Dictionary of Greek and Roman antiquities. Ed. by William Smith. Illustrated by numerous engravings on wood.

SO-C IETAS. SOCIETAS. 104 9
For the rea;sons mentioned under the articles answerablle to the others for his conduct ill the
BAXA and CPREPIDA the Soccus was worn by management of the business: he was bound to use
comic actors (Ior. Ars Poet. 80, 90), and was in Diligentia and was answerable for any loss throngli
this respect opposed to the CO'rIURNaNS. (Mart. Culpa. The action which one socius had against
viii. 3. 13; Plin. Eplist. ix. 7.) The preceding wood- another in respect of the contract of partnershipi
scut is taken from an ancient painting of a buffoon was an actio directa and called Pro Socio (cur non:[MIIuvs], who is dancing in loose yellow slippers arlhitruer pro socio adegesis Qeu. RosciZn, &c.; Cici
~(lhteunz socecur, Catull. Epithal. Jul. 10). This ps'o Q. Roscio Coen. 9). The action might be
-was one of their most common colours. (De L'Aul- brought for any breach of the agreement of partnaye, Salt. Thlrat. pl. iv.) [SOLEA.] [J. Y.] nership, for an account and for a dissolution. A
SOCI'ETAS. Societas is classed by Gaius (iii. partner might transfer his interest to another per135) and in the Institutions of Justinian among son, but this transfer did not make that other perthose obligationes which arise Consensu. Whel son a partner, for consent of all parties was essential
several persons unite for a common purpose, which to a Societas: in fact such a transfer was a dissois legal, and contribute the necessary means, such lution of the partnership, and the person to wholl
a union is Societas, and the persons are Socii. (Dig. the transfer was made might have his action De
17. tit. 2. s. 57.) The contract of Societas might Commnuni' dividundo. But there might be the pro
either be made in wvords or by the acts of the par- socio actio against the heres of a socius, for though.
ties, or by the consent of the parties signified the lbres is not a socius, yet lie succeeds to the inthrough third persons: it required no particular terest of his testator or intestate in the partnership.
form of agreement. A Societas might be formed (emloblonento successor est; Dig. 17. tit. 2. s..63.
either for the sake of gain to arise from the dealings ~ ~).
and labour of the Socii (quaestus), or not. Societas Eachl socius had a right of action in proportion
for the purpose of quaestus corresponds to the Eng- to his interest against any person with whom anty
lish Partnership. A Societas might be formed of the socii had contracted, if the socii had -comwhich should comprise all the property of the Socii missioned him to snake the contract or had ap(societas omssiunm bonoruml); in which case as soon proved of the contract; or if it was an action.
as the Societas was formed, all the property of all arising from a delict. Thus in the case of Roscius'
the Socii. immediately became common (sres quaece and Fannius, they had severally sued a third person.
coent2tieum s2i2t contfinuo cos2mmunZsicanetu'). But the iln respect of their several claims as partners, and
Societas might be limited to a part of the property yet Fanmius still claimed the half of what Rosciua
of the Socii or to a single thing, as the buying and had recovered in respect of his share in the palrt-:
selling of slaves, or to carrying on trade in a par- nership. (Pro Q. Rose. Cons. 11, 17, 18.) In all
ticular thing in a particular place. (Cic. pro P. other cases the person who made the contract could.
Qsi2utio, c. 3.) The communion of property in a alone sue. All the socii could be sued if they had:
Societas might also be limited to the use of the all joined in the contract with a third person, anid
things.- A Societas might be formed either in each in proportion to his share. If one sociis cosl-.
pe)'pe2tuitm, that is, so long as the parties lived, or tracted on behalf of all, being commissioned to do
tad ternplus or in te7ip2ore or stub conditione. (Dig. 17. so, all were liable to the full amount (in soliduho);.;:
tit. 2. s. 1.) If a socius borrowed money, the other socii were
Each Socius was bound to contribute towards in no case bound by his contract, unless the money
the objects of the Societas according to the terms had been brought into the common stock. In fact
of the contract. But it was not necessary that all the dealings of one partner did not bind the other
the Socii should contribute money: one might sup- partners, except in such cases as they would be
ply money and another might supply labour (opera), bound independent of the existence of the Societas.
and the profit might be divisible between them, Condemnatio in an Actio Pro Socio was sometimes
for the labour of one might be as valuable as the attended with INFAlIIA.
money of the other. In the case of Roscius the A Societas, unless it was for a limited period,:
actor, Fannius had a slave' Panurgus, who by could be ended at the pleasure of any one of theagreement between Roscius and Fannius was made socii: any member of the body could give notice,
their joint property (coiszinzMis). Roscius lpid of dissolution when lie pleased (renuntiare societ, ti),.
nothing for his one half of the man, but he under- and therefore the Societas was dissolved (solvitur)..
took to instruct him in his art. Apparently they But in the case of a societas omnium bonorum, if.
became partners in the man in equal shares, for one socius had been appointed Ileres,- he could not,
Cicero complains of the terms of the Societas on by giving notice of dissolution defraud his co-,
the part of Roscius whose instruction was worth partners of their share of the hereditas. The death,
much more than the price of the slave before he was of a partner dissolved the Societas; and a Capitis;
taught his art. (Cic. pro Q. Roscio Cosls. 10.) The dirninutio was said to have the same effect. If the
agreement between the Socii might also be, that property of any one of the socii was sold either
one Socius should sustain no10 loss and should have publice (bonorsalnupublicatio) or privatim, the Societas,
a share of the gain, provided his labour was so was dissolved. It was also dissolved when the:
valuable as to render it equitable for him to become purpose for which it was formed was accomplished;
a partner on such terms. If the shares of the Socii or the things in which there was a Societas, had
wvere not fixed by agreement they were considered ceased to exist; or by the lapse of the time ior.
to be equal. (Dig. 17. tit. 2. s. 29.) One partner which it was formed.
might have two or more shares, and another might If on the dissolution of a partnership there -was
have only one, if their contributions to the Societas no profit, but a loss to sustain, the loss was borne,
in money or, in labour were in these proportions. as already stated, by the socii in proportion to their
If the agreement was merely as to the division of shares. If one manll cotributed money and another
-profit,'it followed that the Socii must bear the labour, and there was a loss, how was the: loss
losses in the same proportion. Each Socius wa. I borne? If the money and the labour were con