Digestorum libri
Ex libro XLVIII
The Same, Digest, Book XLVIII. The possessor of an estate should be permitted to defend the action so far as surrendering a share of the same is concerned; for he is not prohibited from holding the entire estate, as he is aware that half of it belongs to him, and does not raise any controversy with reference to the other half.
Julianus, Digest, Book XLVIII. Where anyone so defaces a will which has been deposited with him (or any other instrument for the conveyance of property) so that it cannot be read, he will be liable to an action on deposit, and also to one for the production of an instrument in court, because he either returned or produced the document in a ruined condition. An action under the Lex Aquilia will also lie in a case of this kind, for where a party falsifies documents, he is very properly said to have ruined them.
Ad Dig. 12,1,21Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 342, Note 20.The Same, Digest, Book XLVIII. Some authorities have thought that a man who sues for ten aurei cannot be forced to accept five and then bring suit for the remainder; or, if he should allege that a certain tract of land is his, that he can only be compelled to bring suit for a portion of the same; but, in both instances, it is held that the Prætor would be more indulgent if he compels the plaintiff to accept what is offered him, since it is part of his duty to diminish litigation.
Ulpianus, Digest, Book XLVIII. No one is allowed to erect a monument on a public highway.
The Same, Digest, Book XLVIII. Just as a person who builds in a public place without anyone attempting to prevent him is not compelled to demolish what he has constructed in order to prevent the city from being defaced by the ruins, so anyone who builds contrary to the Prætorian Edict should remove what he has erected; otherwise, the authority of the Prætor becomes vain and illusory.
Julianus, Digest, Book XLVIII. Where anyone forcibly recovers possession of property of which he was deprived by violence during the same dispute, he is understood to have been restored to his former position rather than to have regained possession of the property by violence. Therefore if I deprive you of anything by force, and you wrest it from me in the same way, and then I again take it from you, you can avail yourself of the interdict Unde vi against me.