque erit agendum' Dig. 19. 5. 14. 3.

§ 1. The public roads were under the special charge of the aediles, Dig. 43. 10. The penalty prescribed in the edict for the death of a freeman was 200 solidi; for injury other than death a sum which was left to the discretion of the judge; for all other damage duplum. The action under this edict seems to have been popularis.

Two or more actions are said to concur when one and the same

locum habebit: numquam enim actiones praesertim poenales de eadem re concurrentes alia aliam consumit.

The

material claim can be pursued wholly or in part by two or more distinct remedies. Examples may be found in Tit. 6. 14, Tit. 7. 5 supr., in cases of passive correal and solidary obligation, and in the violation of different rights of the same person by one single act, as where a commodatarius damages the res commodata, thereby exposing himself to actio commodati and an action under the lex Aquilia, Dig. 13. 6. 7. 1. principle which governs such cases is contained in the maxim 'bona fides non patitur, ut bis idem exigatur' Dig. 50. 17. 57. Hence, if one action is brought by which the claim is fully satisfied, the right to bring the other is extinguished; but if the plaintiff first sues by the one which gives him a less satisfaction than he could have obtained by the other, the other can yet be brought for the difference: 'si ex eodem facto duae competant actiones, postea iudicis potius partes esse, ut quo plus sit in reliqua actione, id actor ferat, si tantundem aut minus, nil consequatur ' Dig. 44. 7. 41. I.

In the application of these principles to penal actions, of which the text above more particularly speaks, a distinction must be drawn. Sometimes when more rights than one are violated by one and the same unlawful act, this act can be analysed, in the eye of the law, into as many separate acts as there are rights violated; and in such a case the penal actions which lie on these several wrongs exist quite independently of one another, and can be separately brought in solidum. Illustrations may be found in a single speech which slanders two or more persons, Dig. 47. 10. 41 ; in the theft of a slave's clothes, through which he dies of exposure, Dig. 19. 5. 14. 1, where the actiones furti and damni iniuria each lie, and the full penalty can be recovered on each; and in Tit. I. 8 supr., where the master can bring both actio furti and actio servi corrupti, nec sufficiet, alterutra actione egisse, quia altera alterum non minuit' Dig. 11. 3. II. 2.

But one and the same unlawful act may be ground for two or more penal actions in a rather different manner; that is to say, each, or at any rate one, of them requires the whole act to support it. E. g. for secretly cutting down another's trees one is liable under both the Twelve Tables (de arboribus furtim caesis) and the lex Aquilia; and so too the same act will often support an action on either theft or robbery. To admit both actions in such cases would be to punish at least part of the unlawful act upon which they are based twice over; and the actual practice was to allow the person wronged, if he first brought the action by which he could recover least, to subsequently bring the second for the difference, The application of this principle to penal Dig. 44. 7. 41. I cited supr. actions is clearly shown by the following passages: 'qui servum alienum iniuriose verberat, ex uno facto incidit et in Aquiliam et in actionem iniuriarum iniuria enim ex adfectu fit, damnum ex culpa, et ideo possunt utrae competere: sed quidam altera electa alteram consumi : alii