Equity in the courts of merchants

Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis

Volumn 72, Issue 1-2, 2004, Pages 1-33

  Donahue, Charles ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 70849112446     PISSN: 00407585     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1163/157181904323055781     Document Type: Article

References (212)

1. For Stracca (1509-1578) and his De mercatura, 1sted., Venice 1553
2. see C. Donahue, Benvenuto Stracca's De Mercatura: Was There a Lex mercatoria in Sixteenth-Century Italy?, in: Comparative Studies in Anglo-American and Continental Legal History, forthcoming, § 2, and sources cited. Following standard U.S. library practice, I have used the vernacular form of the names of late medieval (after 1300) and early modern jurists, except where I am quoting from the Latin. The Latin form remains in the footnote references. In quotations from early modern editions I have extended standard abbreviations and corrected obvious typographical errors silently. Where the emendation changes the sense, I have given the original in the notes. Citations are modernized and placed in square brackets. I assume that the reader has access to modern editions of the two Corpora and have not given the texts cited from them unless I have used them in my text. I have, however, tried (not completely successfully) to provide references to all the citations to writers in the ius commune and brief summaries of what they say. A table to all the citations is found in the appendix. This will allow the reader to see which references continually reappear and which are unique to the passage quoted and to find the first reference to texts that are cited later without notes
3. Donahue, Stracca's De mercatura (supra, n. 1)
4. Id., § 4 (exceptio procuratoria), § 5 (exceptio excussionis)
5. De mercatura (supra, n. 1), 8.1, beginning at fol. 244v nu. 1, 245r nu. 2, 246r nu. 5
6. Id.,8.1,fol.244vnu. 1
7. The exception is not really an exception. Étienne Bertrand was French, but he operated in the south (Carpentras) and was very much a member of the 'Italian school'
8. D. 1,1,1,1: '...iustitiam namque colimus et boni et aequi notitiam profitemur, aequum ab iniquo separantes, licitum ab illicito discernentes, bonos non solum metu poenarum, verum etiam praemiorum quoque exhortatione efficere cupientes, veram nisi fallor philosophiam, non simulatam affectantes ...'
9. The last term is virtually untranslatable; it refers here to the relationship between what happened, the 'event' in the literal sense, and the quality of the will or intention of the actor, i.e., whether was there force or fear; whether it was an accident, etc
10. Stracca, De mercatura (supra, n. 1), 8.1, fol. 246r nu. 3: 'Evenit enim ut ius quod in genere suo aequum et bonum est (sunt enim iuris regulae et positiones iustissime, adeo ut secundum naturam iustiores dari non possunt) si ad facti speciem singularem transferas, atque deducas ex circumstantiis aequo [?lege aequum] aliud aequius esse iisdem legibus ...'
11. D. 1,1,lpr.: '[n]am, ut eleganter Celsus definit, ius est ars boni et aequi'
12. D. 47,2,62,5; D. 12,1,32; D. 16,3,31; D. 17,1,48
13. See infra, text and n. 47-57
14. Stracca, De mercatura (supra, n. 1), 8.1, fol. 246r nu. 4
15. Infra, §§ 3-5
16. Infra, text and n. 23-27
17. Infra, text and n. 31-35
18. Infra, text and n. 38-45
19. D. 45,1,91,3: 'Et Celsus adulescens scribit eum, qui moram fecit in solvendo Sticho quem promiserat, posse emendare earn moram postea offerendo: esse enim hanc quaestionem de bono et aequo: in quo genere plerumque sub auctoritate iuris scientiae perniciose, inquit, erratur'
20. Infra, n. 128; see generally § 5
21. Baldo's long discourse on the use of the copula at this point (infra, n. 152) shows pretty clearly that he was aware of the possibility
22. D. 17,1,29pr. I have used the 'Berlin stereotype edition' of the Corpus and have not found it necessary to emend any texts to make them correspond to the Vulgate
23. D. 17,1,29,4
24. Vocabularium iurispnidentiae Romanae, Beilin1903-87, s.v
25. Bartolus, ad D. 17,1,29,4, Venice 1602, fol. 104va-vb
26. o de apicibus, Lyon 1604, col. 1657
27. D. 16,3,31pr
28. See the gloss arid Bartolus, ad id
29. Bartolus, ad id., Venice 1602, fol. 98vb
30. D. 17,1,48pr
31. They include that the interest was stipulated but the rate was beyond the statutory limit and that there was no express agreement to pay the interest, but the situation was one in which the parties might reasonably assume that interest was to be paid, i.e., that the formal gratuity of the contract of mutui datio was here, as it was in many other cases, socially unrealistic
32. Bartolus,ad D 17,1,48, Venice 1602, fol. 105vb
33. Jacobus Butrigarius († 1347), ad D. 17,1,48pr
34. Rome 1606 (repr. [Opera iuridica rariora, 14], Bologna 1978), p. 198b (almost an exact quotation)
35. The magnum festum (Bartolus, ad D. 34,1,8
36. Venice 1602, fol. 83ra-84va) does not add much. The commentary on D. 17,1,48 moves from the proposition that one need not raise a defense that one regards as shameful even in a case where another is going to have reimburse for the judgment, to the proposition that the exceptio nudi pacti cannot be raised in the mercantile court. The commentary on D. 34,1,8, in the cited fragments, suggests that there may be many situations in which the civil law will be shaped on the assumption that people will act motivated by verecundia or pudor, indeed that such motivations may create something like an obligation. Bartolo's reference to a magnum festum, however, may be to a repetitio on the same text that is not in our printed editions. It is also possible that he was being slightly ironic, or that he was referring to the length of his commentary on the entire lex
37. Ed.: aliqua, emendation based on Baldo's near quotation, infra, text following note 40
38. For a full treatment of the concept of aequitas in the writings of Baldo
39. see N. Horn, Aequitas in den Lehren des Baldus, [Forschungen zur neueren Privatrechtsgeschichte, 11], Cologne-Graz 1968. For his treatment of this text
40. see id., p. 90-1
41. mandatorem in the text
42. Baldus, ad C. 4,35,10, Lyon 1564, fol. 105rb
43. Baldus, ad D. 17,1,29,4, Lyon 1562, fol. 406rb, largely repeats what is said here
44. A peremptory term was one in which an act, such as the production of witnesses, must be done or else the privilege of doing it was lost. What Baldo probably has in mind here is that the judge sets a term intending (and communicating) that it is to have that effect but does not use the word peremptorie
45. See infra, text and n. 43-45
46. There is, of course, a difference. The testament without the requisite number of witnesses is totally void, whereas the naked pact can form the basis of an exception but not of an action. D. 2,14,7,4
47. The word gabella is not found in classical or patristic Latin, and the exceptio is not described in the standard procedural treatises
48. Horn, Aequitas in Baldus (supra, n. 37), p. 90 n. 11, supports the suggestion offered here
49. J. F. Niermeyer, Mediae Latinitatis Lexicon Minus, Leiden 1976, s.v
50. Stracca specifically endorses the points about testaments and gabellae (which he seems to equate with vectigalis). Stracca, De mercatura (supra, n. 1), 8.4, fol. 277v, nu. 12-13
51. For some of the more recent contributions, see P. Grossi, Aequitas canonica, Quaderni Fiorentini, 27 (1998), p. 379-96
52. P. Landau, 'Aequitas'in the 'Corpus iuris canonici', Syracuse Journal of International Law, 20 (1994), p. 95-104
53. Colloquio: Aequitas Romana ed Aequitas Canonica, Apollinaris, 63 (1990), p. 189-254
54. E. Cortese, Lex, aequitas, utrumque ius nella prima civilistica, in: A. Caiani [and] G. Diumi (ed.), 'Lex et iustitia' nell 'utrumque ius, [Utrumque ius, 20], Vatican City 1989, p. 95-119
55. P.G. Caron, Aequitas est iustitia dulcore misericordiae temperata, in: id., p. 281-97
56. P. G. Caron, 'Aequitas'romana, 'misericordia' patristica ed 'epicheia' aristotelica nella doltrina dell' 'aequitas' canonica, Milan 1971
57. Horn, Aequitas in Baldus (supra, n. 37)
58. C. 3,1,8
59. Salicetus. ad. 3,1,8, Frankfurt 1615, fol. l0ra
60. o In omnibus rebus, Lyon 1604, col. 508: 'Tam civilibus quam criminalibus et tam publicis quam privatis. Et pone exemplum secundum Ioann[em], ut [C. 6,2,20]. Vel pone [D. 4,4,1], [D. 11,7,14,3], [D. 11,7,43], [D. 15,3,4], [D. 13,4,4 i.f], [D. 45,1,91,3], [D. 4,2,3,22], [D. 44,2,4], [D. 16,3,31 ]. Item poni potest in qualibet exceptione, ut Macedoniani et Velleiani. Nam exceptio est de aequitate, regula de rigore. Et sic magis sequenda est exceptio. Item poni potest [C. 8,15,5], [D. 20,1,1pr.], [D. 48,19,42]. In praedictis enim casibus aequitas a rigore separatur, et sic servetur aequitas. Alias si separata non est, id totale servatur. Et nota quod hie loquitur de aequitate scripta; alias secus est, [C. 1,14,1]'
61. C. 1,14,1: 'Inter aequitatem iusque interpositam interpretationem nobis [i.e., Constantino Imperatori] solis et oportet et licet inspicere'
62. Supra, n. 49 i.f./
63. Ed.: Authen
64. See infra,, text and n. 57
65. Supra, text at n. 47 and n. 50
66. Supra, n. 49
67. Ibid
68. Saliceto does not distinguish between the situation in which both equity and law are written specifically and that in which they are written generally. Presumably, equity would prevail in both cases. See supra, text at n. 53
69. He is also not completely clear what to do where the preferred categories conflict, e.g., general written law vs. unwritten specific equity (because he does not consider the possibility that the unwritten might specific). His last sentence, however, suggests that here the written law would prevail. If these inferences are correct, then equity prevails in six of the nine possible combinations: 1. specific written equity > 2. specific written law specific written equity > general written law 3. specific written equity > unwritten law 4. general written equity < specific written law 5. general written equity > general written law 6. general written equity > unwritten law 7. unwritten equity < specific written law 8. unwritten equity < general written law 9. unwritten equity > unwritten law
70. o iusque, Lyon 1604, col. 195
71. Bartolus, ad id., Venice 1602, fol. 25vb-26ra
72. sources cited in Horn (supra, n. 37), p. 25-7
73. Supra, text between n. 11 and 13. Stracca does, however, come back to the distinction in part 8.7. Stracca, De mercatura (supra, n. 1), 8.7, fol. 285v
74. This is odd. Instead of omnia etiam (which is also found in Venice 1574, fol. 3vb), we would expect something like sola
75. Ed.: quia
76. He does add one more example, though he may not have been aware of it. Bartolo had said that complaining that litis contestatio had not taken place was de apicibus iuris, i.e., a proceeding could take place without a litis contestatio
77. Saliceto says that one cannot raise the exception that the litis contestatio has taken place, i.e., the matters that the ordo required be raised before the litis contestatio could be raised after
78. Alexander Tartagnus, ad.C. 3,1,8, Venice 1576, fol. 60vb
79. Ed.:de ma'vide
80. See infra, text following n. 76
81. CynusPistorienis († 1346), ad C. 3,1,8
82. Frankfurt 1578 (repr. Rome 1998), fol. 129ra-rb. After stating that written equity is to be preferred to written law, and unwritten equity to unwritten law, Cino poses the question of whether unwritten equity is to be preferred to written law and comes to the following conclusion: 'si rigor sit casus legis scriptus servandus est ut lex prospexit. Sed ubi rigor iuris est scriptus in aliquibus terminis et dubitatur de quibusdam terminis qui similes sunt, non tamen, omnimode, tunc aequitas non scripta servabitur'
83. Redundant in
84. Redundant quae
85. o privatum [Venice 1572], p. 627a-b) questions whether this overruled previous decretals that required that a cleric be warned and given an opportunity to reform before he could be deprived for non-residence (e.g., X 3,4,10; 11). The gloss seems to suggest that most non-residents are deprived ipso iure and without any warning: 'Et sic videntur correcta ilia iura praedicta ubi dicitur quod prius monendus est quis antequam privetur ecclesia, quod est honestius. Sed hoc est rigor quod hie statuitur, ut ipso iure sit privatus'. Innocent IV (Sinibaldus Fliscus [† 1254], ad id., Venice 1570, fol. 218va-vb)
86. Hostiensis (Henricus de Segusio [t 1271], ad id., Venice 1581, fol. 26rb-va)
87. and Giovanni d'Andrea (Johannes Andreae [† 1348], ad id., Venice 1581, fol. 38vb) all denied that that was what the canon meant, though they did not deny that the council could have done this, if it had wanted to. They do not discuss the equity-rigor issue
88. I.e., Librifeudorum, lib. 2, tit. de pace iuramento firmanda, § ut autem aequitas quae in paribus causis paria iura desiderat per universitatem totius imperii servetur (ed. K. Lehmann [and] K. A. Eckhardt, [Bibliotheca rerum historicarum, Neudrucke, I],Aalen 1971, p. 179) =Vulgate, id., de alodiis [tit. 54], id. For the commentary, see infra, text and n. 77-85
89. Baldus, ad C. 6,2,20, Lyon 1564, fol. 17ra, a general discussion on applying penal statutes to similar cases
90. Baldus, ad C. 4,3 8,13, Lyon 1564, fol. 116rb, nu. 11: 'quid sit arbitrium? Responsum:equum arbitrium non est aliud nisi equitas animi declarati, habito respectu tarn ad equitatemnaturalem quam ad Iegum precepta'
91. See Horn, Aequitas in Baldus (supra, n. 37), p. 150
92. For a brief introduction, with many references, see E. Cortese, La norma giuridica, II, [Ius nostrum, 6.2]
93. Milan 1964, p. 347-9; see also references gathered supra, n. 46
94. Henricus de Segusio, Summa Aurea, depoenitentia [5.38], de dispensatiombus, Venice 1574, col. 1874
95. He has a slightly different version in his Lectura ad X 3,34,7, v° aequitatem, Venice 1581, fol. 127ra, nu. 5: 'Tu dicas aequitatem id est iustitiam misericordia dulcoratam secundum beatum Cyprianum'. The definition in the Summa, however, was more widely disseminated
96. Baldus,ad L.F.2,53(54),[13](supra,n. 72),Lyon 1552,fol. IOlra
97. SeeHorn.Aequias in Baldus (supra, n. 37), p. 11-12, and references gathered, p. 238
98. See Baldus, in rubricam D. 1,1, Lyon 1562, fol. 6rb-6va, where he seems to regard 'rude equity' as the stuff out of which the law is formed
99. See Horn, Aequitas in Baldus (supra, n. 37), p. 21. The text of Baldus that Horn used has a reference to Azo's Summa Instilutionum where ours has the reference to the rubric on D. 1,1. Id., p. 12
100. Probably, L.F. 2,23, v° Beneficium, Aalen 1971, p. 143 1. 25 ff
101. Nov. 2,5 (and Auth. 1,2,5) reads amatores where Baldus (or his printer) has authores
102. Jacobus de Belvisio (t 1335), ad L.Y. 2,53(54),[13] (supra, n. 72)
103. Lyon 1511 (repr. [Opera iuridica rariora, 12], Bologna 1971), fol. 105rb. Curiously, it is what precedes this citation rather than what follows it that is virtually a direct quotation from Jacopo (except that Nov. 2,5 is quoted correctly). The editors of this review, noting the same peculiarity, suggest that Ia[cobus] Bel[visio] got transferred from its original position before Sed and that in the process the original subject of dicit (?Jacobus de Arena, see infra, n. 83) got lost. If this is a corruption, it goes a long way back. Both the edition of Venice 1486 (sig. m2vb) and that of Brescia 1498 (fol. 77ra) have the siglum after Sed
104. Johannes Andreae, ad X 1,36,11, Venice 1581, fol. 278rb, who quotes Hostiensis's definition, supra, text at n. 76
105. Jacobus de Arena (fl. 1288-1320) is probably referred to, but I have been unable to find the passage referred to. The closest I have been able to find is in his Distinctiones ad C. 1,14,1, ?Lyon 1541 (repr. [Opera iuridica rariora, 16]
106. Bologna 1971), fol. 239vb nu. 1: 'Equitas est que dicitur benigna consideratio, temperamentum iusticie vel excessus [D. 48,19,11 pr.]'. Hence, I cannot tell whether what we have here is a corruption of Hostiensis's maxim or a deliberate rewriting of it. The former seems more likely. See Horn, Aequitas in Baldus (supra, n. 37), p. 100 n. 24
107. Ed.:fundare
108. The last is presumably a reference to the lex being glossed
109. See Cortese, Norma giuridica (supra, n. 75)
110. Supra, n. 71
111. Angelus de Ubaldis, ad D. 2,13,10, Venice 1580, fol. 55ra
112. Clem. 5,Sun. = Vienne (1311-12), c. [29]. See infra, text following n. 100
113. Johannes Andreae, ad Clem. 5,5un., v° rationum, Venice 1572, p. 148a. This is, in fact, the glossa ordinaria, on the Clementines, and it supports Angelo's point, though it may be broader than hi duo casus
114. C. 2,1,1, v° officium, Lyon 1604, col. 284-5. It is not at all clear that C. 2,1,1 is not broader than hi duo casus. The gloss distinguishes between the situation where an action of mandate or pro socio is sufficient to compel the discovery and that in which recourse to the office of the judge is required
115. Ed.: sentire
116. Jacobus Butrigarius, ad D. 2,13,10 (supra n. 34), p. 125a-b, who is, however, more qualified than what is reported under his name here
117. Bartolus, ad D. 2,13,10, Venice 1603, fol. 78va, who, however, seems to confine his rule to those who are exercising a public function
118. Ed.: compellunt
119. For the first proposition, see D. 2,13,10; for the second, C. 2,1,1
120. Supra, text and n. 92
121. Supra, text at n. 98
122. Angelus, Consilium, 219, Arnaldus Ferici de Barselona, Arbitror dictam litem, Frankfurt 1575, fol. 148ra
123. Not found in S. Battaglia, ed., Grande dizionario delta lingua italiana, 20 vols, to date, Turin 1961-. In modem Italian, eluire, and its derivatives, is used only as a technical term in chemistry, 'elute' in English. If we remember, however, that the modem word is derived from Latin elavare, we can imagine how a variant of it might have meant a shipwreck, or perhaps more literally, a process by which the cargo was 'washed out' of the boat. The word elavare is sometimes used in Latin with this denotation. Oxford Latin Dictionary, Oxford 1982, s.v
124. Angelus, Consilium, 219, above, n. 102
125. This is quite far from the gloss, which adheres more closely to the text. D. 1,1,1pr., v° ius est ars
126. Lyon 1604, col. 54. Angelo here combines D. 1,1,1pr. with D. 1,1,10, which the gloss does not do
127. He connects the agreement with the price in a way that suggests the Anglo-American notion of contractual consideration. For other ways of 'clothing' naked pacts, see infra, § 5
128. Angelus, Consilium 77, Plures creditores, Super primo puncto, Frankfurt 1575, fol. 49va-50rb. The names are obviously fictional
129. Id., fol. 49vb
130. We would expect quae
131. These two are, in fact, the same lex
132. Ed:.ff de pos. I. j § si conventi
133. See F. Spies, De I'obsenation des simples conventions en droit canonique, these Nancy, Paris 1928, and infra, § 5
134. For examples from the area of procedure, see Donahue, Stracca's De mercatura (supra, n. 1), §§ 4-5
135. Alexander, Consilium 5.80, Visis themate suprascripto, Frankfurt 1575, vol. 5, fol. 71va-72va, at fol. 72rb
136. The Authentic's translation of the Greek makes little sense. It does suggest, however, that sponsiones argentariorum are to be upheld in ordine moderno, and this gave the doctors the opportunity to enforce mercantile contracts unknown to classical Roman law
137. This is a reference to a tortured argument that Bartolo makes in connection with D. 34,1,8 (supra n. 35), that shame can itself be the source of obligation
138. Bertrandus,Consilium 3.149, Exfactiscausaeagitatae,s.1. 1532 [1531 incolophon],vol. 3, fol. 75va-76ra
139. The editors of this review suggest that this is 'bridge over the river Sorgues', a tributary of the Rhone north of Avignon. This could be (or in) modem Sorgues (dep. Vaucluse, arr. Avignon). It could also be Pont-de-l'Isere (dép. Drôme, arr. Valence), but that is probably too far from Avignon
140. Id., nu. 4, fol. 75va
141. Supra, text and n. 104
142. Not found. Bertrand was using an edition of Angelus's Consilia with a numbering different from ours, because he cites Consilium 219 as 138
143. Parisius, Consilium 88, Ad veritatem, Venice 1563, fol. 173(male 172)ra-l 74va
144. Id., fol. 173(male 172)ra
145. Not found. That Parisius cites this consilium twice and Stracca once suggests that they had an edition of Fulgosio's consilia with a different numbering scheme from ours
146. Baldus, Consilium, 1.198, Ad intelligentiam
147. Frankfurt 1589, vol. 1, fol. 53va-54va= Baldus, Consilium, 5.466, Ad intelligentiam, id., vol. 5, fol. 113rb-l 14rb. Thanks are owing to an anonymous 16th-century annotator, who corrected by hand in the margin of the Harvard Law School's copy the garbled citations for this and the following consilium in Parisius, Venice 1563, and thus made these identifications possible
148. Socinus, Consilium 1.120, Cum in praesenti, Venice 1579, vol. 1, fol. 206va-209va
149. For a good general introduction to the overall problem of this section, see R. Zim-mermann, The Law of Obligations, Oxford 1996, p. 509-15
150. E.g., Marcus Antonius Blancus, Tractatus de compromissisfaciendis inter coniunctos secundum statuta, q. 1, Venice 1547, fol. 33v, nu. 45
151. Alexander, Consilium 3.41, Viso puncto, Frankfurt 1575, vol. 3, fol. 41 vb-42vb, at fol. 42ra, nu. 1
152. I have little confidence in my rendering of these names into the vernacular but have done so because they seem to be real ones. The Latin is Antonius de Rabatis, Lucas de Albicis, Johannes domini Marini de Temperandis, and further down Leonardus Bononiensis
153. I am reluctant to translate this as 'galleys', because I am not sure that galleys were used in the Atlantic trade. Perhaps galeones, 'galleons', is meant
154. Alexander, Consilium 3.41 (supra, n. 129), fol. 42ra, nu. 1
155. I.e., even if the pact was simply added to the mandate or was "next to" the mandate (rather than being part of it, as in the previous argument), an action to enforce it would lie because it is vested cohaerentia contractus
156. Angelus, Consilium 1, Porrecta fuit petitio, Visis supradiclis, Frankfurt 1575, fol. lra-lvb (the case is on point but has nothing to do with merchants)
157. Alexander (supra, n. 129), nu. 3
158. Bartolus, ad D. 46,1,63, Venice 1602, fol. 74va. A very complicated case, it was taken as another instance in which Bartolus had allowed an obligation to arise out of a nude pact
159. Alexander, Consilium 3.41 (supra, n. 129), fol. 42vb, nu. 8
160. Alexander, Consilium 6.1 114, Perspectis his quae narranlur, Frankfurt 1575, vol. 6, fol. 57rb-58rb
161. This rescript of Justinian's lays down rules for interpreting imperfect gifts and also formality requirements for larger gifts. See generally Zimmermann (supran. 127), p.494-8.]
162. Alexander, Consilium 6.114 (supra n. 138), fol. 57va, nu. 10
163. The doctors read C. 4,3,1 as applying to agreements to provide legal services (almost certainly a misreading), and then, perhaps even more strikingly, read it as authorizing a condictio ex lege, when the payment had been agreed to nudo pacto, or even where it had not been agreed to at all. C. 4,3,1, v° constrinxerinl
164. Lyon 1604, col. 720. There is more justification for reading D. 17,1,7, as authorizing a procurator to collect a salary for his services on the basis of an informal agreement. Alessandro's argument here seems to be that this waiver of the nudum pactum rule only applied when the services had been performed; hence the waive would not apply in his case because no services were involved
165. Antonius de Butrio (t 1408), ad X 1,2,7, Venice 1578 (repr. Turin 1967), fol. 15rb. The passage concerns the power of the pope to legislate contrary to the ius commune. In the process, Antonio argues that the pope can change the solemnities of the law without including a clause of derogation, but if he changes the voluntas of the law he must include such a clause
166. Sinibaldus Fliscus, ad id., Venice 1570, fol. 4ra, who makes a point similar to that in n. 142 about changing actions available under the civil law
167. Baldus, ad X 1,29,3, Lyon 1564, fol. 85vb, virtually a direct quotation
168. Ed.: ibi
169. See, in addition to the two consilia of Alessandro's immediately preceding, Angelus, Consilium 219 (supra, text and n. 106)
170. Marcus Antonius Blancus (supra, n. 128)
171. Romanus, ad D. 39,5,7, Venice 1580, fol. 48va
172. He seems to offer a more mainstream opinion in rubricam D. 4,8 (de receptis arbitris), Venice 1580, fol. 49vb
173. Romanus, ad D. 39,5,7 (supra n. 148)
174. Sinibaldus Fliscus, ad X 1,2,1, Venice 1570, fol. 3a-b, a somewhat tendentious reading of Innocent's text, though it does seem to limit the range of equitable interpretation
175. Cf. Baldus, ad X 1,2,1, Lyon 1564, fol. 7vb-9[male 16]ra, esp. fol. 8ra
176. Bartolus, ad C. 1,14,1, Venice 1602, fol. 25vb-26ra. Romano does not do justice to the twists and turns in this commentary. See supra, text and n. 54-58
177. Baldus, ad D. 1,1,1, Lyon 1562, fol. 7ra-rb, nu. 5
178. Baldus, ad D. 1,1,10, id., fol. I5ra. In both cases the citation is tendentious. In the case of D. 1,1,1, the opposition of rigor to equity is found in an objection to the definition of ius which Baldo rejects, preferring instead an interpretation ad litteram, which, in rum, leads to a long scholastic discussion of the use of the copula. The other text is on point, but it deals with a compromise on arbiters, who are to decide de iustitia et hire et veritate. These must follow the lex fori not the lex poli. See infra, text and n. 154-155
179. Ed.: vel
180. Baldus, ad C. 7,45,13, Lyon 1564, fol. 257rb-va, a quite accurate summary of what Baldus says follows
181. Decius.ad X 1,29,13, Venice 1576, fol. 108rb-l lOrb, at fol. 108rb
182. For a full discussion, see Baldus, ad rubricam C. 4,18
183. Lyon 1564, fol. 35ra-35vb, with the incipit: quia advocatus sum artis mercantie
184. Romanus, Consilium 94, Visis his quae narrantur in praemissa consultatione, Frankfurt 1577, fol. 49rb-50ra
185. Emended by Horatius Mandosius (t 1594) from praemissa fore. Id., fol. 50ra
186. X 3,22,2; ?3; Sinibaldus Fliscus, ad X 5,19,1, Venice 1570, fol. 306va; D. 17,2,60
187. C. 1,1,1; C. 4,49,5; D. 19,1,13,20, v° diem, Lyon 1604, col. 1821-2. Romano, we should remember, is not dealing with the question whether usurae can be recovered by the usurer as a matter of canon law, but whether a fideiussor who has had to pay them may recover them from his principal
188. Romanus (supra n. 158), fol. 50ra
189. Marianus Socinus junior, Consilium 2.27, Magnificus Dominus Ambrosius de Florentia, Etsipresens consultatio, Venice 1580, fol. 32rb-va (casus), fol. 32rb-34ra (text)
190. See J.S. Rogers, The Early History of the Law of Bills and Notes, Cambridge (Eng.) 1995
191. Marianus Socinus junior (supra n. 162), fol. 33b-34ra, nu. 21-25
192. Ed.: 27
193. C. 4,18,2, v° indefense, Lyon 1604, col. 762-3
194. Baldus, ad C. 4,18,2, Lyon 1564, fol. 36ra-rb, nu. 7; Salicetus, ad C. 4,18,2
195. Frankfurt 1615, col. 599. A quite extraordinary torturing of C. 4,18,2 allows all three texts to hold that the statutes of merchants are binding in their own courts, and, at least for Baldo, they are, in some instances, binding in other courts as well. See Horn, Aequitas in Baldus (supra, n. 37), p. 88-90
196. Baldus, Repertorium Innocentii IV, s.v. statutum collegii, Venice 1570, sig. Ccc7ra:'Doctores dicunt quod potestas tenetur servare inter mercatores statuta mercatorum, sic de aliis ut auth. de resti. fideicommissi § argentarii' [?Nov. 136, ?Edict. Just. 9, ?Edict. Just. 7 (Auth. 9,41 =Nov. 159 is impossible, but any of these might have been found in a manuscript after it)]. 'Et hoc si verba statuti diriguntur in ipsos mercatores; nam quia lex confirmat istud statutum, ergo potestas debet ipsum servare'
197. Johannes Andreae.ad X 1,6,51, Venice 1581, fol. 124rb, is on point in the sense that Giovanni takes the decretal as subjecting a pact to the same standard as a custom, i.e., it must be reasonable and not perniciosum. The pact in the case gave a layman the right to choose a prelate
198. VI 1,4,2, v° officiali, Venice, 1572, p. 32b-33a. The text invalidates a custom whereby an appeal could be taken from a bishop's official to the bishop. This, the gloss says, is contrary to the nature of an appeal, and it analogizes the situation to that of a pact in a precarium that gives the precarium a fixed length
199. 'Bal[dus], Consil., cccc in v. lib. nu. 10', Consilium 399, Frankfurt 1589, vol. 5, fol. 95vb, nu. 10. The case concerns what we would call a potentially voidable preference
200. D. 17,1,29 pr. is cited for the proposition that 'inter mercatores ... non convenit de iuris apicibus disputare, sed de mera veritate et consuetudine mercatorum'. This in tum, along with many other arguments, is used to support the proposition that the preference was not voidable, even though it was made two days before the debtor fled
201. 'Bal[dus], Consil., cccclxvi nu. 4 eo lib', Consilium 466 (supra n. 125), fol. 113va, nu. 5
202. D. 17,l,29 pr. is cited for basically the same proposition as in n. 170, supra, and to support the validity of an informal written obligation
203. Stracca, De mercatura (supra, n. 1), 5.1, fol. 77r, nu. 1
204. Id., fol. 77r-v
205. I.e., in the sense of the censors' mark
206. Baldus, ad X 1,29,3, Lyon 1562, fol. 85va: 'Secundo dicitur bona fides, i.e., Iegalitas que potissime requiritur in his qui plurimum negotiantur et in his non differt pactum nudum a stipulatione, ut [D. 13,5,1pr.] et in [Nov. 4,3,1], unde campsores qui tenent mensam authoritate publica non habent beneficium excussionis'
207. E.g., supra, text at n. 106; see generally § 5
208. Socini's Consilium 2.27 (supra text following n. 162), is particularly notable
209. Supra, text following n. 102
210. Supra, text following n. 122
211. Donahue, Stracca's De mercatura (supra, n. 1),§4
212. Id.,§ 5