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

728 MAND\ATI ACTIO. MANDATUM.
5) defines "Abalienatio " to be " ejus rei quae MANDAITUM. It is a contract of mandatum
mancipi est;" and this is effected either by "tra- when one person commissions another to do someditio alteri nexu anut in jure cessio inter quos ea thing without reward, and that other person underjure civili fieri possunt." According to this defini- takes to do it: and generally it may be stated that
tion " Abalienatio " is of a Res Mancipi, a class of whenever a man commissions another to do somethings determinate; and the mode of transfer is thing without pay, which, if the thing were to be
either by " traditio nexu " or by " in jure cessio." done for pay (merces), would make the transaction
These two modes correspond respectively to the a contract of locatio and conductio, the contract of'G mancipatio " and "cin jure cessio" of Gaius (ii. mandatum exists; as if a man gives clothes to a
41), and accordingly mancipatio or the older term fullo to be furbished up and cleaned, or to a tailor
mancipium is equivalent to "traditio nexn:" in (sarciaetor) to mend. The person who gave the
other words mancipium was a nexus or nexum. commission was the mandans or mandator: he who
Cicero (De Htarusp. respoons. c. 7) uses both words received it, was the mandatarius. The mandatum
in the same sentence, where he speaks of various might be either on the sole account of the mantitles to property, antd among them he mentions dator, or on another person's account, or on the
the J as mancipii and Jus nexi. He may mean account of the manldator and another person, or on
here to speak of the Jus mancipii in its special account of the mandator and mandatarius or on the
sense as contrasted with the Jus nexi which had a account of the mandatarius and another person.
wider meaning; in another instance he uses both But there could be no mandatum on the account
words to express one thing. (Ad Famn. iv. 30.) Ac- (grctia) of the mandatarins only; as if a man
cording to Aelius Gallus, everything was n"exum" were to advise another to put his money out to in"q quodcunque per aes et libram geritur;" and as terest, and it were lost, the loser would have no
mancipatio was effected per aes et libram, it was mandati actio against his adviser. If the advice
consequently a nexum. The form of mancipatio were to lend the money to Titius, and the loan
by the aes and libra continued probably till Jus- had the like result, it was a question whether this
tinian abolished the distinction between Res Man- was a case of mandatum; but the opinion of Sacipi and Res Nec Mancipi. It is alluded to by binus prevailed, that it was, and the mandant thus
Horace (Ep. ii. 2. 158), and the libra, says Pliny became security for Titius. It was not mandatum
(xxxiii. 3), is still used in such forms of transfer. if the thing was contra bonos mores, or in other
When things were transferred by mancipatio words, if the object of the mandatum was an illegal
under a contract of sale, the vendor was boend to act. A mandatum might be general or special
warranty in double of the amount of the thing sold. and the mandatarius was bound to keep within
(Paul. S. R. ii. s. 16.) A vendor therefore who the limits of the mandatum. The mandator had
had a doubtful title would not sell by mancipium, an utilis actio against such persons as the mandatabut would merely transfer by delivery, and leave rius contracted with; and such persons had the
the purchaser to obtain the Quiritarian ownership like action against the mandator; and a directa
of the thing by usucapion. (Plaut. Cure. iv. 2. 9, actio against the mandatarius. The mandator and
Persa, iv. 3. 55.) Accordingly Varro observes mandatarius had also respectively a directa actio
(De Re Rusticca, ii. 10) that if a slave was not against one another in respect of the mandatum:
transferred by mancipium, the seller entered into a the actio of the mandatarius might be for instipulatio dupli to be enforced by the buyer in the demnity generally ill respect of what he had done
case of eviction; when the transfer was by manci- bona fite. If the nmandatarius exceeded his compium, this stipulation was not necessary. The mission, he had no action against the mandator;
terms of the contract were called Lex Mancipii, but the mandator in such case had an action for
but it is not necessary to infer from the passage of the amount of damage sustained by the non-execuCicero (De Or. i. 39), that the Lex or terms con- tion of the mandatum, provided it could have been
tained the penalty, but merely that it contained executed. The mandatum might be recalled by
what the seller warranted. (See Pro lMus'ena, c. 2.) the mandans, or renounced by the mandatarius,
As to theapplicationof Mlancipatio to Testaments, "dum adhuc integra res sit," that is, no loss must
see TESTAMENTUM. accrue to either party in consequence of the contract
It appears from what has been said that manci- being rescinded. The contract was dissolved by
pium may be used as equivalent to complete owner- the death of either party; but if the mandatarius
ship, and may thus be opposed to usus as in a pas- executed the manldatum after the death of the
sage of Lucretius that has been often quoted (iii. mandator, in ignorance of his death, he had his
935), and to Fructus (Cic. ad Fasez. vii. 29, 30). action against the heres, which was allowed "utiliSometimes the word imancipium signifies a slave, tatis cause." According to Cicero a mandati judias being one of the Res mancipi: this is probably ciumn was "Cnon minus turpe quam furti " (Pro
the sense of the word in Cicero (Top. 5) and Rose. Asmer. c. 38); which however would obcertainly in Horace (Elp. i. 6. 39). Sometimes viously depend on circumstances. [INFAsIIA.]
mancipia is used generally for Res mancipi (Ulp. Mandatum is sometimes used in the sense of a
tit. xi. 27), unless Rem mancipi is the right read- command from a superior to an inferior. UnJder
ing ill that passage. Mancipation no longer ex- the empire the Mandata Principum were the comisted in the code of Justinian, who took away all mands and instructions given to governors of prodistinction between Res Mancipi and Nec Man- vinces and others. (See the letter of Plinius to
cipi. The ownership of all corporeal things was Trajanus, and the emperor's answer, Plin. Elp. x.
made transferable by Traditio with a justa causa. 111, 112.) Frontinus (De Aquaeduet.) classes the
The subject of Mancipium and Mancipatio is Mandata Principum with Lex and Senatuscondiscussed by Corn. Van Bynkershoek, Opusculums sulta. (See Puchta, Inst. i. 110.)
de Rebus Meancipi et Nec l4"ancipi; and Puchta, (Gaius, iii. 155-162, iv. 83, 84; Inst. 3.
enst. ii. ~ 238. [G. L.] tit. 21; Dig. 17. tit. 1; Cod. 4. tit. 35 Vangerow
MANDA'TI ACTIO. [MaANDATAs.] Padi(ek;lc/e; &c. iii. 469.) [G. L.]