Marcellus, Digest, Book VII. If a woman should promise a dowry as follows: “Ten aurei shall belong to you or to Titius as my dowry,” in this instance, it may be said that she can give the sum to Titius, but her husband will always be liable for the dowry, just as if he had ordered it to be given to Titius. There is nothing extraordinary about this, since a woman who intends to promise a dowry to a man can be substituted by him to make the promise to another, although it is usually held that a woman will not be liable for her dowry to anyone else than to her husband, as in these instances the dowry is acquired by the husband; for we do not believe that she would have made such a promise when she was thinking about her marriage with Titius. 1When an heir is appointed to an entire estate, and is asked to deliver three-fourths of the same to a woman, and, under her direction, promises her husband, by way of dowry, what he owes her, I apprehend that he will not be liable. He will be liable, however, in the delivery of the estate, to assign to the woman all rights of action, both those in his favor and those for which he is bound; but he cannot assign these rights to anyone else than the party to whom he owes them on account of the trust. Another might say that the husband could bring an action against him for an uncertain sum, to compel him to pay the estimated amount due under the trust. I cannot agree to this, for it is just that the debtor of the woman should only be liable for the amount which the husband can receive out of what is due. Still, in order that she may not be without a dowry, it must be said that a share of the estate left to her should be restored to her under the Trebellian Decree of the Senate, so that she herself may give her husband this as her dowry, because the trust and all its liabilities belong to her, and, on account of the extreme subtlety and necessity of the case, the substitution will be of no force or effect. 2Ad Dig. 23,3,59,2Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 313, Note 6.You gave ten aurei, by way of dowry, for a woman who was thought to be free, and in this instance you will be entitled to an action to recover what you have given; just as if you had done this in behalf of a free woman, and the marriage did not take place. If the woman should marry, after having been manumitted, what you gave will only be a dowry, if you gave it with the intention that it should become a dowry when the marriage ceremony was performed. Therefore, if you gave the property as a present to the woman, her master will have a right to recover it; just as where a party is about to give something to a woman, and the latter orders it to be given to her husband.

Marcellus, Digest, Book VII. Sulpicius to Marcellus. A woman who wished that, after her husband died, her land should pass to the common son of her and her husband who was under the control of his father, transferred the land to her husband, in order that he might leave it to his son after his death. I ask whether you think that the donation is of such a character as to render the transaction void, or whether, if it is valid, the woman will have the power to revoke it, if she is unwilling to allow it to stand? The answer was, if a pretext or an excuse (so to speak), is sought for the gift, the delivery will not be valid; that is, if the wife expected that her husband would reap any advantage from it in the meantime. Otherwise, if she only made use of the services of her husband, and he gave them so that she might be able to revoke the donation; or, in order that the property with all its emoluments might pass through the father to the son, why should it not be considered valid, just as if the transaction had taken place with a stranger, that is to say, if the property had been delivered to him under the same circumstances?

Marcellus, Digest, Book VII. Where an usufruct is given by way of dowry, and a divorce takes place, the ownership of the property will not vest in either the husband or the wife, and where the restitution of the dowry is to be made, the husband must give security that, as long as he lives, the woman and her heirs will be allowed to enjoy the usufruct. I doubt whether this addition with reference to the heirs is correct, for it makes a difference in what way the usufruct was given, as dowry; since if the woman is to have the profits, the usufruct at her death will pass to her husband, to whom the ownership of the property belongs, and she will leave no right in the same to her heir, for the usufruct will then be due to her husband; as it is not customary for it to pass to the heir. But if the woman granted the usufruct with the land to her husband, it must be restored by him to her heirs, since it passes along with property to her heirs, if her husband was not in default in surrendering it. But, if the property has been alienated, or anyone had given the usufruct of his land, by order of the wife, to her husband as dowry, it must first be considered in what way it can be restored to the woman. This may be accomplished either by means of security given by the husband, or he can assign his rights to his wife as far as he is able to do so, and allow her to enjoy the property; or he can make some arrangement with the owner of the same, so that, with the consent of the latter, the usufruct can be transferred to the woman, as he can either grant her the usufruct of the land or give her something instead of it, as may be agreed upon between them. For, suppose that the woman should sell the usufruct to the owner of the property; in this instance, it would not be inequitable for the husband to be compelled to transfer the usufruct, since he can even be sued by the heir of the woman, for if he had not been in default in making the transfer, she could have left the price of the usufruct to her heir. If, however, she did not have the power to sell the usufruct to the owner of the property, the husband would be forced to allow the heir to gather the crops, which privilege he was obliged to grant to the woman herself.

Marcellus, Digest, Book VII. Where a wife herself removes, or makes use of the services of the thief to remove property which her husband purchased in good faith, and does this with the intention of obtaining a divorce, judgment shall be rendered against her in an action for the recovery of property wrongfully appropriated.

Marcellus, Digest, Book VII. Where a woman, to whom an oath has been tendered by the heir, swears that she is pregnant, possession of the estate should be granted under the Carbonian Edict, or it should be refused if she tendered the oath to the heir; for possession should be given after proper cause has been shown to prevent the heir from being prejudiced if it should be given; or if it should be denied, to avoid depriving the minor of his legal rights.

Marcellus, Digest, Book VII. If the freedman of one person is declared to be freeborn as the result of an action brought by another, his patron can prosecute the same claim against him without being barred by an exception based on prescription.