Legis actio per manus iniectionem

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The legis actio per manus iniectionem was a civil law process of the (early) republican procedural process type of legislative actions . As a foreclosure procedure, it dealt with the physical liability of a person (arrest), which had arisen from a legal transaction or from a criminal act (offense).

The legal basis for the procedure was the law of obligations applicable to Roman citizens , which was standardized in the Twelve Tables Act .

Procedure

Before the praetor granted the obligee a right of access ( addictio ) to the debtor, a judicial procedure had to be carried out beforehand on the subject of the dispute. The judgment became enforceable after a period of 30 days if the convicted person allowed the opportunity to settle the claim to elapse. If the claim was not already numbered, the value in dispute was determined in an estimation procedure ( abirtium liti aestimandae ). A convicted thief ( furtum nec manifestum ) was able to avert his “arrest” by surrendering the matter and paying a fine in addition. A previous judicial process was not required if the perpetrator of the delinquent was beyond doubt, for example if the thief was concerned in the act ( Furtum manifestum ).

The person responsible was summoned to appear before the praetor ( in ius vocatio ) by the trial opponent after the end of the month . The debtor had to obey this summons, as otherwise he was threatened with forcible presentation. The claimant formally initiated the foreclosure procedure by laying his hand on the insolvent debtor and reciting the prescribed formula. If the debtor could not exonerate himself after one or more third parties had first advanced the payment or in his place vouched for the double amount in dispute ( vindex ), the praetor had personal access carried out.

The debtor could not counter the formal act of laying on of hands with a formal counter-speech, as he was found guilty in the previous proceedings. Objections could only be raised by authorized third parties by countering them with ritual slapping of the hand ( manum depellere ) and with a formal counter-speech. The prerequisite was functional equivalence of those involved. A landowner ( vindex ) could thus act for another landowner. The legal consequence was that in the event of demonstrably unjustified objection ( litiskresenz ) , the debtor was now liable in addition to his person with double the sum ( crescit in duplum ) of the previously determined amount in dispute. A new intercession by a third party was then no longer possible. The regulation served as a warning against unauthorized litigation.

The execution itself was designed in such a way that the creditor took the debtor into private custody and detained him for 60 days. During this period, the convicted person was allowed to be released. If an agreement was not reached, the detainee had to be taken to the forum in front of the praetor for three consecutive market days in order to give everyone the opportunity to buy their ransom by publicly offering the ransom. If no trigger was found on the third market day, the convict could be killed or sold abroad as a slave ( trans tiberim ). If several creditors had a liability claim to the person, the sales proceeds were divided accordingly.

Killing and the manner of killing through physical dissection ("hacking up") and distribution to the creditors are considered implausible in research, as this would have resulted in a total financial loss for the creditor (s). It is likely that such announcements were used as leverage against the convicted debtor. Probably the procedure of “chopping up” concerned the raw copper, which could be used as a means of payment for the release. Enslavement and possibly the killing of the debtor were regarded as obsolete at the latest since the Lex Potelia (around 326 BC). The execution of the personnel has since led to debt bondage , which lasted until the court-determined sum was processed.

Liability circumstances

The claim resulting from an illegal act (offense) could not be inherited. If the claim arising from a crime was against a person who was under the legal control of a third party, a separate procedure ( Actio noxalis ) had to be initiated . The perpetrator was given the choice of either releasing the perpetrator from his bondage and thus formally extraditing him ( noxae dedito ), or alternatively taking over the repayment of the guilt in his place.

Legal source

Gaius : Institutiones : 3, 189; 4.21-25

literature

  • Max Kaser : Roman private law . 2nd Edition. CH Beck, Munich / Würzburg 1971, ISBN 3-406-01406-2 , pp. 145-165
  • Max Kaser / Karl Hackl: The Roman Civil Procedure Law : Verlag CH Beck, Munich 1996, second edition, ISBN 3-406-404901 , pp. 131–145