Business was done on the Commenda system, as later in Islam. The principal, called ‘merchant’ in the Code, entrusted money or goods to his agent, who gave a receipt for them, and went off to seek a market. On his return he had to repay his commission and give a fair profit, or share with his principal. This profit was agreed on as a matter of free contract. If he was unlucky in his transactions, he yet had to pay cent. per cent. as profit (§ 101). But the merchant might merely speculate and not bargain for profit on a fixed scale. The agent must at least return the capital (§ 102). The trader has his risks. In the Tel el- Amarna period we find the king complaining of caravans being robbed (AJB v. p. 25). The Code contemplates this, and allows the agent to clear his liability by oath that the enemy robbed him (§ 103). All was to be done by written contract (§ 104); money or goods not sealed for could not be claimed in the reckoning (§ 105). Disputes were punished. False claims on the part of the agent were to be repaid threefold, on the part of the principal sixfold (§§ 106, 107). The contemporary documents abound with cases of partnership. The usual method was for each partner to take back his capital and interest, and then the partners divided the profit equally. The common stock was divided into two classes—property ‘in town’ and property ‘on the road.’ The reckoning was made yearly, unless the, absent agent was detained be- yond the year. It took the form of a dissolution of partnership ; all the common stock was inven- toried and a settlement made, usually in the temple, upon oath, and each party entered into compact not to dispute the settlement. The partnership might then be renewed.
Warehousing and deposit were frequently re- sorted to. It had to be a matter of written con- tract, the goods being deposited before witnesses, otherwise no claim for return could be made. The warehouseman took all responsibility. If he denied the deposit, he had to repay double (§§ 122- 125). The storage of corn is specially dealt with ; the warehouseman took all responsibility, even for loss by theft from his store. If he falsified his liability, he had to pay double (§ 120). He charged a fee of one-sixtieth per year (§ 121). It was common to hire a granary. The granary was protected from a distraint (§ 113). False claims on a warehouseman had to be repaid twofold (§ 126). We have noted the shipping business and the beer-shop above.
3. There is much said of interest on money. We miss any regulation in the Code on the point, save that interest had to be returned with borrowed money (§§ 49, 50, 100, X). It was usually about 40 per cent. or 334 per cent. on corn loans. In the lapse of time it grew less—25 per cent. in Assyria, 20 per cent. in the Second Babylonian Empire. But there was never any fixed rate, it was matter of free contract. Loans of corn at seedtime are very frequent ; a poor man was then often without corn, They were usually repaid at harvest without interest ; but interest was set down to be paid if
594 CODE OF HAMMURABIL
CODE OF HAMMURABI
oe ee SS SS ee ee ee
the loan was kept longer. Loans were also frequent at harvest time to pay the harvesters. With pledges of crops we have already dealt under ‘ Agriculture.’ A debtor could pay in corn, or sesame, according to the royal standard exchange value (§§ 51, 111). At harvest time, when corn was dearest and drink most needed, the beer-seller sold cheap (§ 108), otherwise she might not make drink cheaper than corn. The creditor could not refuse to take goods in liquidation of a debt (§ 88). Debt might be discharged by a written order to a third party to pay (B? 315).
4. Debt might lead to distraint. The debtor could ‘name’ a surety or mancipiwm, who had to enter the creditor’s house and there work off the debt. But the hostage was protected from blows or starvation; he was still the debtor’s property, and the creditor must restore him, if a free man, wife, or child, of debtor, at the end of three years (§§ 115-117). A hostage slave might be sold if the creditor wished to leave the city (§ 118). But if the slave was a maid who had borne her master children, he was bound to redeem her (§ 119). As a creditor was bound to accept goods in payment, it is clear these distraints were a last resource. They could not be made on the creditor’s own responsibility. If he distrains upon the debtor’s corn without the debtor’s consent, he has to pay back what he takes and lose all claim for his debt (§ 113). If he distrains without having a debt owing him, he pays a fine of one- third of a mina (§ 114). He might not distrain a working ox (§ 241), under the same penalty. In fact, ‘self-help’ is forbidden; the debtor must name ‘his’ hostage.
The hostage was an antichretic pledge. many examples of this in later times. Land and crops might be pledged, as above. Goods were also pledged, or assigned in lieu of debt. Asa summary proceeding we may note that, if a man incurred a public debt and could not pay, he was sold with all his goods, and the claimants shared the proceeds (§ 54).