item   Celsus   libro   XXVII   Digestorum   scribit:   si   cum   apes  meae   ad   tuas   advolassent,   tu   eas   exusseris,   quosdam  negare   competere   legis   Aquiliae   actionem,   inter   quos   et  Proculum,   quasi   apes   domini   mei   non   fuerint.   sed   id   falsum  esse   Celsus   ait,   cum   apes   revenire   soleant   et   fructui   mihi  sint.   sed   Proculus   eo   movetur,   quod   nec   mansuetae   nec   ita  clausae   fuerint.   ipse   autem   Celsus   ait   nihil   inter   has   et  columbas   interesse,   quae,   si   manum   refugiunt,   domi   tamen  fugiunt

Likewise,   Celsus,   in   the   twenty-seventh   book   of   his  Digests,   writes   that   if   my   bees   fly   over   onto   your   (property)  and   you   burn   them   up,   some   jurists   deny   that   the   action  under   the   lex   Aquilia   lies,   among   them   is   Proculus,   on   the  theory   that   the   bees   are   not   my   property.   But   Celsus   says  that   this   is   false,   since   the   bees   are   accustomed   to   return  and   are   a   source   of   profit   for   me.   But   Proculus   was   swayed  by   the   fact   that   they   are   neither   domesticated   nor  sufficiently   enclosed.   Still,   Celsus   himself   says   that   there  is   no   difference   between   them   and   doves,   which,   if   they  escape the hand, still fly home

Footnote.

Si   eo   tempore,   quo   tibi   meus   servus   quem   bona   fide   emisti  serviebat,   ipse   a   servo   tuo   vulneratus   est,   placuit  omnimodo me tecum recte lege aquilia experiri

If   my   slave,   whom   you   bought   in   good   faith,   was   serving  you,   and   during   that   time   he   was   wounded   by   your   slave,  in   the   prevailing   view   I   can   in   any   case   rightly   sue   you  under the  lex Aquilia

Footnote.

Sed   si   commune   serum   occiderit   quis,   Aquilia   teneri   eum  Celsus  2  ait, idem est et si vulneraverit

But   if   someone   slays   a   co-owned   slave,   Celsus   says   that  he   is   liable   in   an   Aquilian   action,   likewise   if   he   wounds   him

Ulpianus   1 .   D.9.2.20.   in   the   forty-second   book   on   Sabinus.   obiter   dictum .   Co-owned   Slave   Injured   or   Killed   by   a   Third  Party.  Lex Aquilia . liability

That   is   in   proportion   to   the   share   that   the   property   owner  (dominus)  owns

Footnote.

Item     civitas   Romana   peregrino   fingitur,   si   eo   nomine   aga  aut   cum   eo   agatur,   quo   nomine   nostris   legibus   actio  constituta   est,   si   modo   iustum   sit   eam   actionem   etiam   ad  peregrinum   extendi,   veluti   si   furti   agat   peregrinus   aut   cum  eo   agatur…similiter,   si   ex   lege   Aquilia   peregrinus   damni  iniuriae   agat   aut   cum   eo   agatur,     ficta   civitate   Romana  iudicium datur

Likewise,   if   a   non-citizen   sues   or   is   sued   on   a   cause   for  which   our   statutes   establish   an   action,   he   is   fictitiously  treated   as   a   Roman   citizen,   provided   that   it   is   just   that   this  action   be   extended   also   to   a   non-citizen,   for   instance,   if   a  non-citizen   sues   or   is   sued   for   theft   (furtum) …Likewise,   if  under   the   lex   Aquilia   a   non-citizen   sues   or   is   sued   for 

hanc   actionem   et   heredi   ceterisque   successoribus   dari  constat,   sed   in   heredem   vel   ceteros   haec   actio   non   dabitur,  cum   sit   poenalis,   nisi   forte   ex   damno   locupletior   heres  factus sit

It   is   agreed   that   this   action   is   granted   both   to   the   heir   and  to   other   successors.   But   this   action   will   not   be   granted  against   the   heir   or   others,   since   it   is   penal,   unless  perchance   the   heir   became   wealthier   as   a   result   of   the   loss

Footnote.

ob   id,   quod   ante   quam   hereditatem   adires   damnum  admissum   in   res   hereditaries   est.   legis   Aquuilae   actionem  habes,   quod   post   mortem   eius,   cui   heres   sis,   acciderit,  dominum   enim   lex   Aquilia   appellat   non   utique   eum,   qui  tunc   fuerit,   cum   damnum   daretur,   nam   isto   modo   ne   ab   eo  quidem,   cui   heres   quis   erit,   transire   ad   eum   ea   actio   poterit,  neque   ob   id,   quod   tum   commissum   fuerit,   cum   in   hostium  potestate   esses,   agree   postliminio   reverus   poteris,   et   hoc  aliter   constitui   sine   magna   captione   postumorum  liberorum, qui parentibus heredes erunt, non poterit…

As   to   lose   an   estate   suffered   before   you   took   up   an  inheritance,   you   have   an   action   under   the   lex   Aquilia   for  what   happened   after   the   death   of   the   person   from   whom  you   inherited.   For   the   lex   Aquilia   does   not   name   (the)  owner,   only   the   person   who   owned   when   the   loss   was  given,   since   if   that   were   true,   the   action   could   not   even   pass  from   the   dead   person   to   his   heir,   nor   could   you   sue,   by   right  of   postliminium   after   your   return,   for   (loss)   that   was  inflicted   while   you   were   in   the   hands   of   enemies;   and   this  issue   cannot   be   differently   decided   without   great  disadvantage   to   posthumous   children   who   inherit   from  their parents… 

Footnote.

si   servus   hereditarius   occidatur,   quaeritur,   quis   Aquilia  agat,   cum   dominus   nullus   sit   huius   servi.   et   ait   Celsus   2   legem   domino   damna   salva   esse   voluisse,   dominus   ergo  hereditas   habebitur,   quare   adita   hereditate   heres   poterit  experiri.   si   servus   legatus   post   aditam   hereditatem   sit  occisus,   competere   legis   Aquiliae   actionem   legatario,   si  non   post   mortem   servi   adgnovit   legatum,   quod   si  repudiavit,   consequens   esse   ait   Iulianus   3   dicere   heredi  competere

If   a   slave   in   an   inheritance   is   slain,   a   question   arises   as   to  who   has   the   Aquilian   action,   since   there   is   no   owner   of   this  slave.   Celsus   says   that   the   statute   wanted   the   owner’s  losses   to   be   compensated,   therefore   the   inheritance   is  regarded   as   the   owner.   Hence   the   heir   can   sue   when   the  inheritance   is   accepted.   If   a   legated   slave   was   slain   after  the   inheritance   is   accepted,   (a   jurist   says)   that   the   action  under   the   lex   Aquilia   goes   to   the   legatee   unless   he  accepted   the   legacy   (only)   after   the   slave’s   death,   but   if   he  rejected   it   Julian   says   the   logical   consequence   is   that   it  goes to the heir

Footnote.

an   fructuarius   vel   usuarius   legis   Aquiliae   actionem   haberet,  Iulianus   tractat,   et   ego   puto   melius   utile   iudicium   ex   hac  causa dandum

Julian   considers   whether   a   person   who   holds   a   usufruct   or  a   right   of   use   has   the   action   under   the   lex   Aquilia.   I   think  the   better   solution   is   that   an   analogous   action   (utile  iudicium)  should be given in these circumstances

Sed   et   si   proprietatis   dominus   vulneraverit   serum   vel  occiderit,   in   quo   usus   fructus   meus   est,   danda   est   mihi   ad  exemplum   legis   Aquiliae   actio   in   eum   pro   portione   usus  fructus,   ut   etiam   ea   pars   anni   in   aestimationem   veniat,   qua  nondum usus fructus meus fuit

But   also   if   the   owner   of   the   property   wounds   or   slays   a  slave   in   whom   I   have   a   usufruct,   I   should   be   granted   an  action   against   him,   on   the   model   of   the   lex   Aquilia,   in  proportion   to   the   usufruct,   (but)   so   that   the   part   of   the   year  is also evaluated in which I did not yet have the usufruct

pignori   datus   servus   si   occisus   sit,   debitori   actio   competit.  sed   an   et   creditori   danda   sit   utilis,   quia   potest   interesse  eius,   quod   debitor   solvendo   non   sit   aut   quod   litem   tempore  amisit,   quaeritur.   sed   hic   iniquum   est   et   dominio   et   creditori  eum   teneri.   nisi   quis   putaverit   nullam   in   ea   re   debitorem  iniuriam   passurum,   cum   prosit   ei   ad   debiti   quantitatem   et  quod   sit   amplius   consecuturus   sit   ab   eo,   vel   ab   initio   in   id,  quod   amplius   sit   quam   in   debito,   debitori   dandam  actionem,   et   ideo   in   his   casibus,   in   quibus   creditori   danda  est   actio   propter   inopiam   debitoris   vel   quod   litem   amisit,  creditor   quidem   usque   ad   modum   debiti   habebit   Aquiliae  actionem,   ut   prosit   hoc   debitori,   ipsi   autem   debitori   in   id  quod debitum excedit competit Aquiliae actio 

If   a   slave   was   given   as   a   pledge   (pignus)   and   then   slain,   the  debtor   has   the   action.   But   question   is   raised   whether   an  analogous   action   (actio   utilis)   should   also   be   granted   to   the  creditor,   since   he   may   have   an   interest   because   the   debtor  is   insolvent   or   his   suit   on   the   debt   is   barred   by   lapse   of  time.   But   here   it   is   unfair   that   he   (the   defendant)   be   liable   to  both   the   debtor   and   creditor.   Unless   one   thinks   that   the  debtor   will   suffer   no   wrong   in   this   matter,   since   he   is  advantaged   as   regards   the   amount   of   the   debt   and   will  recover   the   surplus   from   him,   or   that   the   debtor   should  from   the   start   be   granted   an   action   for   the   surplus   over   and  above   the   debt.   And   so   in   these   cases   where   the   action  should   be   granted   to   the   creditor   because   of   the   debtor’s  insolvency   or   because   action   is   barred,   the   creditor   will  have   an   Aquilian   action   up   to   the   amount   of   the   debt   so   as  to   benefit   the   debtor,   but   the   debtor   has   the   Aquilian   action  for the excess over the debt

si   dominus   serum   suum   occiderit,   bonae   fidei   possessori  vel qui pignori accepit in factum actione tenebitur

If   an   owner   slays   his   own   slave,   he   will   be   liable   through   an  in   factum   action   to   a   good   faith   possessor   or   to   a   person  who received  (the object)  a s a pledge

Footnote.

eum,   cui   vestimenta   commodata   sunt,   non   posse,   si   scissa  fuerint,   lege   Aquilia   agree   Iulianus   ait,   sed   domino   eam  competere

Julian   says   that   a   person   who   is   lent   clothing   cannot   sue  under   the   lex   Aquilia   if   it   is   torn,   but   the   owner   has   the  action

Footnote.

ad   eos,   qui   servandum   aliquid   conducunt   au   utendum  accipiunt,   damnum   iniuria   ab   alio   datum   non   pertinere  procul   dubio   est,   qua   enim   cura   aut   diligentia   consequi  possumus, ne aliquis damnum nobis iniuria det 

It   is   beyond   doubt   that   those   who   undertake   to   guard  something   (for   pay)   or   who   receive   its   (gratuitous)   use   are  not   liable   for   wrongful   loss   inflicted   by   a   third   party.   For  what   care   or   diligence   of   ours   can   prevent   someone   from  inflicting wrongful loss on us?

Footnote.