From the examination of D. 2, 1, 15 it can be concluded that, if a problem had arisen in the event that someone had mistakenly referred to one magistrate instead of another, this could only happen where, instead of the praetor urbanus, it had not been addressed the praetor peregrinus (as it would seem prima facie), but a special praetor judging extra ordinem.
D. 2, 1, 15 ed il principio «Si per errorem alius pro alio praetor fuerit aditus, nihil valebit quod actum est»
ARCARIA F.
2021-01-01
Abstract
From the examination of D. 2, 1, 15 it can be concluded that, if a problem had arisen in the event that someone had mistakenly referred to one magistrate instead of another, this could only happen where, instead of the praetor urbanus, it had not been addressed the praetor peregrinus (as it would seem prima facie), but a special praetor judging extra ordinem.File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
