For a better understanding of the complexities of the shipping business we have collected a number of legal texts from the corpus of civil law (Digesta), reflecting the situation in the first half of the third century. The translation is by Alan Watson.
3.4.1 Item collegia Romae certa sunt, quorum corpus senatus consultis atque principalibus constitutionibus confirmatum est, veluti pistorum et quorundam aliorum et naviculariorum, qui et in provinciis sunt. Likewise, there are certain collegia at Rome whose corporate status has been established by senatus consulta and imperial constitutiones, for example, those of the bakers and certain others and of the shipowners, who are found in the provinces too. 4.9.7 Debet exercitor omnium nautarum suorum, sive liberi sint sive servi, factum praestare: nec immerito factum eorum praestat, cum ipse eos suo periculo adhibuerit. Sed non alias praestat, quam si in ipsa nave damnum datum sit: ceterum si extra navem licet a nautis, non praestabit. Item si praedixerit, ut unusquisque vectorum res suas servet neque damnum se praestaturum, et consenserint vectores praedictioni, non convenitur. The person in charge of the ship ought to be liable for the acts of all his sailors, whether they are free men or slaves; nor undeservedly is he liable for their acts since he himself has made use of their services at his own risk. But he is liable only if the loss has occurred on the ship itself; if out of the ship, although by sailors, he will not be liable. Likewise, if he declared that each passenger should look after his own property and that he would not be liable for loss, and the passengers have agreed to this declaration, he is not sued. 4.9.7.2 Sed si quid nautae inter se damni dederint. Hoc ad exercitorem non pertinet. Sed si quis sit nauta et mercator, debiti illi dari: quod si quis quos volgo nautepibatas dicunt, et huic tenebitur, sed huius factum praestat, cum sit et nauta. But if the crew have caused any damage among themselves, this will not affect the person in charge of the ship. But if a person is both sailor and merchant, the action ought to be given to him. But if any of those popularly called "persons working their passage" suffers loss, the person in charge is also liable to him; but in addition he is liable for his acts, since he is a sailor as well. 4.9.7.3 Si servus nautae damnum dederit, licet servus nauta non sit, aequissimum erit in exercitorem actionem utilem dare. If a slave of a sailor has caused damage, although the slave is not a sailor, it will be most fair to give an actio utilis against the person in charge. 4.9.7.4 Hac autem actione suo nomine exercitor tenetur, culpae scilicet suae qui tales adhibuit: et ideo et si decesserint, non relevabitur. Servorum autem suorum nomine noxali dumtaxat tenetur: nam cum alienos adhibet, explorare eum oportet, cuius fidei, cuius innocentiae sint: in suis venia dignus est, si qualesquales ad instruendam navem adhibuerit. Moreover, the person in charge of the ship is liable under this action on his own account, of course, in respect of his fault in employing such persons. And therefore, even if they have died, he will not be relieved. However, he is liable only noxally in respect of his own slaves. For when he employs another's slaves, he ought to investigate their reliability and integrity. In the case of his own, he deserves to be excused, whatever kind he has employed to fit out the ship. 4.9.7.5 Si plures navem exerceant, unusquisque pro parte, qua navem exercet, convenitur. If there are several persons in charge of the ship, each is sued in proportion to his share in the business. 4.9.7.6 Haec iudicia quamvis honoraria sunt, tamen perpetua sunt: in heredem autem non dabuntur. Proinde et si servus navem exercuit et mortuus est, de peculio non dabitur actio in dominum nec intra annum. Sed cum voluntate patris vel domini servus vel filius exercent navem vel cauponam vel stabulum, puto etiam hanc actionem in solidum eos pati debere, quasi omnia, quae ibi contingunt, in solidum receperint. These actions, although praetorian, are nevertheless without restriction of time. However, they are not given against the heir. Accordingly, if a slave has been in charge of a ship and has died, the action on the peculium will not be given against his master not even within the year. But when, with the consent of his father or master, a son or slave manages a ship or inn or stable, I think that the former ought also to suffer this action to the extent of the whole loss on the ground that they have undertaken liability for the whole in respect of everything which happens. 14.1.1 Utilitatem huius edicti patere nemo est qui ignoret. Nam cum interdum ignari, cuius sint condicionis vel quales, cum magistris propter navigandi necessitatem contrahamus, aequum fuit eum, qui magistrum navi imposuit, teneri, ut tenetur, qui institorem tabernae vel negotio praeposuit, cum sit maior necessitas contrahendi cum magistro quam institore. Quippe res patitur, ut de condicione quis institoris dispiciat et sic contrahat: in navis magistro non ita, nam interdum locus tempus non patitur plenius deliberandi consilium. Everyone acknowledges the practical value of this edict: Just as liability is imposed on the person who puts someone in to manage a shop or business, so it is only fair to impose liability on the person who appoints a ship's captain, since people who need to go by ship may not be aware of the standing or character of the man with whom they have to deal. Indeed, one's dealings with the captain of a ship may be more urgent than those with the manager of a business, since one can always check the standing of a business manager before dealing with him, whereas with a ship's captain there may not be information on the spot or enough time for full consideration. 14.1.1.1 Magistrum navis accipere debemus, cui totius navis cura mandata est. By "ship's captain," we mean the person who is given charge of the whole ship. 14.1.1.2 Sed si cum quolibet nautarum sit contractum, non datur actio in exercitorem, quamquam ex delicto cuiusvis eorum, qui navis navigandae causa in nave sint, detur actio in exercitorem: alia enim est contrahendi causa, alia delinquendi, si quidem qui magistrum praeponit, contrahi cum eo permittit, qui nautas adhibet, non contrahi cum eis permittit, sed culpa et dolo carere eos curare debet. Although the shipowner is liable for all the delicts of the sailors on board, he is not liable on contracts made with any member of the crew, contracts and delicts being different. A person permits his appointed captain to make contracts, but not the sailors he enlists, though he must see to it that the sailors behave carefully and honestly. 14.1.1.3 Magistri autem imponuntur locandis navibus vel ad merces vel vectoribus conducendis armamentisve emendis: sed etiamsi mercibus emendis vel vendendis fuerit praepositus, etiam hoc nomine obligat exercitorem. The captain is appointed to hire out the ship for the carriage of cargo, to take on passengers, or to purchase provisions or equipment; but even if he buys and sells cargoes, this will bind the shipowner if the captain was appointed for that purpose. 14.1.1.4 Cuius autem condicionis sit magister iste, nihil interest, utrum liber an servus, et utrum exercitoris an alienus: sed nec cuius aetatis sit, intererit, sibi imputaturo qui praeposuit. It is irrelevant what the status of a ship's captain may be, whether free or slave, or, if a slave, whether the shipowner's or someone else's; nor is his age relevant; for that is up to the person who appointed him. 14.1.1.5 Magistrum autem accipimus non solum, quem exercitor praeposuit, sed et eum, quem magister: et hoc consultus Iulianus in ignorante exercitore respondit: ceterum si scit et passus est eum in nave magisterio fungi, ipse eum imposuisse videtur. Quae sententia mihi videtur probabilis: omnia enim facta magistri debeo praestare qui eum praeposui, alioquin contrahentes decipientur: et facilius hoc in magistro quam institore admittendum propter utilitatem. Quid tamen si sic magistrum praeposuit, ne alium ei liceret praeponere? An adhuc Iuliani sententiam admittimus, videndum est: finge enim et nominatim eum prohibuisse, ne titio magistro utaris. Dicendum tamen erit eo usque producendam utilitatem navigantium. "Ship's captain" includes not only a person appointed by the shipowner but also a person appointed by the captain himself. Julian said as much in a case where the shipowner was unaware of the subappointment. If the shipowner knows of the subappointment and allows the surrogate to join the captaincy, he is treated as having made the appointment himself. This seems to me to be the right view: I must stand by all the acts of the captain whom I myself have appointed; for otherwise those who deal with him would be let down. For practical reasons, this is accepted more readily in the case of a ship's captain than of a business manager. Suppose, however, that it was a term of the captain's appointment that he appoint no delegate. Should we follow Julian here? Or suppose that the prohibition was specific: "Do not make Titius captain." Even so one must hold that the interests of those using the ship must prevail. 14.1.1.6 Navem accipere debemus sive marinam sive fluviatilem sive in aliquo stagno naviget sive schedia sit. "Ship" includes any sea or river vessel, lake craft, or even a raft. 14.1.1.7 Non autem ex omni causa praetor dat in exercitorem actionem, sed eius rei nomine, cuius ibi praepositus fuerit, id est si in eam rem praepositus sit, ut puta si ad onus vehendum locatum sit aut aliquas res emerit utiles naviganti vel si quid reficiendae navis causa contractum vel impensum est vel si quid nautae operarum nomine petent. It is not for everything that the praetor grants an action against the shipowner, but only "on account of those matters" for which the captain was appointed, that is, only if the captain was appointed to deal with that sort of thing - for example, if he charters the ship to carry cargo or buys gear to be used on the voyage or contracts or pays for repairs to the ship or promises the sailors their wages. 14.1.1.8 Quid si mutuam pecuniam sumpserit, an eius rei nomine videatur gestum? Et Pegasus existimat, si ad usum eius rei, in quam praepositus est, fuerit mutuatus, dandam actionem, quam sententiam puto veram: quid enim si ad armandam instruendamve navem vel nautas exhibendos mutuatus est? Is the borrowing of money to be treated as "on account of those matters" for which he was appointed? If the money was borrowed for a purpose for which the captain was appointed, I agree with Pegasus that the action should lie; for he might well borrow money for the fitting out or equipment of the ship or for the maintenance of the crew. 14.1.1.9 Unde quaerit ofilius, si ad reficiendam navem mutuatus nummos in suos usus converterit, an in exercitorem detur actio. Et ait, si hac lege accepit quasi in navem impensurus, mox mutavit voluntatem, teneri exercitorem imputaturum sibi, cur talem praeposuerit: quod si ab initio consilium cepit fraudandi creditoris et hoc specialiter non expresserit, quod ad navis causam accipit, contra esse: quam distinctionem pedius probat. Here Ofilius asks whether the shipowner should be held liable if the captain borrows money for the repair of the ship and then converts it to his own use. He says that if the captain borrowed the money on the terms that he would spend it on the ship and then changed his mind, the shipowner would be liable and would have only himself to blame for appointing such a person, but that the case is different if the captain intended to defraud the creditor all along and took care not to specify that he was borrowing the money for the ship. Pedius approves of this distinction. 14.1.1.10 Sed et si in pretiis rerum emptarum fefellit magister, exercitoris erit damnum, non creditoris. The shipowner and not the creditor must bear the loss if the captain misrepresents the price of the goods he buys. 14.1.1.11 Sed si ab alio mutuatus liberavit eum, qui in navis refectionem crediderat, puto etiam huic dandam actionem, quasi in navem crediderit. If someone lends money for the repair of the ship and the captain pays him off with money borrowed from someone else, I think that the latter person should be entitled to sue as if he had made the loan for the purposes of the ship. 14.1.1.12 Igitur praepositio certam legem dat contrahentibus. Quare si eum praeposuit navi ad hoc solum, ut vecturas exigat, non ut locet (quod forte ipse locaverat), non tenebitur exercitor, si magister locaverit: vel si ad locandum tantum, non ad exigendum, idem erit dicendum: aut si ad hoc, ut vectoribus locet, non ut mercibus navem praestet, vel contra, modum egressus non obligabit exercitorem: sed et si ut certis mercibus eam locet, praepositus est, puta legumini, cannabae, ille marmoribus vel alia materia locavit, dicendum erit non teneri. Quaedam enim naves onerariae, quaedam (ut ipsi dicunt) epibatygoi sunt: et plerosque mandare scio, ne vectores recipiant, et sic, ut certa regione et certo mari negotietur, ut ecce sunt naves, quae Brundisium a Cassiopa vel a Dyrrachio vectores traiciunt ad onera inhabiles, item quaedam fluvii capaces ad mare non sufficientes. So the terms of the appointment let contractors know where they stand. If the captain takes on cargo when he was appointed solely to collect freight and not to take on cargo (for the shipowner himself might have done this already), the shipowner is not liable. The same applies if the captain is appointed solely to take on cargo and not to collect freight. The shipowner will not be bound if the captain exceeds the limits of his appointment when he was appointed to board passengers but not load cargo, or vice versa. Nor is the shipowner liable if the captain is appointed to take on cargo of a certain type, such as vegetables or hemp, and he loads marble or other materials. For some ships are freighters or "coasters," as they call them, and I know that most shipowners give instructions to turn away passengers and to confine operations to a certain area or a particular stretch of sea. And those ships which ferry passengers to Brindisi from Cassiopa or Dyrrachium are quite unfitted for carrying cargo, just as other ships are suitable for river traffic, but not adequate for sea voyages. 14.1.1.13 Si plures sint magistri non divisis officiis, quodcumque cum uno gestum erit, obligabit exercitorem: si divisis, ut alter locando, alter exigendo, pro cuiusque officio obligabitur exercitor. If there are two or more captains and no division of responsibilities, the shipowner will be liable on business transacted with any one of them. If one is to let out space and the other to collect freight or the jobs are allocated in some other way, the shipowner will be bound for what each does within his allocated role. 14.1.1.14 Sed et si sic praeposuit, ut plerique [plerumque] faciunt, ne alter sine altero quid gerat, qui contraxit cum uno sibi imputabit. And if, as often happens, the appointment is on the terms that neither should do anything without the other, a person who contracts with just one of them will have to bear the loss. 14.1.1.15 Exercitorem autem eum dicimus, ad quem obventiones et reditus omnes perveniunt, sive is dominus navis sit sive a domino navem per aversionem conduxit vel ad tempus vel in perpetuum. "Shipowner" in this connection designates the person to whom all the income and revenues come, even if he does not actually own the ship: He may have hired it from the owner for a lump sum or for a fixed term or without limit of time. 14.1.1.16 Parvi autem refert, qui exercet masculus sit an mulier, pater familias an filius familias vel servus: pupillus autem si navem exerceat, exigemus tutoris auctoritatem. It is immaterial whether the shipowner be male or female, head of a family, son-in-power, or slave. But a pupillus requires his tutor's authority to manage a ship. 14.1.1.17 Est autem nobis electio, utrum exercitorem an magistrum convenire velimus. It is at our election whether we sue the shipowner or the captain. 14.1.1.18 Sed ex contrario exercenti navem adversus eos, qui cum magistro contraxerunt, actio non pollicetur, quia non eodem auxilio indigebat, sed aut ex locato cum magistro, si mercede operam ei exhibet, aut si gratuitam, mandati agere potest. Solent plane praefecti propter ministerium annonae, item in provinciis praesides provinciarum extra ordinem eos iuvare ex contractu magistrorum. The shipowner is not provided with any comparable action against those who contract with his captain, because he does not have the same need for such a remedy. He can sue the captain on the contract of employment if the captain's services were paid for or on the contract of mandate if they were gratuitous. In practice, however, the prefects in charge of the corn supply and the governors of the provinces usually grant shipowners an informal remedy on the contracts of their captains. 14.1.1.19 Si is, qui navem exercuerit, in aliena potestate erit eiusque voluntate navem exercuerit, quod cum magistro eius gestum erit, in eum, in cuius potestate is erit qui navem exercuerit, iudicium datur. If a shipowner is in the power of another and is managing the ship with his consent, the person with power over the shipowner may be sued on dealings with the captain. 14.1.1.20 Licet autem detur [datur] actio in eum, cuius in potestate est qui navem exercet, tamen ita demum datur, si voluntate eius exerceat. Ideo autem ex voluntate in solidum tenentur qui habent in potestate exercitorem, quia ad summam rem publicam navium exercitio perinet. At institorum non idem usus est: ea propter in tributum dumtaxat vocantur, qui contraxerunt cum eo, qui in merce peculiari sciente domino negotiatur. Sed si sciente dumtaxat, non etiam volente cum magistro contractum sit, utrum quasi in volentem damus actionem in solidum an vero exemplo tributoriae dabimus? In re igitur dubia melius est verbis edicti servire et neque scientiam solam et nudam patris dominive in navibus onerare neque in peculiaribus mercibus voluntatem extendere ad solidi obligationem. Et ita videtur et Pomponius significare, si sit in aliena potestate, si quidem voluntate gerat, in solidum eum obligari, si minus, in peculium. However, although an action lies against the person with power over the shipowner, it lies only if he has given his consent to the management of the ship. Granted this consent, the person with power over the shipowner is held liable in full, since the management of ships is of the greatest public importance. With business managers it is different; for the business manager's contractors can only claim that the master who knew that the manager was trading with his peculium should make a distribution. But suppose that when a contract was made with the captain, the person with power over the shipowner knew of the appointment but did not consent to it. Should he be held liable in full as if he had consented, or made liable by analogy, to make distribution? The question is a delicate one, so it is better to stick to the words of the edict: Mere knowledge in itself should not be a ground of liability in shipping cases, nor should consent lead to full indemnity in cases of trading with the peculium, as Pomponius seems to suggest when he says that one is liable in full if a person in one's power does business with one's consent, but only up to the amount of the peculium if it falls short of that. 14.1.1.21 In potestate autem accipiemus utriusque sexus vel filios vel filias vel servos vel servas. "People-in-power" may be of either sex, sons or daughters, male or female slaves. 14.1.1.22 Si tamen servus peculiaris volente filio familias in cuius peculio erat, vel servo vicarius eius navem exercuit, pater dominusve, qui voluntatem non accommodavit, dumtaxat de peculio tenebitur, sed filius ipse in solidum. Plane si voluntate domini vel patris exerceant, in solidum tenebuntur et praeterea et filius, si et ipse voluntatem accommodavit, in solidum erit obligatus. If a ship is managed by a slave with the consent of a son-in-power (or by an underslave with the consent of the slave) to whose peculium he belongs, the son will be liable in full, but the father or master, unless he consented, will be liable only up to the amount of the peculium. Of course, if the father or master did consent to the ship's being so managed, he will be liable in full, as will the son if he also consented. 14.1.1.23 Quamquam autem, si cum magistro eius gestum sit, dumtaxat polliceatur praetor actionem, tamen, ut iulianus quoque scripsit, etiamsi cum ipso exercitore sit contractum, pater dominusve in solidum tenebitur. Although the praetor only promises an action in respect of dealings with the ship's captain, nevertheless, as Julian says, contracts made with the son or slave who manages the ship also render the father or master fully liable. 14.1.1.24 Haec actio ex persona magistri in exercitorem dabitur, et ideo, si cum utro eorum actum est, cum altero agi non potest. Sed si quid sit solutum, si quidem a magistro, ipso iure minuitur obligatio: sed et si ab exercitore, sive suo nomine, id est propter honorariam obligationem, sive magistri nomine solverit, minuetur obligatio, quoniam et alius pro me solvendo me liberat. The action against the shipowner derives from the captain, and, therefore, an action against either bars an action against the other. Anything paid by the captain diminishes the obligation by operation of law, and anything paid by the shipowner, whether on account of his own praetorian liability or on behalf of the captain, diminishes the obligation on the ground that a person is released by payments made on his behalf. 14.1.1.25 Si plures navem exerceant, cum quolibet eorum in solidum agi potest, If a ship is being managed by several people, each may be sued for the full amount. 14.1.2 ne in plures adversarios distringatur qui cum uno contraxerit: For otherwise a person who dealt with a single contractor would have to split his suit between several defendants. 14.1.3 Nec quicquam facere, quotam quisque portionem in nave habeat, eumque qui praestiterit societatis iudicio a ceteris consecuturum. And it is immaterial what share each had in the ship, for whoever pays can recover from the others by suing on the partnership. 14.1.4 Si tamen plures per se navem exerceant, pro portionibus exercitionis conveniuntur: neque enim invicem sui magistri videbuntur "videntur". But if a ship is being managed personally by several owners, they are liable in proportion to their shares in the management; for they are not treated as being each other's captain. 14.1.4.1 Sed si plures exerceant, unum autem de numero suo magistrum fecerint, huius nomine in solidum poterunt conveniri. If one of a number of owners is appointed captain of a ship by the rest, they may each be sued for the full amount. 14.1.4.2 Sed si servus plurium navem exerceat voluntate eorum, idem placuit quod in pluribus exercitoribus. Plane si unius ex omnibus voluntate exercuit, in solidum ille tenebitur, et ideo puto et in superiore casu in solidum omnes teneri. If a slave owned in common manages a ship with the consent of his masters, the solution is the same as in the case where there are several shipowners. If only one of the masters consented, he would clearly be liable in full, so I think that they would all be liable in full in the case given. 14.1.4.3 Si servus sit, qui navem exercuit voluntate domini, et alienatus fuerit, nihilo minus is qui eum alienavit tenebitur. Proinde et si decesserit servus, tenebitur: nam et magistro defuncto tenebitur. If a slave who is managing a ship with his master's consent is transferred to another master, the transferor remains liable, so too if the slave dies; for he remains liable on the death of the captain as well. 14.1.4.4 Hae actiones perpetuo et heredibus et in heredes dabuntur: proinde et si servus, qui voluntate domini exercuit, decessit, etiam post annum dabitur haec actio, quamvis de peculio ultra annum non detur. These actions are perpetual and both actively and passively transmissible; thus, this action, unlike the action on the peculium, still lies more than a year after the death of a slave who was managing a ship with his master's consent. 14.1.5 Si eum, qui in mea potestate sit, magistrum navis habeas, mihi quoque in te competit actio, si quid cum eo contraxero: idem est, si communis servus nobis erit. Ex locato tamen mecum ages, quod operas servi mei conduxeris, quia et si cum alio contraxisset, ageres mecum, ut actiones, quas eo nomine habui, tibi praestarem, quemadmodum cum libero, si quidem conduxisses, experieris: quod si gratuitae operae fuerint, mandati ages. If you should appoint a person in my power to be captain of a ship, I can sue you on any contract I make with him; the same is true if he is a slave we own jointly. You will, however, be able to sue me on the contract of hire, since you have hired the services of my slave, and if he contracts with a third party, you can sue me for the transfer of the actions I thereby acquire, just as you could sue a freeman you had hired; if the services were gratuitous, the action would be one of mandate. 14.1.5.1 Item si servus meus navem exercebit et cum magistro eius contraxero, nihil obstabit, quo minus adversus magistrum experiar actione, quae mihi vel iure civili vel honorario competit: nam et cuivis alii non obstat hoc edictum, quo minus cum magistro agere possit: hoc enim edicto non transfertur actio, sed adicitur. Likewise, if I contract with the captain of a ship which is being managed by my slave, I can perfectly well sue the captain by any action, civil or praetorian, I may have; for this edict does not stop anyone suing the captain; it grants a new action rather than transfers an existing one. 14.1.5.2 Si unus ex his exercitoribus cum magistro navis contraxerit, agere cum aliis exercitoribus poterit, If one of those who are managing a ship makes a contract with the captain, he can sue the other managers. 14.1.6 si servus non voluntate domini navem exercuerit, si sciente eo, quasi tributoria, si ignorante, de peculio actio dabitur. A master who did not consent to his slave's management of a ship will be liable to an action for distribution if he was aware of it, and to an action on the peculium if he was not. 14.1.6.1 Si communis servus voluntate dominorum exerceat navem, in singulos dari debebit in solidum actio. If a slave owned in common manages a ship with the consent of his masters, each of them may be sued in full. 14.1.7 Lucius Titius Stichum magistrum navis praeposuit: is pecuniam mutuatus cavit se in refectionem navis eam accepisse: quaesitum est, an non aliter Titius exercitoria teneretur, quam si creditor probaret pecuniam in refectionem navis esse consumptam. Respondit creditorem utiliter acturum, si, cum pecunia crederetur, navis in ea causa fuisset, ut refici deberet: etenim ut non oportet creditorem ad hoc adstringi, ut ipse reficiendae navis curam suscipiat et negotium domini gerat (quod certe futurum sit, si necesse habeat probare pecuniam in refectionem erogatam esse), ita illud exigendum, ut sciat in hoc se credere, cui rei magister quis sit praepositus, quod certe aliter fieri non potest, quam si illud quoque scierit necessariam refectioni pecuniam esse: quare etsi in ea causa fuerit navis, ut refici deberet, multo tamen maior pecunia credita fuerit, quam ad eam rem esset necessaria, non debere in solidum adversus dominum navis actionem dari. Stichus, appointed captain of a ship by Lucius Titius, borrowed money and gave a cautio saying that the loan was for the repair of the ship. Does the lender in an action against Titius as shipowner have to prove that the money was actually spent on repairing the ship? The answer is that the moneylender can sue if the repairs to the ship were needed at the time the money was lent. Of course, the lender must not be forced to do the owner's job and supervise the repairs himself, which would be the result of making him prove that the money was actually spent on the repairs, but he can be required to ensure that the loan is for a purpose within the captain's authority, which can only be the case if the repairs are actually needed. It follows that even supposing the ship did actually need repair, the shipowner should not be liable in full if the loan was much larger than was necessary for that purpose. 14.1.7.1 Interdum etiam illud aestimandum, an in eo loco pecunia credita sit, in quo id, propter quod credebatur, comparari potuerit: quid enim, inquit, si ad velum emendum in eiusmodi insula pecuniam quis crediderit, in qua omnino velum comparari non potest? Et in summa aliquam diligentiam in ea creditorem debere praestare. One may even have to ask whether the thing to be purchased with the borrowed money was available in the place where the loan was made. Take the case where money is lent for the purchase of a sail and no sail is to be had in the whole island. In brief, the moneylender must act with some circumspection. 14.1.7.2 Eadem fere dicenda ait et si de institoria actione quaeratur: nam tunc quoque creditorem scire debere necessariam esse mercis comparationem, cui emendae servus sit praepositus, et sufficere, si in hoc crediderit, non etiam illud exigendum, ut ipse curam suscipiat, an in hanc rem pecunia eroganda est. And much the same is to be said with respect to the action in respect of a business manager. There, too, if the moneylender ensures that the purchase of the merchandise is necessary and within the slave's authority, it is sufficient if he made a loan for this purpose, and it is not required that he himself should go to the trouble of seeing that the money was actually spent for that purpose. 14.2.1 Lege Rodia [Rhodia] cavetur, ut si levandae navis gratia iactus mercium factus est, omnium contributione sarciatur quod pro omnibus datum est. The Rhodian law provides that if cargo has been jettisoned in order to lighten a ship, the sacrifice for the common good must be made good by common contribution. 14.2.2 Si laborante nave iactus factus est, amissarum mercium domini, si merces vehendas locaverant, ex locato cum magistro navis agere debent: is deinde cum reliquis, quorum merces salvae sunt, ex conducto, ut detrimentum pro portione communicetur, agere potest. Servius quidem respondit ex locato agere cum magistro navis debere, ut ceterorum vectorum merces retineat, donec portionem damni praestent. Immo etsi "non" retineat merces magister, ultro ex locato habiturus est actionem cum vectoribus: quid enim si vectores sint, qui nullas sarcinas habeant? Plane commodius est, si sint, retinere eas. At si non totam navem conduxerit, ex conducto aget, sicut vectores, qui loca in navem conduxerunt: aequissimum enim est commune detrimentum fieri eorum, qui propter amissas res aliorum consecuti sunt, ut merces suas salvas haberent. If goods have been jettisoned because the ship was in difficulty, the owners who have lost the cargo for whose carriage they contracted may sue the captain on their contracts. Then, the captain may bring an action on his contracts of carriage against the others whose goods have been saved, so as to distribute the loss proportionally. Servius once advised that the suit on the contract of carriage against the captain is to make him hold onto the cargo of the other shippers until they pay their part of the loss. But even if the captain does not retain their goods, he will still have an action against the shippers; for there might be people who have no baggage. But certainly, it is more convenient to detain any baggage they have. If he has hired the whole ship, he may bring an action on that charter just as passengers would who had chartered space on the ship; for it is only fair that the loss should be shared by all those whose property has been saved by means of the sacrifice of the property of others. 14.2.2.1 Si conservatis mercibus deterior facta sit navis aut si quid exarmaverit, nulla facienda est collatio, quia dissimilis earum rerum causa sit, quae navis gratia parentur et earum, pro quibus mercedem aliquis acceperit: nam et si faber incudem aut malleum fregerit, non imputaretur ei qui locaverit opus. Sed si voluntate vectorum vel propter aliquem metum id detrimentum factum sit, hoc ipsum sarciri oportet. If the ship suffers damage or loses any of its gear and the cargo is unharmed, no contribution is due, because there is a distinction between property relating to the ship and property on which freight is paid; after all, the damage arising when a smith breaks his anvil or hammer would not be charged to the customer who gave him the work. But a loss at sea falls to be made good if it arises from a decision of the cargo-owners or a reaction to some danger. 14.2.2.2 Cum in eadem nave varia mercium genera complures mercatores coegissent praetereaque multi vectores servi liberique in ea navigarent, tempestate gravi orta necessario iactura facta erat: quaesita deinde sunt haec: an omnes iacturam praestare oporteat et si qui tales merces imposuissent, quibus navis non oneraretur, velut gemmas margaritas? Et quae portio praestanda est? Et an etiam pro liberis capitibus dari oporteat? Et qua actione ea res expediri possit? Placuit omnes, quorum interfuisset iacturam fieri, conferre oportere, quia id tributum observatae res deberent: itaque dominum etiam navis pro portione obligatum esse. Iacturae summam pro rerum pretio distribui oportet. Corporum liberorum aestimationem nullam fieri posse. Ex conducto dominos rerum amissarum cum nauta, id est cum magistro acturos. Itidem agitatum est, an etiam vestimentorum cuiusque et anulorum aestimationem fieri oporteat: et omnium visum est, nisi si qua consumendi causa imposita forent, quo in numero essent cibaria: eo magis quod, si quando ea defecerint in navigationem, quod quisque haberet in commune conferret. A vessel carrying diverse cargoes shipped by many merchants in addition to many passengers, both slave and free, was overtaken by a serious storm and had to be lightened. The questions put were whether the people whose goods, such as jewels and pearls, added no weight to the ship had to contribute like everyone else, in what proportion the loss should be split, whether anything was due in respect of the free passengers, and by what action the matter should be proceeded with. It was agreed that all those who had benefited by the jettison must make their contribution, including the owner of the ship for his part, because the contribution is levied on property preserved. The total amount of the loss should be apportioned in relation to the market value of the property, freemen not being valued. The owners of the property sacrificed should sue the mariner, that is, the captain, on the contract of carriage. When it was asked whether the value of everyone's clothes and jewelry should be taken into account, it was agreed that one should take account of the value of all property except what was put on the ship for purposes of consumption, such as foodstuffs, the reason for the exception being that if victuals ran short during the voyage, everyone would make common cause with what he had. 14.2.2.3 Si navis a piratis redempta sit, servius ofilius labeo omnes conferre debere aiunt: quod vero praedones abstulerint, eum perdere cuius fuerint, nec conferendum ei, qui suas merces redemerit. Servius, Ofilius, and Labeo say that everyone must contribute if the ship is ransomed from pirates. But the owners must bear the loss of any property stolen by the robbers, and a person who ransoms his own goods has no claim for a contribution. 14.2.2.4 Portio autem pro aestimatione rerum quae salvae sunt et earum quae amissae sunt praestari solet, nec ad rem pertinet, si hae quae amissae sunt pluris veniri poterunt, quoniam detrimenti, non lucri fit praestatio. Sed in his rebus, quarum nomine conferendum est, aestimatio debet haberi non quanti emptae sint, sed quanti venire possunt. The usual amount of contribution depends on the value of the property saved and lost respectively. It is immaterial if the property lost could have been sold at a premium, since what is to be made good is loss suffered and not gain foregone. But the valuation of the property from which contribution is due must be in terms of what it would fetch, not what it cost. 14.2.2.5 Servorum quoque qui in mare perierunt non magis aestimatio facienda est, quam si qui aegri in nave decesserint aut aliqui sese praecipitaverint. No valuation is put on slaves who have been drowned, any more than if they had sickened and died on board or thrown themselves into the sea. 14.2.2.6 Si quis ex vectoribus solvendo non sit, hoc detrimentum magistri navis non erit: nec enim fortunas cuiusque nauta excutere debet. It is not for the captain to bear any loss due to the insolvency of a passenger; for it is not a mariner's responsibility to check everyone's financial standing. 14.2.2.7 Si res quae iactae sunt apparuerint, exoneratur collatio: quod si iam contributio facta sit, tunc hi qui solverint agent ex locato cum magistro, ut is ex conducto experiatur et quod exegerit reddat. The burden of contribution disappears if jettisoned property surfaces. If the contribution has already been paid, those who have paid may sue the captain on their contract with him and get what he can collect by suing the recipients on the contracts he has with them. 14.2.2.8 Res autem iacta domini manet nec fit adprehendentis, quia pro derelicto non habetur. Jettisoned goods remain the property of their owner; they are not treated as having been abandoned and so do not become the property of whoever picks them up. 14.2.3 Cum arbor aut aliud navis instrumentum removendi communis periculi causa deiectum est, contributio debetur. Contribution is due if the mast or other piece of ship's equipment is cast off to allay a common danger. 14.2.4 Navis onustae levandae causa, quia intrare flumen vel portum non potuerat cum onere, si quaedam merces in scapham traiectae sunt, ne aut extra flumen periclitetur aut in ipso ostio vel portu, eaque scapha summersa est, ratio haberi debet inter eos, qui in nave merces salvas habent, cum his qui in scapha perdiderunt, proinde tamquam si iactura facta esset: idque Sabinus quoque libro secundo responsorum probat. Contra si scapha cum parte mercium salva est, navis periit, ratio haberi non debet eorum, qui in nave perdiderunt, quia iactus in tributum nave salva venit. If a ship is so laden that it cannot enter a river or port, and in order to lighten the ship lest it come to harm outside the river or in the harbor or port some of the cargo is transferred to a dinghy, those whose cargo is safe in the ship are liable to contribute to those who lose their property in the dinghy, if it sinks, just as if their property had been jettisoned. Sabinus accepts this in the second book of his Replies. Contrariwise, if the dinghy is saved with its part of the cargo and the ship goes down, those who lose their goods in the ship have no claim because jettison comes into contribution only if the ship is saved. 14.2.4.1 Sed si navis, quae in tempestate iactu mercium unius mercatoris levata est, in alio loco summersa est et aliquorum mercatorum merces per urinatores extractae sunt data mercede, rationem haberi debere eius, cuius merces in navigatione levandae navis causa iactae sunt, ab his, qui postea sua per urinatores servaverunt, Sabinus aeque respondit. Eorum vero, qui ita servaverunt, invicem rationem haberi non debere ab eo, qui in navigatione iactum fecit, si quaedam ex his mercibus per urinatores extractae sunt: eorum enim merces non possunt videri servandae navis causa iactae esse, quae perit. Sabinus also advised that if a ship which had been lightened in a storm by throwing overboard the goods of one merchant is sunk at a later stage of the voyage and the goods of some other merchants are recovered by paid divers, the merchant whose goods were jettisoned is entitled to a contribution from those whose goods were subsequently recovered by the divers. But those whose goods are not so recovered have no recourse against the person whose property was jettisoned during the voyage even if divers get some of it back for him, since their goods cannot be seen as having been jettisoned to save a sinking ship. 14.2.4.2 Cum autem iactus de nave factus est et alicuius res, quae in navi remanserunt, deteriores factae sunt, videndum, an conferre cogendus sit, quia non debet duplici damno onerari et collationis et quod res deteriores factae sunt. Sed defendendum est hunc conferre debere pretio praesente rerum: itaque verbi gratia si vicenum merces duorum fuerunt et alterius aspargine decem esse coeperunt, ille cuius res integrae sunt pro viginti conferat, hic pro decem. Potest tamen dici etiam illa sententia distinguentibus nobis, deteriores ex qua causa factae sunt, id est utrum propter iacta nudatis rebus damnum secutum est an vero alia ex causa, veluti quod alicubi iacebant merces in angulo aliquo et unda penetravit. Tunc enim conferre debebit: an ex priore causa collationis onus pati non debet, quia iactus etiam hunc laesit? Adhuc numquid et si aspargine propter iactum res deteriores factae sunt? Sed distinctio suptilior adhibenda est, quid plus sit, in damno an in collatione: si verbi gratia hae res viginti fuerunt et collatio quidem facit decem, damnum autem duo, deducto hoc, quod damnum passus est, reliquum conferre debeat. Quid ergo, si plus in damno erit quam in collatione? Ut puta decem aureis res deteriores factae sunt, duo autem collationis sunt. Indubitate utrumque onus pati non debet: sed hic videamus, num et ipsi conferre oporteat. Quid enim interest iactatas res meas amiserim an nudatas deteriores habere coeperim: nam sicut ei qui perdiderit subvenitur, ita et ei subveniri oportet, qui deteriores propter iactum res habere coeperit. Haec ita Papirius Fronto respondit. When goods have been thrown overboard, we must see whether contribution is payable by a person whose goods remained on board but were damaged, since he should not have the double burden of paying a contribution as well as suffering the property damage. One could justify making him pay a contribution on the basis of what his goods are now worth; thus, for example, if two people had goods worth twenty and owing to water damage the goods of one of them are reduced in value to ten, the one whose goods are undamaged should contribute for twenty and the other for ten only. But we can make this view subject to a distinction turning on the cause of the damage whether the damage occurred because the jettison left the goods exposed to harm or for some different reason, such as that sea water got into whatever corner of the ship they were stacked in. In the latter case, he will have to pay up, but is he exempt from the duty to contribute in the former case on the ground that he too was victim of the jettison? Surely, he should not have to contribute if his property has suffered water damage on account of the jettison? The distinction to apply is the subtler one of the respective sizes of the loss and the contribution. If, for example, in relation to property worth twenty, the contribution would be ten and the loss is two, the contribution should be on the balance which is left when the amount of the loss is deducted. Then, what if the damage exceeds the amount of the contribution? Say, for example, that the value of the property has dropped by ten and the contribution is only two. Certainly, he should not have to bear both burdens. Indeed, here we must see whether he should not receive a contribution. For what difference is there between losing one's property by jettison and having it uncovered? As Papirius Fronto advised, subvention is due as much to the person whose goods have deteriorated as to the person whose goods are lost through the jettison. 14.2.5 Amissae navis damnum collationis consortio non sarcitur per eos, qui merces suas naufragio liberaverunt: nam huius aequitatem tunc admitti placuit, cum iactus remedio ceteris in communi periculo salva navi consultum est. Those who save their goods in a shipwreck need not club together to pay for the loss of the ship; for the equity admittedly applies only if things are thrown overboard in the interests of the others facing a common danger and the ship is saved. 14.2.5.1 Arbore caesa, ut navis cum mercibus liberari possit, aequitas contributionis habebit locum. The equity of contribution does apply if the mast is cut down so that ship and cargo may be saved. 14.2.6 Navis adversa tempestate depressa ictu fulminis deustis armamentis et arbore et antemna hipponem delata est ibique tumultuariis armamentis ad praesens comparatis ostiam navigavit et onus integrum pertulit: quaesitum est, an hi, quorum onus fuit, nautae pro damno conferre debeant. Respondit non debere: hic enim sumptus instruendae magis navis, quam conservandarum mercium gratia factus est. The mast and riggings of a ship which had been caught in bad weather were struck by lightning and burnt. After putting in to Hippo where it was equipped with temporary riggings, the ship proceeded to Ostia with its cargo safe and sound. Should the cargo-owners contribute toward the loss of the shipowners? The advice was that they need not do so; for the expenditure was incurred more to equip the ship than to save the cargo. 14.2.7 Cum depressa navis aut deiecta esset, quod quisque ex ea suum servasset, sibi servare respondit, tamquam ex incendio. Alfenus' opinion was that if a ship was stranded or sunk, a person could keep anything of his he could save from it, just as in a fire. 14.2.8 Qui levandae navis gratia res aliquas proiciunt, non hanc mentem habent, ut eas pro derelicto habeant, quippe si invenerint eas, ablaturos et, si suspicati fuerint, in quem locum eiectae sunt, requisituros: ut perinde sint, ac si quis onere pressus in viam rem abiecerit mox cum aliis reversurus, ut eandem auferret. The person who jettisons goods for the purpose of lightening a ship does not intend to abandon them, for he would take them back if he found them, and he would go to collect them if he guessed where they had fetched up; he is like a man with a heavy weight to carry who sets it down in the street and is soon going to return for it with others. 14.2.9 Petitio Eudaemonis Nicomedensis ad imperatorem Antoninum. Domine imperator Antonine, cum naufragium fecissemus in Italia [immo in Icaria], direpti sumus a publicis [immo a publicanis], qui in Cycladibus insulis habitant. Antoninus dicit Eudaemoni. Ego orbis terrarum dominus sum, lex autem maris, lege Rhodia de re nautica res iudicetur, quatenus nulla lex ex nostris ei contraria est. Idem etiam divus Augustus iudicavit. Petition of Eudaemon of Nicomedia to the Emperor Antoninus: "Antoninus, King and Lord, we were shipwrecked in Icaria and robbed by the people of the Cyclades." Antoninus replied to Eudaemon: "I am master of the world, but the law of the sea must be judged by the sea law of the Rhodians where our own law does not conflict with it." Augustus, now deified, decided likewise. 14.2.10 Si vehenda mancipia conduxisti, pro eo mancipio, quod in nave mortuum est, vectura tibi non debetur. Paulus: immo quaeritur, quid actum est, utrum ut pro his qui impositi an pro his qui deportati essent, merces daretur: quod si hoc apparere non poterit, satis erit pro nauta, si probaverit impositum esse mancipium. If you contract for the carriage of slaves, you need not pay freight in respect of any slave who dies en route. Paul: But this depends on the agreement, whether freight was payable for the slaves who were loaded or for those who were landed. If it is not clear what the agreement was, it will be enough for the captain to prove that a slave was put on board. 14.2.10.1 Si ea condicione navem conduxisti, ut ea merces tuae portarentur easque merces nulla nauta necessitate coactus in navem deteriorem, cum id sciret te fieri nolle, transtulit et merces tuae cum ea nave perierunt, in qua novissime vectae sunt, habes ex conducto locato cum priore nauta actionem. Paulus: immo contra, si modo ea navigatione utraque navis periit, cum id sine dolo et culpa nautarum factum esset. Idem iuris erit, si prior nauta publice retentus navigare cum tuis mercibus prohibitus fuerit. Idem iuris erit, cum ea condicione a te conduxisset, ut certam poenam tibi praestaret, nisi ante constitutum diem merces tuas eo loci exposuisset, in quem devehendas eas merces locasset, nec per eum staret, quo minus remissa sibi ea poena spectaret. Idem iuris in eodem genere cogitationis observabimus, si probatum fuerit nautam morbo impeditum navigare non potuisse. Idem dicemus, si navis eius vitium fecerit sine dolo malo et culpa eius. If you have chartered a ship for the carriage of your cargo and the captain needlessly tranships the cargo to a less good vessel, knowing that you would disapprove, and your cargo goes down with the ship when carrying it, you have an action on the charter party against the original captain. Paul: But not if both ships go down on that voyage, in the absence of intentional or negligent fault on the part of the crew. So, too, if the first captain were detained by the authorities and prevented from sailing with your goods. It would be the same if his contract was to pay you a fixed penalty for failure to deliver your goods at the agreed destination before a certain day, provided that it was not his fault [that he does not do so; he may expect remission of the penalty]. A similar line of thought underlies the rule when it is proved that the captain was unable to sail because he was ill, and the same must be said if his ship becomes unfit without any fault, deliberate or negligent, on his part. 14.2.10.2 Si conduxisti navem amphorarum duo milium et ibi amphoras portasti, pro duobus milibus amphorarum pretium debes. Paulus: immo si aversione navis conducta est, pro duobus milibus debetur merces: si pro numero impositarum amphorarum merces constituta est, contra se habet: nam pro tot amphoris pretium debes, quot portasti. If you hire a ship capable of carrying two thousand jars and you load jars on it, you must pay freight for two thousand jars. Paul: But the freight for two thousand jars will only be payable if the ship was hired at a flat rate. If the freight was fixed in relation to the number of jars loaded, the result is different, for you will only owe freight for the number of jars you put on board. 19.2.13.1 Si navicularius onus Minturnas vehendum conduxerit et, cum flumen Minturnense navis ea subire non posset, in aliam navem merces transtulerit eaque navis in Ostio fluminis perierit, tenetur primus navicularius? Labeo, si culpa caret, non teneri ait: ceterum si vel invito domino fecit vel quo non debuit tempore aut si minus idoneae navi, tunc ex locato agendum. If a shipowner contracts to convey freight to Minturnae and then transfers the goods onto another ship because his own ship cannot get up Minturnae's river and the second ship then founders at the river's mouth, is the first shipowner liable? Labeo says he is not liable if he is free from fault; but if he acted against the owner's will or at an improper time or [if the transfer was] to a less suitable ship, then there should be an action on lease [of a job]. 19.2.13.2 Si magister navis sine gubernatore in flumen navem immiserit et tempestate orta temperare non potuerit et navem perdiderit, vectores habebunt adversus eum ex locato actionem. If a ship's captain sent his ship into a river without a pilot, and when a storm arose he could not steer the ship and so lost it, the passengers will have an action on lease [of a job] against him. 27.1.17.6 Domini navium non videntur haberi inter privilegia, ut a tutelis vacent. Idque divus Traianus rescripsit. Shipowners do not appear to have a dispensation from tutelage among their privileges, so the deified Trajan replied in a rescript. 50.2.9.1 Non esse dubitandum quin navicularii non debent decuriones creari. There is no doubt that it is not proper to make navicularii decurions. (Sirks 1991, 95-96: to be understood are non-voluntary appointments). 50.4.5 Navicularii and mercatores olearii, qui magnam partem patrimonii ei rei contulerunt, intra quinquennium muneris publici vacationem habent<. Navicularii and traders in olive oil, who have tied up a large part of their patrimony in the business, have an exemption from any public munus for five years. 50.5.3 His qui naves marinas fabricaverunt et ad annonam populi Romani praebuerunt non minores quinquaginta milium modiorum aut plures singulas non minores decem milium modiorum, donec hae naves navigant aut aliae in earum locum, muneris publici vacatio praestatur ob navem. Senatores autem hanc vacationem habere non possunt, quod nec habere illis navem ex lege Iulia repetundarum licet. Exemption from any public munus is granted by reason of their ship to anyone who has built a sea-going ship and provided it for the transport of the corn supply of the Roman people, provided it is of not less than fifty thousand modii capacity, or five or more of not less than ten thousand modii capacity, as long as the ship is in use or another in its place. Senators, however, cannot enjoy this exemption since they cannot ever own a ship under the lex Julia on extortion. 50.6.1 Qui ob hoc tantum in navibus sint, ut in eis agendi causa operarentur, nulla constitutione immunitatem a muneribus civilibus habent. Those who are in ships solely in order to work on them for the sake of business do not have immunity from civil munera by any constitutio. 50.6.6.3 Negotiatores, qui annonam urbis adiuvant, item navicularii, qui annonae urbis serviunt, immunitatem a muneribus publicis consequuntur, quamdiu in eiusmodi actu sunt, nam remuneranda pericula eorum, quin etiam exhortanda praemiis merito placuit, ut qui peregre muneribus et quidem publicis cum periculo et labore fungantur, a domesticis vexationibus et sumptibus liberentur. Cum non sit alienum dicere etiam hos rei publicae causa, dum annonae urbis serviunt, abesse. Men of business who assist the corn supply of the city, likewise, shipowners who serve the corn supply of the city, obtain immunity from public munera, so long as they are engaged in this activity. For it has rightly been decided that they should be compensated for the risks they run, and indeed encouraged by rewards to run them, so that men who undertake public munera abroad, involving risk and effort, may be freed from disturbance and expense at home; indeed, it is not inappropriate to say that they too are absent on public business while they serve the corn supply of the city. 50.6.6.4 Immunitati, quae naviculariis praestatur, certa forma data est: quam immunitatem ipsi dumtaxat habent, non etiam liberis aut libertis eorum praestatur. Idque principalibus constitutionibus declaratur. A fixed provision is laid down for the immunity which is granted to shipowners; they alone possess this immunity; it is not also granted to their children or freedmen; and this is laid down in imperial constitutiones. 50.6.6.5 Divus Hadrianus rescripsit immunitatem navium maritimarum dumtaxat habere, qui annonae urbis serviunt. The deified Hadrian stated in a rescript that only those who serve the corn supply of the city have immunity for sea-going ships 50.6.6.6 Licet in corpore naviculariorum quis sit, navem tamen vel naves non habeat nec omnia ei congruant, quae principalibus constitutionibus cauta sunt, non poterit privilegio naviculariis indulto uti. Idque et divi fratres rescripserunt in haec verba: erant etiam alii quidam sub ea specie, quod navicularii quique frumentum oleumque ad annonam populi Romani advehunt immunes sunt, munera effugere volebant, cum neque naviculariam facerent neque maiorem partem rei familiaris in re navicularia et negotiatione collocassent: horum immunitas tollatur. Although a man may be a member of the corporation of shipowners, yet if he does not possess a ship or ships and if all the things laid down in imperial constitutiones do not fit his case, he will not be able to avail himself of the dispensation granted to shipowners. And this was laid down by the deified brothers in a rescript in these words: "There were also other people who claimed to escape munera on the same grounds as shipowners and people supplying the market of the Roman people with corn and oil, who are immune, although they were not making voyages and did not have the greater part of their capital invested in maritime and mercantile business; such people are to be deprived of immunity." 50.6.6.13 Eos qui in corporibus allecti sunt quae immunitatem praebent naviculariorum, si honorem decurionatus adgnoverint, compellendos subire publica munera accepi. Idque etiam confirmatum videtur rescripto divi Pertinacis. I understand that those who have been adlected into corporations, which provide immunity, as that of shipowners, are to be compelled to support public munera, if they have accepted the office of the decurionate; and this view seems to have been confirmed by a rescript of the deified Pertinax.