Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub

satis autem non dantem, quanti plurimum auctorem periclitari oportet.

10. Idem Neratius ait propter omnia haec satis esse quod plurimum est praestari, id est ut sequentibus actionibus deducto eo quod praestitum est lis aestimetur.

11. Idem recte ait, si quid horum non praestetur, cum cetera facta sint, nullo deducto condemnationem faciendam.

12. Idem libro secundo responsorum ait emptorem noxali iudicio condemnatum ex empto actione id tantum consequi, quanti minimo defungi potuit: idemque putat et si ex stipulatu aget : et siue defendat noxali iudicio, siue non, quia manifestum fuit noxium seruum fuisse, nihilo minus uel ex stipulatu uel ex empto agere posse.

13. Idem Neratius ait uenditorem in re tradenda debere praestare emptori, ut in lite de possessione potior sit : sed Iulianus libro quinto decimo digestorum probat nec uidere traditum, si superior in possessione emptor futurus non sit: erit igitur ex empto actio, nisi hoc praestetur.

14. Cassius ait eum qui ex duplae stipulatione litis aestimationem consecutus est, aliarum rerum nomine, de quibus in uenditionibus caueri solet, nihil consequi posse. Iulianus deficiente dupla ex empto agendum putauit.

eviction, i.e. double the price : si dupla non promitteretur, et eo nomine agetur, dupli condemnandus est reus (D. 21. 2. 2; cp. L. 44 post).

$$ 10, 11. These sections come to this, that the buyer can recover the duplum for a single breach of the seller's duties, and no more than the duplum for two or more distinct breaches.

§ 12. It would thus appear that the buyer may, if a third party produces irrefragable evidence of his right to the res vendita, at once hand it over, without notice to his author, and does not thereby lose his recourse against him. Defungi means to get clear of,'' to be quit of' the action on certain terms.

§ 13. This section defines precisely the extent of the seller's obligation to deliver: he must convey such a title of possession as will secure to the buyer the protection of the interdicts, and

found liable in damages; and for refusal to give security, in the highest sum for which a seller can be held responsible.

10. He adds that all the buyer's claims are fully satisfied by payment of such highest sum; that is to say, the amount already paid must be deducted in assessing the damages in any subsequent actions.

11. He also says, quite rightly, that if the seller has failed in any one of his obligations, though he has fulfilled the rest, judgment will be given for the full sum without deduction.

12. He observes, in the second book of his Responsa, that the buyer of a slave, if condemned in a noxal action, can recover by the action on purchase no more than the lowest sum that would have discharged the claim, and he holds it is the same if the action be laid on the stipulation ; and the buyer can sue on the stipulation or on the contract at his option, no matter whether he defends the noxal action or lets judgment go by default, the liability to make amends being indisputable.

13. Neratius says further, that the seller when giving delivery must guarantee that the buyer shall prevail in any possessory suit; while Julian, in the fifteenth book of his Digesta, holds there is no delivery at all unless the buyer is enabled to maintain his possession; an action on purchase will therefore lie, unless he is put in a position to do so.

14. According to Cassius, when the buyer has once been awarded damages in an action on the stipulation for the double, he can recover nothing more under any of the other heads in respect of which it is usual for the seller to give security. But where the stipulation for the double has not been made, Julian thought that the action on purchase must be employed. give him the better claim in any question that may be raised about the possession. See notes on pp. 50, 65 ante.

The adversative conjunction (sed Iulianus) is used because Julian was of the opposite school from Neratius (Pothier).

$ 14. With deficiente dupla compare Sed et si stipulatio nulla fuisset interposita, de ex empto actione idem dicemus (D. 21. 2. 19 pr.).

L

15. Denique libro decimo apud Minicium ait, si quis seruum ea condicione uendiderit, ut intra triginta dies duplam promitteret, postea ne quid praestaretur, et emptor hoc fieri intra diem non desiderauerit, ita demum non teneri uenditorem, si ignorans alienum uendidit: tunc enim in hoc fieri, ut per ipsum et per heredem eius emptorem habere liceret : qui autem alienum sciens uendidit, dolo, inquit, non caret et ideo empti iudicio tenebitur.

16. Sententiam Iuliani uerissimam esse arbitror in pignoribus quoque : nam si iure creditoris uendiderit, deinde haec fuerint euicta, non tenetur nec ad pretium restituendum ex empto actione creditor: hoc enim multis constitutionibus effectum est. dolum plane uenditor praestabit, denique etiam repromittit de dolo: sed et si non repromiserit, sciens tamen sibi non obligatam 2 uel non esse eius qui sibi obligauit uendiderit, tenebitur ex empto, quia dolum eum praestare debere ostendimus.

17. Si quis rem uendiderit et ei accessurum quid dixerit, omnia quidem quae diximus in re distracta in hoc quoque sequenda sirit, ut tamen euictionis nomine non in duplum teneatur, sed in hoc tantum obligetur, ut emptori habere liceat, et non solum per se, sed per omnes.

18. Qui autem habere licere uendidit, uideamus quid debeat

9$ 15, 16. A special agreement de non praestanda euictione does not avail the fraudulent seller; he can be sued by the actio empti for the full interesse. Cp. LL. 1, 1; 6, 9 supra. § 18 discusses the effect of such a pact where the seller has acted in good faith.

For the rule that the creditor selling a pledge did not warrant against eviction, but was liable for fraud, e.g. selling when he knew that he had no right of sale, or that his debtor was not owner of the pledge, see D. 21. 2. 50 : Si pignora ueneant per apparitores praetoris . . . nemo unquam dixit dandam in eos esse actionem re euicta ; sed si dolo rem uiliori pretio proiecerunt, tunc de dolo actio datur aduersus eos domino rei.. Cp. D. 20. 5. 10; C. viii. 45. 1 and 2.

§ 17. An express stipulation for the double in case of eviction does not apply to the accessories or produce; it is construed strictly 1 teneri ? (Cuj.) obligata ? (Mom.)

3 sunt?

15. He is quoted by Minicius as saying, in his tenth book, that where a man has sold a slave on the condition that he will give security for double the price within a month, and thereafter be free of responsibility, and the purchaser has let the time expire without requiring security, the seller will not escape liability for selling another man's slave, unless he did it in ignorance; in which case he and his heirs are bound merely to do nothing to disturb the buyer's possession : but if he knowingly sells a slave belonging to another, that is fraud, and it will expose him to the action on purchase.

16. I think the opinion given by Julian is equally true of things pledged: for if a creditor in the exercise of his rights has sold a pledge, he cannot be compelled even to restore the price if the buyer is subsequently evicted and brings the action on purchase: that has been enacted by several constitutions. Of course the seller will be responsible for fraud; in fact he undertakes to answer for fraud: but even though he has given no undertaking, if he sells a thing knowing it is not pledged to him, or that the inan who pledged it was not the owner, he can be sued by the action on purchase, because, as we have shown above, he is responsible for fraud.

17. If a man, when selling a thing, declares that some other thing will go with it as an accessory, the same principles apply to the accessory as have been laid down for sale in general, with this exception, that the seller is not liable to the penalty of the double in the event of eviction; he is only bound to secure the purchaser in undisturbed possession both as regards himself and all others.

18. We have to consider next what liability is incurred by

§ 18. The connection of ideas in this section requires some attention. In the first part down to non tenebitur, Ulpian distinguishes between what in Scotland is called 'absolute warrandice and warrandice from fact and deed'; under the former the seller is liable contra omnes mortales for every defect in the right which he has granted; under the latter he and his heirs are bound to do nothing inconsistent with the grant, but he is praestare. et multum interesse arbitror, utrum hoc polliceatur per se uenientesque a se personas non fieri, quo minus habere liceat, an uero per omnes. nam si per se, non uidetur id praestare, ne alius euincat : proinde si euicta res erit, siue stipulatio interposita est, ex stipulatu non tenebitur, siue non est interposita, ex empto non tenebitur. sed Iulianus libro quinto decimo digestorum scribit, etiamsi aperte uenditor pronuntiet per se heredemque suum non fieri, quo minus habere liceat, posse defendi ex empto eum in hoc quidem non teneri, quod emptoris interest, uerum tamen ut pretium reddat teperi. ibidem ait idem esse dicendum et si aperte in uenditione comprehendatur nihil euictionis nomine praestatum iri: pretium quidem deberi re euicta, utilitatem non deberi: neque enim bonae fidei contractus hac patitur conuentione, ut emptor rem amitteret et pretium uenditor retineret. nisi forte, inquit, sic quis omnes istas supra scriptas conuentiones recipiet, quemadmodum recipitur, ut uenditor nummos accipiat, quamuis merx ad emptorem non pertineat, ueluti cum futurum iactum retis a piscatore emimus aut indaginem plagis positis a uenatore uel pantheram ab aucupe : nam etiamsi nihil capit, , nihilo minus emptor pretium praestare necesse habebit. sed in supra scriptis conuentionibus contra erit dicendum: nisi forte sciens alienum uendit: tunc enim secundum supra a nobis relatam Iuliani sententiam dicendum est ex empto eum teneri, quia dolo facit.

absolutely protected from action at the instance of the buyer on account of eviction at the hands of any other person,—there is implied, in fact, a tacit pactum de non praestanda euictione, which shuts out any possible demand for return of the price in such a contingency. In the succeeding passage (sed. Iulianus praestare necesse habebit) Ulpian quotes a rather hesitating opinion of Julian to the effect that such a pact, whether express or implied, releases the seller merely from the obligation to make good the interesse, but not from an obligation to return the price, for he considers it to be inequitable that the buyer should lose both the property and the price, unless indeed a sale with such 1 utitur ? (Mom.)

? pantherau ?

« FöregåendeFortsätt »