Justinian I, Institutes 3.19.12
created: This entry is taken from Institutes 3.19.12 written by Justinian I in 533 C.E..
edition published: 2023-04-28-05:00
language: la; la
availability: Except for materials quoted from other sources, this entry is copyright 2023 by the contributors (Joseph L. Rife, et al.) and the Caesarea City and Port Exploration Project. It is licensed under the Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license. Some texts quoted in this entry may be in the public domain in the United States. No copyright is asserted for these quotations. Some texts quoted in this entry may have copyright restrictions and are reused under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)

https://caesarea-maritima.org/testimonia/449

Caesarienses

, and

Caesarea

are directly attested at Justinian I, Institutes 3.19.12. This passage was written ca. 533 C.E. possibly in Constantinople. Early in his reign the emperor Justinian directed a comprehensive reform of Roman Law that compiled and edited earlier jurisprudence. This new sole authority on legal matters, the Body of Civil Law (Corpus iuris civilis), contained three parts, the Code, Digest, and Institutes. The Institutes was developed under the quaestor Tribonian and the scholars Theophilus and Dorotheus and published on November 21, 533 C.E. It was distilled from earlier authoritative compilations, particularly the Institutes by Gaius of the mid-2nd century C.E., to serve as an instructional text, but also as a statement of basic law in force. In this passage from the section “Ineffective stipulations” (de inutilibus stipulationibus), the compilers address the invalidation of various conditions attached to legal agreements. They cite a law issued following the request of lawyers at Caesarea, stating that parties to an obligation must be present, or that they prove presence by documentation, unless there is clear evidence of absence by records or witnesses.

Item verborum obligatio inter absentes concepta inutilis est. sed cum hoc materiam litium contentiosis hominibus praestabat, forte post tempus tales allegationes opponentibus et non praesentes esse vel se vel adversarios suos contendentibus: ideo nostra constitutio propter celeritatem dirimendarum litium introducta est, quam ad Caesarienses advocatos scripsimus, per quam disposuimus, tales scripturas quae praesto esse partes indicant omnimodo esse credendas, nisi ipse qui talibus utitur improbis allegationibus manifestissimis probationibus vel per scripturam vel per testes idoneos approbaverit, in ipso toto die quo conficiebatur instrumentum sese vel adversarium suum in aliis locis esse.

[Ed. Mommsen and Krueger [1886] 2000]

Next, a verbal obligation made between persons who are not present with one another is void. This rule, however, afforded contentious persons opportunities for litigation, by alleging after some interval that they, or their adversaries, had not been present on the occasion in question. That is why to speed up litigation we issued a constitution addressed to the advocates of Caesarea. Thereby we enacted that written documents which indicate that the parties were present shall be taken as conclusive, unless the person who resorts to such suspect allegations proves by the clearest evidence either in writing or from respectable witnesses that, during the whole day on which the document was made, he or his adversary was in another place.

[Revised from Birks and McLeod 1987 with ref. to Moyle 1913]

Works Cited

[...] 3 19.12
[...] 139

Additional Bibliography

[...] 110-111

[Byzantine History

Economy and Commerce

Government and Law]