Paulus, Opinions, Book III. Paulus held that a party who appointed an agent to defend a case is not forbidden to appear in the same in his own behalf.

The Same, Opinions, Book III. A vendor who was called upon by a purchaser to defend him in a suit brought by a party who claimed the property as owner, stated that he had the right to have his own judge. The question arose whether he could remove the case from the tribunal of the judge before whom proceedings had been begun between the plaintiff and the purchaser to that of his own judge. Paulus answered that it is customary for the vendor to appear before the judge of the purchaser.

Paulus, Opinions, Book III. Where a party who instituted proceedings on the ground that a will was inofficious, abandons the action, on account of fraudulent assertion of the appointed heir, who alleges that he is tacitly bound to give him a third part of the estate; he is not held to have renounced his right of action, and therefore he cannot be prohibited from resuming the suit which he began. 1Inquiry has also been made whether an heir should be heard, when he asks that what he has paid out before the action to declare the will inofficious was brought, ought to be refunded to him? The answer was that he who, being aware of the facts, paid out money in pursuance of a trust with which he had no concern, will not, on this account, be entitled to an action to recover it. 2The same jurist gave it as his opinion that where the party who was appointed heir is deprived of the estate by a suit to declare a will inofficious, everything should proceed just as if the estate had not been entered on; and therefore the appointed heir would have a complete right of action against the party who gained the case, to collect any debt, as well as a right of set-off against all indebtedness.

The Same, Opinions, Book III. I stated as my opinion, that persons who did not have the right to do so, had acted contrary to law by making openings in a party-wall and inserting windows therein.

The Same, Opinions, Book III. “Lucius Titius to his brother Gaius Seius, Greeting: Of the water which flows into the reservoir which my father built on the isthmus, I give and grant to you gratuitously the depth of an inch, to be conducted either into the house which you have on said isthmus, or anywhere else you may wish”. I ask whether by these terms the use of the water also belongs to the heirs of Gaius Seius? Paulus answered that as the use of the water was personal, it could not be transmitted to the heirs of Seius, as they occupied the position of parties entitled to the use of the same.

Paulus, Opinions, Book III. In a question relating to ownership, attention must be paid to those boundaries which a person who was the owner of both tracts designated when he sold one of them; for it is not necessary that the boundaries which formerly separated the two different tracts should be observed, but the descriptions of the adjoining owners must be used to establish the new boundaries between the said tracts of land.

Paulus, Opinions, Book III. Lucius and Titia, who were brother and sister, having been emancipated by their father, when grown up had curators appointed for them, and the latter furnished them individually with money which was common property, having been obtained from the income of an estate. They subsequently divided the entire estate between them, and, after the division, Titia, the sister, instituted proceedings against her brother alleging that he had received more than she had; while, in fact, Lucius had not received more than his share, but even less than half the property. I ask whether Titia had a right of action against her brother? Paulus answered that: “In accordance with the statement of the case, if Lucius did not receive more from the income of the property held in common than he was entitled to on account of his share in the estate, his sister has no right of action against him.” He gave the same answer in a case where it was alleged that a brother had received a larger amount for maintenance from the Prætor than his sister, but still not more than half.

Paulus, Opinions, Book III. Inquiry is not readily permitted where a party commits perjury in a case in which he is compelled by law to swear to a claim.

The Same, Opinions, Book III. If it was agreed in the beginning that, in case of the eviction of certain lands, the vendor shall refund the price, interest must also be paid after eviction, even though the purchaser may have paid to his adversary all the profits collected after the action for the ownership of the property was begun; as any inconvenience sustained during the intermediate time must be borne by the purchaser. 1Where the vendor dies after possession has been delivered, and it is uncertain who his successor will be, the interest on the price must be paid if it was not placed on deposit.

The Same, Opinions, Book III. Paulus stated that: “An obligation should not be antedated, but the parties who have agreed to this are not considered to be guilty of forgery, since the act was performed in the presence and with the consent of the parties, and the debtor is guilty of a greater offence than the creditor.”

The Same, Opinions, Book III. Paulus gave it as his opinion that a patron who was deceived, and who accepted the forged will of his freedman as genuine, is not prevented from obtaining prætorian possession of his estate in opposition to the terms of the will.

The Same, Opinions, Book III. Paulus gave it as his opinion that the Prætor could not set aside a judgment which he had already rendered, but that he could, even on the same day when it was rendered, supply anything which had been omitted in the judgment, either for or against the defendant, and which had reference to matters contained therein.

The Same, Opinions, Book III. Paulus held that an exception on the ground of res judicata could not be effectually pleaded against anyone who brought a personal action for the recovery of property, who had previously brought an action for the same property and lost it.

The Same, Opinions, Book III. Paulus gave it as his opinion that where a man builds a house upon the land of another, he cannot recover the expenses he incurred unless he was in possession, and the owner brings an action against him to recover the land, in which case, he can oppose him by an exception on the ground of fraud.

Paulus, Opinions, Book III. The property of an estate belongs in common to all the heirs, and therefore he who brings an accusation for the crime of plundering it, and gains his case, is also considered to have benefited his co-heir.

Paulus, Opinions, Book III. Answered that the offence of having purloined written instruments is not a cause for public prosecution, unless it is proved that the will of someone has been stolen. 1Paulus gave it as his opinion that all those who sealed any forged instrument whatsoever, with the exception of wills, were liable to the penalty of the Cornelian Law. 2And also others who have made false entries in registers, public documents, or anything else of the kind, without sealing them, or, in order to prevent the truth from being known, have concealed or stolen anything, or made a substitution, or unsealed a paper, there is no doubt that it is customary for them to be punished with the same penalty.

Paulus, Opinions, Book III. Paulus held that he who was not alive at the time when judgment was rendered against him is understood to have been condemned to no purpose. 1He also held with reference to a person who was not alive at the time when the judge was appointed to decide his case that the appointment of the judge was void, and any decision rendered against him would be of no force or effect.

The Same, Opinions, Book III. Paulus gave it as his opinion that where an envoy sustained any damage during the term of his service he could, even during that time, bring an action.