Papinianus, Opinions, Book X. It has been decided that, in the case of creditors, a majority has reference to the amount of the indebtedness, and not to the number of individuals. If the number of the creditors is the same as the number of the debts, then the majority of the creditors must be given the preference; when the number of the creditors is equal, the Prætor must follow the will of him who is highest in rank among them; but where everything is equal on both sides, the most humane opinion must be chosen by the Prætor, for this can be gathered from the Rescript of the Divine Marcus.

The Same, Opinions, Book X. The heir of a deceased husband cannot bring suit against his wife (who during marriage had the property of her husband under her control) for plundering an estate; and he will act more wisely if he should sue her for production of property on the ground of business transacted, if she actually attended to the affairs of her husband.

Ad Dig. 17,1,57Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 199, Note 14.The Same, Opinions, Book X. It is settled that a mandate for the sale of slaves is terminated by the death of the party who undertook the execution of the same; still, although the heirs, through mistake, and not with the intention of theft, but of performing a duty which the deceased had imposed upon himself, should sell the slaves, it is held that they could be acquired by the purchasers through usucaption, but that after the slave-dealer had returned from the province, he could not legally avail himself of the Publician Action, where, on proper cause shown, an exception would be granted him on the ground of his legal ownership of the slaves; for it is not proper that he who had relied upon the good faith of a certain individual, should sustain loss on account of the mistake or inexperience of the heirs.

Papinianus, Opinions, Book X. By a decree of the Senate enacted under the Emperor Marcus, the pledge of a house given to a creditor who had lent the money to repair the building, will also extend to him who furnished the money, at the direction of the owner, to the workman who made the repairs.

The Same, Opinions, Book X. After the eviction of a slave whom the real owner took away from the purchaser, the vendor cannot properly make a defence by afterwards offering the same slave to avoid indemnifying the purchaser for his interest.

The Same, Opinions, Book X. It is held that a son meddles with the estate of his father, if he appears to act in the capacity of heir, where the family ties have been broken. Therefore, a son who accepts the estate of his mother, and obtains land belonging to the estate of his father, of which he takes possession, not being aware that it is part of his mother’s estate, is not held to have lost the right to reject the estate. 1It has been decided that mixed actions should be granted to minors, who, it has been held, must be released from liability for the debts of an estate.

The Same, Opinions, Book X. It is superfluous for a minor of twenty years of age to prove the manumission of a slave, if he receives him for the purpose of manumitting him, after the promulgation of the Rescript of the Divine Marcus addressed to Aufidius Victorinus; for if he had not manumitted him, the slave would, nevertheless, obtain his freedom. 1The same rule of law does not apply where the grant of freedom is charged by a trust; for, in this case, the donor must prove the fact, as the manumitted slave will not otherwise obtain his freedom. 2A certain man sold a female slave under the condition that she should be manumitted by the purchaser after the expiration of a year; and, if this was not done, it was agreed that the vendor should lay his hand upon her, or that the purchaser should pay ten aurei. The contract not having been observed, it was decided that the slave, nevertheless, became free in accordance with the terms of the aforesaid constitution; as, very frequently, laying on of the hand takes place for the purpose of giving assistance. Therefore the money cannot be recovered, as the benefit of the law was secured in accordance with the wishes of the vendor. 3At the time of the alienation of a slave, it was agreed that, having been transferred with the intention of granting him his freedom, he should be manumitted after the expiration of five years; and also that in the meantime he must pay a certain sum every month. I gave it as my opinion that the said monthly payments did not form part of the condition under which he was liberated from bondage, but in order to show that his servitude was only temporary; for a slave who has been transferred in order to be free cannot, in every respect, be compared to one who is to be manumitted under a certain condition.

The Same, Opinions, Book X. I gave it as my opinion, that a patron should not be barred by prescription after the lapse of five years from the date of the judgment entered in favor of freedom, when he is ignorant that such a judgment has been rendered.

The Same, Opinions, Book X. A certain man donated a tract of land together with slaves attached to the same, and stated in a letter that he delivered possession of the property. If one of the slaves, who was donated, should come into the hands of him who received the house, and be afterwards sent back to the land, it has been decided that possession of the land and of the other slaves has been acquired by means of those above mentioned.

The Same, Opinions, Book X. Prescription based upon long possession is not usually granted for the acquisition of places which are public by the Law of Nations. An instance of this is, where anyone abandons a building which he had constructed upon the seashore, or it was demolished, and another person, having built a house in the same place, the former opposes him by an exception based upon previous occupancy; or where anyone, for the reason that he alone has been accustomed to fish for years in a certain part of a river, under the same prescriptive right forbids another to do so. 1A slave who belonged to an estate, after the death of his master, obtained possession of property forming part of his peculium. The beginning of usucaption will date from the time when the estate was entered upon, for how can property be acquired in this manner which was not previously in the possession of the deceased?

Papinianus, Opinions, Book X. When a legatee has been placed in possession of property, this can be acquired by usucaption by the heir, as purchaser, the right of prætorian pledge being reserved.

Papinianus, Opinions, Book X. It has been established that a party against whom a judgment has been rendered shall be deprived of the advantages attaching to the rewards given on account of the sacred crowns won in public contests, and that this money can be taken in execution for the satisfaction of the judgment.

Papinianus, Opinions, Book X. It has been decided that the City of Antioch, in Syria, retained the privilege conferred upon it by a special law, with reference to the pursuit of the property of a deceased debtor that had been taken in execution.

Papinianus, Opinions, Book X. Finally, when the money is recovered, it is established that interest should not be paid, as the property and not the person is involved.

Ad Dig. 49,14,37Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 270, Note 5.The Same, Opinions, Book X. When it was established that a penalty should not be demanded by the Treasury, unless the creditors recover what is owing to them, this means that the privilege relating to the penalty should not be exercised against the creditors, and not that the Treasury should lose the ordinary right enjoyed by private individuals.