Paulus, On Neratius, Book I. Where a field is occupied by enemies, or a slave is taken by them and afterwards liberated; the usufruct in either is restored by the right of postliminium:

Paulus, On Neratius, Book I. Therefore security can also be required of him.

Paulus, On Neratius, Book I. In a stipulation having reference to the restoration of the usufruct of money, two occurrences also are mentioned, namely, death, and the loss of civil rights.

Paulus, On Neratius, Book I. Neratius says that the owner of the property which is subject to an use cannot change its nature in any way. Paulus holds that he cannot make the condition of the party entitled to the use any worse; but he may make it worse, even where he improves the property.

The Same, On Neratius, Book I. Paulus says if a woman does not wish to recover what she paid on account of her becoming bound to another, but prefers to bring an action on mandate, and to reimburse herself for indemnifying the debtor, she should be heard.

Paulus, On Neratius, Book I. “Let So-and-So, my heirs, pay a hundred aurei to Seius.” Seius can demand payment from whichever of said heirs he wishes. 1Where there is no ambiguity in the words made use of, no question as to the intention of the testator should be raised.

Paulus, On Neratius, Book I. The usufruct of a slave was bequeathed to Titius, and freedom was granted to the slave when it should cease to belong to the legatee. Titius died during the lifetime of the testator. The grant of freedom was not valid, because the condition did not have a beginning. Paulus: Hence, if Titius should live, and should not be able to receive the legacy, it must be said that the same rule will apply; for anything which did not have a beginning cannot be held to have ceased to exist. 1The usufruct of a slave was bequeathed to a woman as long as she remained unmarried, and the same slave was directed to be free if she did marry. If the woman should marry the slave would become free, because a grant of freedom has more force than a legacy.

Paulus, On Neratius, Book I. Not every impediment for which the heir is responsible has the same effect as compliance with the condition by the slave, but only where this is done for the purpose of preventing him from obtaining his freedom.

Paulus, On Neratius, Book I. If a slave belonging to another becomes surety for Titius, and pays the debt, Titius will be released from liability, if the master of the slave brings an action on mandate against him; for he who brings such an action is considered to have ratified the payment.

Paulus, On Neratius, Book I. You are obliged to deliver me a slave, and Seius must pay me ten aurei. I stipulate for the purpose of making a novation with one of you, as follows, “What you, or Seius must give.” Both obligations are subjected to novation. Paulus: This is reasonable, because both of them are included in the last stipulation.

Paulus, On Neratius, Book I. If, not knowing that certain property belongs to an estate, you take it, Paulus says that you commit a theft. Theft of property belonging to an estate is not committed any more than that of property which has no owner, and the opinion of the person who steals it does not change the character of the action in any respect.

The Same, On Neratius, Book II. Even if he had no peculium, but was a debtor by nature and afterwards continued to act, he is bound to pay, himself; just as he who is liable in an action which would be barred by lapse of time, is also compelled by a suit based on business transacted to pay his principal, after the time has expired. 1Our Scævola says that he thinks the statement of Sabinus that the account ought to be rendered from the beginning should be understood to mean that it ought to show what was left at the time when the party first became free, and not that he should be held liable for any malice or negligence of which he was guilty while in slavery; and, therefore, if it is ascertained that, while he was in slavery, he expended money in an improper way, he should be released from liability. 2Ad Dig. 3,5,18,2Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 431, Note 2.If I direct a freeman who is held as a slave by me in good faith to perform some act; Labeo thinks that I would not be entitled to an action on mandate against him; since he is under restraint by reason of his servile condition; hence an action based on business transacted will lie, because, on the one hand, he had a desire to attend to my affairs, and on the other, he was in a position where I could compel him to attend to them. 3While you were transacting my business during my absence, you, without knowing it, purchased property which belonged to me; and, being still ignorant of this fact, you acquired its ownership by prescription. You are not obliged to restore it to me in an action for business transacted; but if, before you obtained its ownership by prescription you had learned that the property was mine, you must employ someone to bring suit against you for it in my name, so that he may recover it for me, and give you an opportunity to enforce your stipulation against eviction; and you will not be considered guilty of fraud in the employment of this person, since you should do this to avoid being liable in an action on business transacted. 4In an action based on business transacted, we must not only pay the principal, but, also the interest collected from the money of the other party, or even which we might have collected. On the other hand, also, we can by means of this action recover interest which we have paid, or interest which we might have collected on our own money, and which was expended in the business of the other party. 5I transacted the business of Titius while he was in the hands of the enemy; after his return I have a right of action against him based on business transacted, even though at the time when this was done he was not acting as principal.

Paulus, On Neratius, Book II. What my slave has promised to pay to me for one of my debtors should be deducted from the peculium, and is, nevertheless, due from the debtor. But let us see whether the obligation of him for whom the promise was made should not be held to become a part of the peculium. Paulus says that if, when anyone brings an action on the peculium the master wishes to deduct this, he undoubtedly makes the claim part of the peculium.

Paulus, On Neratius, Book II. If I have directed a son under paternal control to bring an action for a debt, and, having been emancipated, he collects it; I can properly bring an action on the peculium within a year; but Paulus says the action must be brought against the son himself.

The Same, On Neratius, Book II. He who owes a trust is compelled not only to deliver the property from the day when he is in default, but also to make good any loss Which the beneficiary of the trust may suffer on this account.

The Same, On Neratius, Book II. A legacy was bequeathed to the citizens of a municipality on condition of their taking an oath. This condition is not an impossible one. Paulus: How then can it be complied with? The officials by whom the affairs of the town are conducted can take the oath for the citizens.

Paulus, On Neratius, Book II. A minor who is no longer an infant can legally manumit a slave before the proper tribunal. Paulus: Provided his guardian authorizes him to do so, and he liberates him in such a way that the peculium does not follow the slave.

Paulus, On Neratius, Book II. Although stolen property cannot be acquired by usucaption unless it is returned to the owner; still, if its appraised value in court is paid to the latter, or he sells the property to the thief, it must be said that the right of usucaption is not interrupted.

Paulus, On Neratius, Book III. Julianus says, with reference to a daughter who removed property belonging to her husband, that a personal action for recovery should be granted against her father to the extent of her peculium.

Ad Dig. 24,1,63Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 188, Note 16.Paulus, On Neratius, Book III. Where materials belonging to a wife are joined to a building of her husband in such a way that if removed they can be of any use, it must be held that the woman can bring an action, for the reason that none is authorized by the Law of the Twelve Tables, although it is not probable that the Decemvirs did not have in mind parties by whose consent their property was joined to the buildings of others. Paulus remarks that, in this instance, proceedings can only be instituted in such a way that a suit for the recovery alone of the property when removed from the building will lie in favor of the wife, and not one for double damages in accordance with the Law of the Twelve Tables; for whatever is included in the building with the knowledge of the owner of the same is not stolen.

The Same, On Neratius, Book III. A father can appoint as his heir a posthumous child the issue of him and any widow whomsoever.

Paulus, On Neratius, Book III. A slave was ordered to be free after the expiration of ten years, and a legacy was bequeathed to him payable annually from the day of his master’s death. The legacy will be due for the years when he shall have begun to be free, and, in the meantime, the heir will be compelled to furnish him with subsistence.

Paulus, On Neratius, Book III. A tract of land which had been leased was devised with its equipment. The implements which the tenant had on the farm are included in the legacy. Paulus: Does this refer to what belonged to the tenant, or only to what belonged to the testator? It must be said that the better opinion is that this is the case, unless none of the implements belonged to the owner.

The Same, On Neratius, Book III. My own property can be bequeathed to me under a condition, because, in bequests of this kind, not the time when the will is executed but the time when the condition is fulfilled must be considered.

Paulus, On Neratius, Book III. If my agent, without my knowledge, takes charge of property purchased in my name, although I may have possession of the same, I cannot acquire it by usucaption; because while we can acquire property by usucaption without knowing that we have possession of it, this has been decided to only be true where something forming part of the peculium is concerned.

Paulus, On Neratius, Book III. After several things were proposed, the following stipulation was agreed to, “Do you promise that everything above mentioned shall be given?” The better opinion is that there are as many stipulations as there are things. 1Ad Dig. 45,1,140,1ROHGE, Bd. 16 (1875), Nr. 44, S. 155: Mehrheit von Gegenständen. Mehrheit von Rechtsgeschäften.With reference to the following stipulation, “Do you promise to pay this money on the day appointed in one, two, and three years?” a diversity of opinion existed among the ancients. Paulus: I hold that, in this instance, there are three stipulations for three different sums of money. 2Although it is established that an obligation is extinguished if the conditions are such that it cannot begin, this is not true in all cases. For instance, a partner cannot stipulate for a right of way of any kind for the benefit of land owned in common; and still, if he who stipulated should leave two heirs, the stipulation will not be extinguished. Again, a servitude cannot be acquired by a few of the proprietors, but what is acquired can be preserved for the benefit of the joint ownership. This occurs where a part of the servient estate, or of that to which the servitude is due, becomes the property of another owner.

The Same, On Neratius, Book III. After having made use of an exception, which should have benefited you, an unjust decision was rendered against you. You can recover nothing by virtue of the mandate, for the reason that it is more equitable that the wrong done to you should not be redressed rather than be transferred to another; provided that, through your own negligence, you caused the unjust decision to be rendered against you.

Paulus, On Neratius, Book IV. If you are asked to educate someone, you can be compelled to furnish him with the necessaries of life. Paulus: Why is the scope of a legacy providing for support more extensive where it is stated that clothing and lodging are included? This is not the case, for both are equal.