장음표시 사용
181쪽
NTTE L. 63 anothe wit 1ntent os appropriation, ut comprises also alicorporeat dealing wit the properinos another against the willos the o ner Thus, sor asa ne to se the ining hic hetas in pawn or torus a thin committe to one'saeepinyas a deposit, o to pudia ining Whichris lent sor serio a differentus tha that sor hic it was lent, is thest; to horro state, sor instance, o the representatio that the horro e is mingis enteriain his stiends, and then to car citis a into themunt o to horroW a horserior a drive, and then to tali it Dos theraeigh uinood, o like in man in the old sto , totis it into batile. Wit regar ho eve to thos persons in pu a thin lent sor se to a different purpos than thelender contemplared, the rule is that inenare milinos thestoni is in ano it to e contra 'o the wil of the o ner, and that is heia notice he would resus permissiona ut is the bello that he would give permission it is no inest: and the distinctio is just for there is no thest,ithout un-la ut intention It is also salesno tot inest is a man turn 8
a stinguent sor serio a se ther than he helimes iis o ner. id sanction, though in mint of sact iis owner is consenting. Whence Mose the solio ing question is Titius soliciis the flaveos aevius to stea properinos the alter, an convenit tohim, and the lave insorms aevius oscit, ho, ishin todetret Titius in the very aci, allows the lave to conventheproper 'olim an an actionis inest, o sor corrupting the flave, orietther, be maintained against Titius p The case, submitte torus, and we examine the conflicting opinions of the earlier urist omine matter some of whom thought thalneither actio lay an othem, that aevius might sue ominestonly. But we, in orde to put amen to suo quibbles have macted hyiu decisio that in suc a case both in actionon inest and that sor corruptingis lave halicite. Dis truesta the flave has no been corrupte by the aclvances madela tam so that in case cloes no come ithin the rules hichintroduceo the actio sor such corruption: et the would-be corrupter's intention was to malielim dis nest so that he isti te to a pena action, exactinas is the lave had actuallybeen corrupted test his immunit stom punishmentis uiden urage iners to perpetrate a similar Wrongin a flave less
182쪽
1M BOOK IV.s stron to resis temptation. in re man is may be thesubjec os a thes sor instance, a chil in m po er, is
times steat his own properi sor instance, a deblor hopurioin the goods hic he has ledge to a creditori II hes may be charmabie on a person ho is no the Perpetrator on him, amely by hose id an a tmenta thesi is committed Among such person w may mentionthe man who nocks money out Dyour hanessor another topic up o Who stanes in Our Way that another mansnatin
another manstea them, like the an in the old books, whowaved a re cloth to righte a hercl. Is the fame thin were done a a Dolic, without the intentionis assistin a inest theprope action is no thest, butis the case. Where ho everTitius commits inest it therui os aevius both are liableto an actionis thest. A man to is held is have aide ancla ite a inest,ho places a ladde unde a Windo orireari ope a Windo or a door, in orde that another a steat, o whoclends' is sor in breahingis them pen or a lauderio place unde a indo , is he knows the objec sor hichtheriare bono ed. It is clea that a mancis no liatile oninest, ho though he advises and instigates the offence, cloes 12 no actualinat in iis commission Is a chil in Power, o aflave, Stea properinos his ather o master, it is thest, and the properi is deeme stolen so that no ne an acquire itis usucapion untii it has returned into the hand of the wner; butio action,ilicii on the thest, because etWeen a son inpower an his ather, o belween a flave an hi master, noaction illesimo any ground whatsoeveri ut is the offenderis aide an abetted by a thir person the lalter is liatile toan actio on thest, hecaus a thes has in faci been committed, an is his aio an abelment 13 The actio on thest ili te at the sui os an person intereste in the securit of the proper , even though he
deblor e persecti able o pay the debit sor it is more
183쪽
personat actio : and this rule is so unbending that eum thepamor lio steat a pawn is su te so thes by the paWnee. So, filothes are delivereo tome cleaneso finished or mende 15sor a certain remuneration, and the are stolen it is the sullero testor,ho can sue o the thest, an no the wnera sor theoWne suffers nothing by the loss having the actionis lettingagainst the sulleris tallor so the recove is his property. Similari a purchaser in good aith, even though a good litteras omer is notatve lolim, cantring the actionis thestis the properimis stolen exactly like thesa nee The actionvs ho ever no maintainable at the fuit os adulter o tallor, unies hecis solvent that is o say, unies hecis able to sullyindemnis the wner is hecis insolvent the wner annot
recove seo him, an so can maintain an actio against thethies, Ming on this hypothesis, intereste in the recoveryo the proper . here the sulle or allor is ninparilyinstea os holi solvent the rule is the fame. The olde 16l-yers hel that what has been sal of the suller an tallor applied ais to the borrowerrior se, o the ground that asine remuneration hic the suller receives mahes him responsibi sor custody so the aduantam hic the borrower derives rom the se requires him to kee it asely at his peril Our isdom howeve has amende thema in his particula inmur decisions by allowing the wner in optionos suin either in borrower nactionis the oan or thethie is actionis thest though,hen his choice has been determinedie cannot change his mino, an reson to the theraction. fae presem to sue the thies, the bono e is absolutet released Do liability; ut iste proceed against theborro er, he anno in an way himself sue the thies o thenealing, though this may be done by the borrower, ho is defendant in the ther action, provide that the wnerknew, at the time hen e egan his actio against theborrower, that he hin ha been stolen Isine is imorantos this, o even is hecis meret doubilat whether the borro erstillias the properi in his possession or not an sues himo the loan, he may on subsequently learning the facis, and is, Wishes to dro the action hic he has commenced, and
184쪽
sue in thies inste , adopt this courae, in hic case oobstacle is to Methrown in his Way, hecauserit Was in ignorariCethat he too actio an sue the borrower On the loan. fhoweve the wner has been indemnifie by the borro er, irino case canis bring the actionis inest against the thies, ashis right os actio pas to the person who has compensat him so the lossis his proper . Converset it is clear matis, at the ouiset, the wnees gan an actioni thecloan againstine borrower not knowing that in properi ha been tolera, and subsequently ondeaming this procrede against in thies inste , in borrower is absolutes rete e sim liabili . Whateve may be the result os the wner' actio against thethies the rules ing the fame, hether the borrower IIYi or only partiali solven As a deposita cis no ans eratile so the sala taeping os the thin deposited, but onlyrior frauci, and is it is stolen is no compellabierio mali restitution is actionis deposit, he has no interest is it is tost, and therescirecte actio os inest is maintain te ni by the depositoriis inalty it has been a question inether a chiles low the ageos puberty in carries away the properinos another, is mit os inest he answerris that, a thes depend on intentiori, obligationis inest is no incurre unles the chil is eari puber , and w undemiand ita delinquen . The objectis the actio on inest, hether it e sor oubie or quadrumethe value os in mod stolen is meret the recover of the penalty to recove the good themselves o thei value theowner has an independent rem fis vindication or condictiori Therio e is the prope remedWwhen it is known in is in possession of the goods, whether inis e the thies o any oneelse in lalter lies against the thiesis his heir, hether in possessionis the stolen proper i noti TITLE II.
Robbernis charge te also as inest sor,ho dealx in the Properi os mother more against that ther' Will than therobber An thus the description os the obher a ariaudacious thies is a good one. mowever, as a species rem γ
185쪽
NTLES I--Π. 67sor his offence in praetor has introduce in actio sorro e , or rapine with violence, Which may be brought withina ear sor our times the value aster a ea sor simpledamages, and which lies even when onina single thingis thesliotest value has been ta n with violence. his ou oldvalue, however, is no ali penalty nor is there an independent actio for the recover os the properi or iis value, RS eo erve was the case in the actionis inest detecte in the commissiona ut the ining or iis valueris include in theriour- sold, so that in potnt os faci the penalty is three times theolue of the property, and this,hether in robberie taken in the acti not sor it wout be absurd to treat a robber more liotly than ne ho carries o properi meret Secretim This actio is maintainable only where the robbernis attende 1Wit wron ut intention consequently is a man by mistavethought that propert was his own and in his ignorance oslaw, forcibly carrie it ori the belles that it, da fui sor ano ne to tali aWay, even by sorce, a thini longindito himself Dom a person in hos possession it, , he anno behel li te to this action an similarino principie he would no in suta a casei suabie so thest. est hoWeve robbera, unde in clohe os such a lea, should discove a metho of
cari o moveatae property, inanimate or animate, menthough he helieverit to belon to him and that whosoeverdiso y this shali sorseit in propeny is in fac ille his, andis it he not shali restore it, and along wit it iis value in money. An by the said constitutions it is also declared that this pro-Visio relates no onlyrio move les of Which alone robberyca be committed), but also in orcibi entries o lan and
os hic robher has been committe should elon to theplainti' provide thenwere inhen stomomon hi proPer . Thus, is a thingis let, or lent, or pledge to Titius, o evendeposited with him unde such circumstances that he has an
186쪽
interest in iis notieing carrie o sor instance, is his havineundertaken the entire responsibilit sor ita fas custody --oris he possesses it in good salth, or has a ususructi annother
Unlawsul clamage is actionabie unde the lex Aquilia, whose first chapter provides that is a flavem another man or a quadruped Do his flocks or hercls, he unlawsully killed, the offendershalliant the owne whateve was the highest value thereos 1 within the ear neκ immediatet preceding. From theriactthat this enaciment cloes no spea os quadruped simply, butoni o suc quadruped as are usuali include unde theide os flocks an hetas, it is to e inserre that it has noapplication to wil animal orrio dogs, butininto such Masti
because thenseed in his manner; thus Homer in his OdyMey, a quote by Aelius arcianus in his Institutes, says, You Willfin him sitiing among his swine and thenare laedin by the 2 Roc os Coraκ, ver against the pring Arethusa o kill unlawsuli is to kill Withou any right thus a man whoaillsa robber is not liable to this action, is he could in no the ways escape the clange by whic he was threatened Sonoo whereone man kill another by misadventure hecis notulabi underinis statute, provide there is no aut o caretessnes on his part otherwis it is different, or unde this statute care- 4 lessnescis a punishable a Willat wrong-doing Accordingly
187쪽
TIT S I LIT. 169is a man whil playing o practising with avelins, runs your flave throuo asine passes by a distinctio is drawn. scit hedone is a soldie in his exercising ground that is o say, Where such practice is usuali conducted hecis in no anto blame; ut is ille done is sommone else, his caret Anes Will
Hon medicines an similarinisbour lave is unisve by 8acleam os mutes, whic the driver has nodienough skill to holo, the latis is suabie so caretessnes and the caseris the Sameis he was impi no stron enouo to hol them, providedihey could have been hel by a stronger man. The rule also applies to una an mes, is the running waycis due to therides deficien 'ither in skill or in strength. The memingios the word of the statute ,hateve was the highest valuethereos,ithin the ear is that is an one, sor instance, hilis a lave os oum, ho at the momentis his eat is lame, o maimed, o blin os one eye, but within the ea wassound and wort a price, the person holitis him is ans erable not meret sor his value at the time os his death, but sorhichi est value Within the eari It is owing to this that theactio unde this statute is deeme to e penal, ecause a defendant is ometimes ound o Pa a sum no merelyequivalent to the clamage he has done but sar in excessis it; and consequently the right os suingrander the statute cloes not
188쪽
orde accepted hecis lain the value os in inheritance mulio misse must be alien into consideration an so morisone os a patris mutes, o one os Mur chario homes, o one fa compannos flave playem is illed account icto be latannotininos halcis killed, hut also os in extentrio hic the 1 others have been depreciatecl. The wner hos Sime Iskille has the optionis suing the wrongcloe so clam es in private actio unde the te Aquilia oris accusing him ona capital charge by indiciment.12 Theraecon chapter of the te Aquilia is now obsolete the 13 thir mahes provision o ali damage hic is no covere hytheirst. Accordingly, is a flave, o some quadruped Whiin comes Within iis terms, is ounded, or is a quadruped Whichcloes no Come within iis terms, such as a clogi Wil animal, is ounde or illed, an actio is provide by this hapter; an is an other animal or inanimate hin is unia fullydamaged a remedycis herei assorde& sor ali burning, breaking, an crushin is here, made actionable though inde the single ores breaking covem at these offences denotingas it cloes ever kin os injury so that notinincrushin anciburning but any cuuing, bruising Spilling, destroying or deterioratiniis hereis denominat . inalty it has Me decideri that is one man miκes omething with another' Wine or i , so as to pol iis natura modness, hecis liable unde this 1 chapter os the statute. It is obvious that, as a mancis liableunde the fidit hapter only Where a lave or quadrum icthille by κpres designis inrough negligenc on hi Pari,so oo e is answerable sor ait ther amage unde inim
189쪽
NTLES LT IV. 71 value Whic the thinchad w1thi a mar, hut that whic it hae Wistin the las iniri da , hic is harmabiein the authoros in mischies It is true that here the statute cloes no ex 15 preMj san in hi es value,' ut Sabinus rightly hel that the damages musti assesse aiis the wordi highest valve' occurre also in this chapter the Romam opte Who enactedinis statute o the pro sal of Aquilius the tribune having thought it sufficient torus them in therars Chapter only. It is hel that a direct action lim unde this statute only 16When thea nos the ostende is substantialty the instrumento mischies Rama occasionitos to another in annother Way, a modifie action ill usuali lie against im sor
in limbing the ne or goin dom in other, is ille orinjure in an part os his Ody, a modifie actio is in allium cases give against him. ut is a flave is pushe offa bridge or an into a river, and there drowned, it is clear smintheriacis that in damage is substantiali done by the d of the ostender, ho is consequently liable directly unde the lex Aquilia. Is damage be done not by the bodynor' a body, ut in ome ther sorm, either the direct nor the modifie Aquilia action il lie, though it is held
190쪽
equivalent to the Gree Miari ii an somelimes iniquitnandimustice, hic the Greelis express by αδικία; thus a litigantis sal to have received an injury when in praetori juclge deliversis urius judgmen against him. An injurnor utrage is inflicte no only by strikin With the fift, a stich, ora hip hut also is vituperation sor the purpos os collecting
rage is committe o a lave o ne by tW o more Persons
jointly the damage to e ai to these severalty shout beassesse With resercnce no to the hares in hic thenown him, but to their an or position ascit is to the reputationman notrio properinthat the injurnis done an is an utramis committe o a lave belongin tomaevius, but in homTitius has a sustuci, the injurnis deeme tole done to the forme rathe than to the lalter But is the person utramcl is