Title XVII: On Purchase and Sale

Latin source headnote: A bishop compels that goods not be sold more dearly to travelers than they would be sold in the market.

From the Council at Valence.

It pleased [us and our faithful] that priests admonish their peoples that they too be hospitable, [that they deny lodging to no traveler,] and, [so that every occasion of robbery may be removed,] that they not sell more dearly to travelers than they can sell in the market; otherwise, let the travelers report this to the priest, so that at his command they sell to them with humanity.

Latin source headnote: One who falsifies measures and weights ought to do penance for thirty days on bread and water.

From the Council of Mainz.

So that measures and weights may be just, as has been enacted in the divine laws, is contained in the lordly capitulary, and is established by this sacred assembly, thus it pleases all of us to observe. And if anyone has presumed to alter just measures and just weights for the sake of gain, let him do penance for thirty days on bread and water.

Latin source headnote: A sale is valid although the seller was deceived beyond half the just price; nevertheless, the seller can bring an action so that the thing is restored or the just price supplied, and if he seeks one of them peremptorily, he fails.

Alexander III, to the Bishop of Arras.

When our beloved sons the canons of Beauvais proposed a complaint against the religious men, the abbot and brothers of Chaalis, that they had purchased from certain of them, while the chapter was ignorant, for ten pounds the forest called Black Valley, then worth forty marks, after many commissions we finally committed the cause itself, under a certain form, to our venerable brother the Bishop of Thérouanne and our beloved son the Dean of Reims to be terminated, adding in the letters that, if each could not be present for cognizance of that cause, the other, associating with himself prudent and honorable men, should not delay to proceed in the same business. Therefore, when the dean summoned the parties to his presence on this account, the abbot and monks sent messengers not to act or answer but to seek delays, asserting that they had sent to us and appealed to our hearing. But because appeal had been removed in the letters, the dean finally proceeded in cognizance of that cause. And when it was established to him through witnesses of the canons of Beauvais that the aforesaid brothers had purchased the forest for less than half the just price, he pronounced that the sale was not valid and, adjudging the forest to the church of Beauvais, inducted the canons into possession. Therefore, when messengers of both parties were constituted in our presence on this account, and confirmation of the sentence by apostolic authority was insistently and earnestly sought on behalf of the canons, after deliberation with our brothers and other wise men who, sworn to the laws, give judgment, we understood that sentence to be contrary to law. But because it is in the choice of the purchaser, when a thing is bought for less than half the just price, whether he wishes to supply the just price or rescind the sale, annulling that sentence as contrary to law, we adjudged that possession should be restored to the monks, saving to the canons every question concerning deception in the price, lack of consent of the chapter in the sale, or any other reasonable cause that the canons should determine to propose against the monks.

Latin source headnote: If a husband has other goods from which a wife can provide for herself, and with the wife's consent sells a thing donated to the wife on account of marriage, the wife cannot trouble concerning it a purchaser who possessed the thing for a period of thirty years, especially if the price was turned to the common use of husband and wife. This it says according to the understanding held by Panormitanus, and it is a notable case limiting civil law. According to John Andrew, it is unnecessary to add “especially,” but all three things are necessarily required.

Celestine III.

It has come to us from your intimation that formerly P. the knight sold to the woman B., for a certain quantity of money, a certain house assigned to his wife A. as a donation on account of marriage, with the woman herself giving express consent, which B. possessed freely and peacefully from that sale for thirty years while the aforesaid marriage endured. But when the aforesaid knight entered upon the way of all flesh, his widow presumes to proceed against this, alleging that the said house, granted to her by title of donation on account of marriage, could not have been alienated, although her consent is known to have acceded to that contract. But the aforesaid woman B. endeavors to protect herself on the ground that for thirty years, while their marriage endured, she possessed the house itself in good faith and under a just title; that its price was turned to the common uses of that husband and wife; and that at the time of the sale there existed among the husband's resources that from which the aforesaid woman could advantageously provide for herself. Therefore, because you took care to consult us concerning these things, we answer your solicitude that, if the things we have premised are true, the aforesaid purchaser ought not to be further troubled concerning that house on the aforesaid occasions.

Latin source headnote: If in a sale an agreement is added concerning recovery of the thing after a certain time, with a small price established, a pledge and not a sale is presumed.

Innocent III, to the Bishop of Patti.

Know that it has come to our hearing that, when the layman R., bearer of the present letters, wished to receive a loan from M., the creditor of the diocese of Trani, lest in the future he could be sued under the canon issued against usurers, received from him by title of purchase his houses and olive trees, when in truth a usurious contract was being transacted. This is apparent from the fact that the creditor, as the public instrument contains, promised the debtor that, whenever between the seventh and ninth years he should give forty ounces of tarins, which scarcely attained half the just price, he would restore his houses and olive trees. Therefore, because fraud and deceit ought to furnish patronage to no one, by apostolic writings we command your fraternity that, if the matter stands thus, notwithstanding the instrument of sale drawn up in fraud of the canon promulgated against usurers, you compel the aforesaid M., by the penalty promulgated against usurers in the Lateran Council, appeal being removed, to restore the aforesaid houses and olive trees to him upon whom they ought to devolve by hereditary right, since the debtor has entered upon the way of all flesh. [Given at the Lateran, on the fourth day before the Nones of March. 1203.]

Latin source headnote: A seller deceived beyond half the just price can bring an action so that the thing is restored to him upon returning the price received, or that the just price is supplied; and in this the choice belongs to the purchaser. This it says according to Antonius.

The same, to the Bishop and Archdeacon of Urbino.

When the cause disputed between the steward of the monastery of Saint Martin on the Mount of Viterbo on one side, and F. and R., citizens of Viterbo, on the other, concerning the tenements formerly of Tornaparte, the lands of Densiare, the willow groves, and the mill where the fullery was made, had been debated before us for some time, we, having understood the reasons of both parties and diligently inspected the attestations, since it was established to us that the monastery had been deceived beyond half the just price in the sale of the aforesaid things, decreed by sentence that the aforesaid citizens either restore the aforesaid possessions upon receiving the price, or supply as much as was established to have been lacking from the just price at the time of the lawful sale. Therefore, when (cf. c. 42, On Witnesses, II. 20.)

Latin source headnote: It sets forth three cases in which, after the thing has been evicted, the seller is not liable to the purchaser for eviction.

Gregory IX.

If, after judgment was instituted against the seller, someone omitted to notify him to defend the thing sold to him, or was contumaciously absent at the time the sentence was promulgated, or the sentence was issued through injustice, he will not be able to bring an action concerning eviction according to the lawful sanctions.