Francisci Hotomani iurisconsulti observationum liber IIII

should be looked at. But the favor of liberty overcame subtlety. However that may be, law 3, Digest, on those by whom one is led to liberty, has nothing to do with this. For that law was introduced in hatred of the mother who allowed herself to be sold. The other dissension is in the question, whether a contractor is held for damage caused by another? Which Iulianus had denied. Marcellus and Ulpianus affirmed it in law but of damage 41, Digest, on letting and hiring. What therefore was the slackness, foolishness, or drunkenness of Tribonianus, who proposed to us as good, accepted, and approved that same condemned and repudiated opinion of Iulianus, even though it was explained in more words in another place, in law to them 19, Digest, on loan for use?

It is agreed among all that there were two varied constitutions about a pact of manumitting interposed in the sale of slaves. One of Hadrianus, which required manumission: another of Marcus, which granted liberty by the law itself. Law last, Digest, on slaves exported; law 2; law 3, Code, if slaves have been sold in such a way. But it is wondrous that when Scaevola was ignorant of the constitution of Marcus, in the said last law, Ulpianus nevertheless explicitly testifies that he took the argument for his dispute from it, in law it is true 11, section 1, Digest, on minors, which clearly refutes the error of those who affirm that Scaevola did not reach the reign of Marcus. Not to delay with many things, I believe at the time when Scaevola edited his books of the Digest, from which the said last law is described, that constitution of Marcus had not yet been edited: but at the time when he edited his books of Questions, it had been promulgated: which books