Scanned text contains errors.
RESTITUTIO IN INTEGRUM.
rank, and be disqualified from being witnesses, juclices, or senators. This is the Lex which was commented on by the Jurists, whose expositions are preserved in the Digest (48. tit. 11), and in the Code (9. tit. 27). This Lex adopted some provisions that existed in previous Leges, as for instance that by which the money that had been improperly retained eould be recovered from those into whose hands it could be traced. (-Cic. pro C. Rabir. Post. 4.) The Lex had been passed when Cicero made his oration against Piso, b. c. 55. (In Pis. 21.) A. Gabinius was convicted under this Lex. Many of its provisions may be collected from the oration of Cicero against Piso. Cicero boasts that in his proconsulship of Cilicia there was no cost caused to the people by himself, his legati, quaestor, nor any one else ; he did not even demand from the people what the Lex (Julia) allowed him. (AdAtt. v. 16.)
Under the Empire the offence was punishable with exile. (Tacit. Anna!, xiv. 28, and the note of Lipsius.)
In Clinton's Fasti Hellenici, the Lex Calpurnia is incorrectly stated to be the first law at Rome against Bribery at Elections. Bribery is A mbitus.
(Sigonius de Judiciis^ ii. c. 27 ; Rein, Das Cri- minalreclit der Rvmer^ p. 604. &c. ; Rudorff, Ueler die Octavianisclie Formel, Zeitschrift fur Geschicht. Reclitsw. &c. xil p. 136.) [G. L.]
REPLICATIO. [AcTio, p. 10.]
REPOSITORIA. [coena, p. 307, b.]
REPOTIA. [matrimonium, p. 7445 a.]
RES JUDICATA. [judjcata actio.] RES MA'NCIPI. [dominium.]
RESPONSA. [JuaiscoNsuLTi.] RESTITUTIO IN INTEGRUM, in the sense in which the term will here be used, signifies the rescinding of a contract or legal transaction so as to place the parties to it in the same position with respect to one another which they occupied before the contract was made or the transaction took place. The Restitutio here spoken of is founded on the Edict. If the contract or transaction is such as not to be valid according to the Jus Civile, this Restitutio is not needed ; and it only applies to cases of contracts and transaction, which are not in their nature or form invalid. In order to entitle a person to the Restitutio, he must have sustained some injury capable of being estimated, in consequence of the contract or transaction, and not through any fault of his own ; except in the case of one who is minor xxv annorum, who was protected by the Restitutio against the consequences of his own carelessness. The injury also must be one for which the injured person has no other remedy.
The Restitutio mav either be effected on the
complaint of the injured party, which would generally be made after the completion of the transaction, or when he is sued by the other party in respect of the transaction and defends himself by an Exceptio. The complaint as a general rule must be made within four years of the time of the injury being discovered, and of the party being capable of bringing his action ; in the case of Minores the four years were reckoned from the time of their attaining their majority. In the case of an Exceptio there was no limitation of time. (Cod. 2. tit. 53.
RESTITUTIO IN INTEGRUM. 987
s. 7.) According to the old law the complaint must be made within one year.
The application for a Restitutio could onty be made to one who had Jurisdietio, either original or delegated, which flowed from the possession of the Imperium ; and it might, according to the circumstances, be decreed by the Magistratus extra ordinem, or the matter might be referred to a Judex. When a Restitutio was decreed, each party restored to the other what he had received from him with all its accessions and fruits, except so far as the fruits on one side might be set oft" against the interest of money to be returned on the other side. All proper costs and expenses incurred in respect of the thing to be restored were allowed. If the object of the Restitutio was a right, the injured party was restored to his right ; or if he had. incurred a duty, he was released from the duty.
The action for Restitutio might be maintained by the person injured, by his heredes, cessionarii, and sureties ; but as a general rule it could only be maintained against the person with whom the contract had been made, and not against a third person who was in possession of the thing which was sought to be recovered, except when the actio for restitutio was an actio in rem scripta, or the injured party had an actio in rem, or when the right which he had lost was a right in rem.
The grounds of Restitutio were either those expressed in the Edict, or any good and sufficient cause: "item si qua, alia mihi justa causa esse videbitur in integrum restituam, quod ejus per Leges, Plebiscita, Senatusconsulta, Edicta, Decreta Principum licebit." (Dig. 4. tit. 6. s. 1.)
The following are the chief cases in which a Restitutio might be decreed.
The case of Vis et Metus. If a man did an act that was injurious to himself, through vis or metus, the act was not for that reason invalid, nor was it considered that his assent was wanting (Dig. 4. tit. 2. s. 21. § 5) : but it was contra bonos mores to allow such an act to have legal effect. When a man had acted under the influence of force, or reasonable fear caused by the acts of another party, he had an actio quod metus causa for restitution against the party who was the wrongdoer, and also against an innocent person who was in possession of any thing which had thus been got from him, and also against the heredes of the wrongdoer if they were enriched by being his heredes (quantum ad eos pervenit). If he was sued in respect of the transaction, he could defend himself by an exceptio quod metus causa. The actio Quod Metus was given by the Praetor L. Octavius, a contemporary of Cicero. (Compare Cic. in Vcrr. iii. 65, and Dig. 4. tit. 2. s. 1.)
The case of Dolus. When a man was fraudulently induced to become a party to a transaction, which was legal in all respects, saving the fraud, he had his actio de dolo malo against the guilty person and his heredes, so far as they were made richer by the fraud, for the restoration of the thing of which he had been defrauded, and if that was not possible, for compensation. Against a third party who was in bona fide possession of the thing, he had no action. If he was sued in respect of the transaction, ^e could defend himself by the exceptio doli mail. (Compare Dig. 4. tit. 3.)
The case of Minores xxv. annorum. A Minor could by himself do no legal act for which the