Skip to main content
Article
Remedy of Prohibition against Roman Judges in Civil Trials
P. Brand & J. Getzler, eds., Judges and Judging in the History of the Common Law: From Antiquity to Modern Times (2012)
  • Ernest Metzger, University of Glasgow
Abstract

In classical Roman civil procedure, a lay judge was appointed to hear a single case. He received brief instructions on the case to be adjudicated and — though many details are unknown — was personally answerable if he failed to follow the instructions properly. It is well known that a judge who simply failed to give judgment was in danger of becoming liable. Recent evidence, however, suggests that the judge similarly faced liability for giving judgment when he was not supposed to. The law of procedure recognised certain ‘causes for adjournment’, in the face of which a judge was obliged to adjourn. Any judgment he gave notwithstanding a cause for adjournment had no force. This paper gives two examples of these ‘causes’: the absence of a litigant on account of illness, and the appearance of a defendant-ward who is sued without the authority of his or her guardian.

Keywords
  • Roman law,
  • Roman civil procedure
Publication Date
2012
Citation Information
Ernest Metzger. "Remedy of Prohibition against Roman Judges in Civil Trials" P. Brand & J. Getzler, eds., Judges and Judging in the History of the Common Law: From Antiquity to Modern Times (2012)
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/ernestmetzger/8/