Partnership (Societas)

A partnership in Roman law was an association of two or more persons under a contract by which they combine their property, or their labor, or their property and labor, with a view of sharing their common gains. The term does not seem tohave been defined by the Roman writers.

The Roman partnership, like the English, involved the sharing of profits and losses. In the absence of special agreement on the subject, an equal sharing of both profits and losses was understood. It might be agreed, however, that the shares should be unequal, as that one of two partners might receive two-thirds, and the other only one-third, of profits and bear losses in the same proportion, or that one partner might take two-thirds of the profits and bear only one-third of the losses, though this last point was decided only after some difference of opinion. And one partner might take a share of the profits without bearing any of the losses. Profit sharing in some proportion seems to have been essential. There could be no partnership where one of the parties was to share losses only without sharing profits. Such an arrangement was not a true partnership but was known as leonina societas

A partnership was formed by the simple consent of the parties, no special form of contract being necessary. Consent was essential, and one partner could not dispose of his interest in the partnership so as to make the transferee a partner in his place.

.

Effects of Marriage with Manus

By the strict marriage the wife passed into the marital power of her husband {in manum viri). The manus or marital power may be regarded as a particular form of the patria potestas. An uxor in manu was a member of her husband's household. Although called a materfamilias, this term did not have a meaning corresponding to the term paterfamilias. The wife was not the head of the family. She stood legally in the position of a daughter {in loco filiafamilias) of her husband. If she had children she was regarded as a sister of her own children. The relation of husband and wife, both as regards the wife's person and her property, was governed by the same rules of law as governed the relation of father and child. The law of husband and wife may, therefore, be considered as merely a particular branch of the law of parent and child. The husband had, in general, the same power over the person of his wife in manu as the father had over his child. Anciently, it may be suppo...
Read more

Slavery by Birth

The children of a female slave became the slaves of her master. The status of the father as free or slave was immaterial. The general rule governing the determination of the status of a child, whether as free or slave, or as citizen or alien, was as follows : Children born in lawful wedlock had the status of the father at the moment of conception, children born out of wedlock had the status of the mother at the moment of birth. Hence if the father of a child of a lawful marriage was free at the moment of conception, the child was free although the father should subsequently lose his freedom. As to children born out of wedlock, the general rule, as above stated, was that it was the status of the mother at the moment of birth that determined the status of the child. If the mother was free at the moment of conception but a slave at the moment of birth, the child was a slave, and conversely. This was the earlier law, but the rule was modified in the interest of liber...
Read more

Mandate (Mandatum)

Mandate (mandatum) was a contract by which one person mandatarius agreed to do something gratuitously at the request of another mandator , who, on his part, agreed to save him harmless from all loss in so doing. The mandator was said to give the mandatory a mandate, or commission to do the act in question. The term mandatum is sometimes translated "agency", but this translation is misleading. The mandatory is not properly described as an agent. Mandate was the only gratuitous consensual contract; the others, sale, hiring, and partnership, all being founded upon a consideration. Like the others, it was a bona fidei negotium , and bound the parties to do all that was required by good faith. It was of the essence of the contract of mandate that the mandatory should act gratuitously. But while this was true in a strict legal sense, it was allowed to agree upon a sum to be paid as a honorium , or salary, which might be recovered only by a special action and not b...
Read more