Paulus, Epitomes of the Digest of Alfenus, Book V. The person who is required to replace a column which supported a neighboring house is the owner of the house subject to the servitude, and not he who wishes this to be done; for where it is stated in the written contract for the sale of a house that, “The wall must support the same burden as at present”, the meaning is clear enough that the wall must exist in perpetuity; for it is not stated in these words that the wall must be there forever, as this indeed could not happen, but that there should always be a wall of this kind to support the weight; just as where anyone binds himself to another that he will grant him a servitude in order to support his building, and if the house which is subject to the servitude and sustains the burden should be destroyed, another will be erected in its place.

Paulus, Epitomes of the Digest of Alfenus, Book V. The slave of a certain party without the knowledge of his master lent a dish, and the party to whom he lent it pledged it and took to flight, and he who received it in pledge said that he would not return it unless he received the money; which was paid to him by the slave, and he returned the dish. The question arose whether an action could be brought against him for the recovery of the money? The answer was that if he who received the dish in pledge knew that it belonged to another, he had rendered himself liable for theft; and therefore if he received money from the slave for the purpose of redeeming stolen property, an action could be brought against him. But if he did not know that the article which was deposited with him belonged to another, he is not a thief; and besides, if the money had been paid to him by the slave in behalf of the party from whom he had received the pledge, suit could not be brought against him for the recovery of the same.

Paulus, Epitomes of the Digest of Alfenus Verus, Book V. A party who had lent money to the owner of a boat, detained the boat in the river on his own authority, as the money was not paid at the appointed time; and the river afterwards rose and carried away the boat. The opinion was that, if the creditor had retained the boat against the consent of the owner, the boat was at his risk; but if the debtor had voluntarily agreed that he should retain it, he should only be indemnified for negligence, and not for superior force.

Ad Dig. 19,2,31Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 401, Note 12.The Same, Epitomes of the Digest by Paulus, Book V. Several persons loaded the ship of Saufeius with grain without separating it; Saufeius delivered to one of them his grain out of the common heap, and the vessel was afterwards lost. The question arose whether the others could bring an action against the master of the ship with reference to their share of the grain on the ground that he had diverted the cargo. The answer was that there are two kinds of leases of property, one of them where the article must itself be returned, as where clothing is entrusted to a fuller to be cleaned, or where something of the same kind must be given back; as, for instance, where a mass of silver is given to a workman to be made into vases, or gold is given to be made into rings. In the first instance, the property still belongs to the owner; in the second, he becomes the creditor for its value. The same rule of law applies to deposits, for where a party has deposited a sum of money without having enclosed it in anything, or sealed it up, but simply after counting it, the party with whom it is left is not bound to do anything but repay the same amount of money. In accordance with this, the grain seems to have become the property of Saufeius, and he very properly gave up a portion of it. If, however, the grain of each of the parties had been separately enclosed by means of boards, or in sacks, or in casks, so that what belonged to each could be distinguished, it could not be changed; for then the owner of the wheat which the master of the ship had delivered could bring an action for its recovery, and, therefore, the authorities do not approve of actions on the ground of the diversion of the cargo in this case, because the merchandise which was delivered to the master was either all of the same kind and at once became his, and the owner became his creditor (for it is not held that there was a diversion of the cargo since it became the property of the master); or the identical article which was delivered must be restored, and in this instance, an action for theft would lie against the master, and hence an action on the ground of the diversion of the cargo would be superfluous. Where, however, the merchandise was delivered with the understanding that the same kind should be returned, the party receiving it would only be liable for negligence, as liability for negligence exists where the contract is made for the benefit of both parties, and no negligence can exist where the master returned to one of the owners a portion of the grain, since it was necessary for him to deliver his share to one of them before the others, even though he would be in a better condition than the others by his doing so.