Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/64

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Paragraph 1- If one had documents deposited in his possession and the depositor died and the custodian claims that he took possession of these documents in the depositor’s lifetime as collateral for an outstanding debt of the depositor - for if he took them as repayment it would be of no effect if it was not done in writing- and there are witnesses that testify that while the depositor was alive he demanded the documents from the custodian and the custodian did not want to return the documents, the taking of possession by the custodian would work. If there are no witnesses, it would not. The foregoing is referring to a case where there were witnesses that the documents were deposited in the custodian’s possession and there are also witnesses that they are still in the custodian’s possession because otherwise the custodian would be believed with a migu that an unpreventable accident occurred or that the deposit never occurred. This is all under Gemara law. However, now that the Rabbis have instituted that one may collect from moveable items of orphans, the custodian would be able collect from these documents even if he did not grab them while the depositor was alive. If the custodian takes possession of the document while the depositor is alive, he is able to say he is taking possession as collateral, even if he has no migu and is unable to claim he purchased them. This is not like one opinion that says that because the custodian has no migu, he can only claim he grabbed the documents as collateral where it was known that the depositor owed him money.