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.