The Same, On the Edict, Book LXVI. An agent appointed for the purpose of bringing an action for the recovery of personal property can properly apply for its production in court.

Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LXVI. For even if a husband, when he is absolutely unable to pay his debts, gives his wife the dowry, he is in such a position that he cannot bring an action to recover it.

The Same, On the Edict, Book LXVI. Labeo says, and not without reason, that where a set-off is expressly intended to be made against a certain claim, opposition should not be made to its application to other claims.

Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LXVI. The persons of a father and a patron should always appear honorable and sacred in the eyes of a freedman and a son.

The Same, On the Edict, Book LXVI. Where a decision is rendered against a soldier, who has completed his term of military service, he is only compelled to pay what his resources will permit. 1Where a party to a suit has been condemned to pay ten aurei, or to surrender the cause of the damage by way of reparation, he will be compelled, by the action to enforce judgment, to pay the sum of ten aurei, because he obtains from the law the power of surrendering the animal which caused the damage. He, however, who stipulated for either the payment of ten aurei or the surrender of the animal, or slave, by way of reparation, cannot claim the ten aurei, because each of these things is included in the agreement and we were able to stipulate for them separately. A decision calling for the surrender of the slave or animal by way of reparation will be void, but it follows a judgment requiring the payment of the money, and therefore proceedings to collect the ten aurei should be instituted under the judgment, for it has reference to them alone, and the surrender of the animal or the slave by way of reparation is granted by the law. 2He who, by his own authority, sells the property of anyone whom, he has defeated in a lawsuit, will be liable to an action of theft, as well as one of robbery with violence. 3The action to enforce the execution of a judgment is a perpetual one, includes the pursuit of the property, and lies both for and against an heir.

The Same, On the Edict, Book LXVI. A soldier also, who has had judgment rendered against him, is after his discharge only compelled to pay to the extent of his means.

Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LXVI. Ad Dig. 42,8,1 pr.ROHGE, Bd. 25 (1880), Nr. 25, S. 103: Erfordernisse der actio Pauliana. Anfechtung.The Prætor says: “I will grant an action to the curator of property, or to anyone else to whom it is necessary to grant one, in a case of this kind, within the year in which he has a right to institute such a proceeding, where any act has been committed for the purpose of fraud with anyone who was not ignorant of said fraud, and I will also maintain this right of action against “The party himself who committed it.” 1The Prætor was compelled to introduce this Edict in order to protect the rights of creditors, by revoking any alienations of property which had been made for the purpose of defrauding them. 2The Prætor says, “where any act has been committed for the purpose of fraud.” These words have a general application, and include every kind of fraud which is committed, as well as every alienation, and every contract. Therefore, everything that is done for the purpose of committing fraud, no matter what it may be, is considered to be revoked by these words, for they have a broad application. If, therefore, the debtor should alienate any property, or give a release from liability for a debt to anyone or release anyone from an agreement;

The Same, On the Edict, Book LXXI. Or if he provides one who owes him with an exception, or obligates himself for the purpose of defrauding his creditors; or pays money; or commits any other act to cheat them; it is obvious that the Edict will become operative. 1We should understand as fraudulent acts not only such as the debtor performs while making a contract, but also where he intentionally fails to appear in court, or permits an action to come to an end, or does not bring suit against a debtor, in order that he may be released by lapse of time, or intentionally loses an usufruct or a servitude. 2This Edict also applies to a person who commits any act for the purpose of parting with property which he has in his hands.

Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LXVI. This Edict, however, is not applicable to a person who does not take means to acquire property which he can obtain, for it only has reference to such as diminish their patrimony, and not to those who act in such a way as not to become more wealthy. 1Therefore he who fails to comply with the condition imposed, in order that a stipulation may not become operative, does not, by doing so, cause this Edict to take effect. 2Hence, if anyone rejects an estate whether it conies to him by law or by the terms of a will, he will not give cause for the application of the Edict, for while he refuses to acquire property, he does not diminish his own patrimony. 3In like manner, it must be said that, if a debtor emancipates his son, in order to enable him to accept an estate according to his own judgment, this Edict will not apply. 4The opinion also stated by Julianus should be adopted; that is, if a debtor refuses to accept a legacy, the Edict will not apply. 5If a debtor should sell his slave, who had been appointed an heir, in order that he might enter upon the estate by the direction of the purchaser, and not the sale, but only what related to the acceptance of the estate was fraudulent, the Edict will not apply, because he has a right to reject the estate. If, however, any fraud attached to the sale of the slave, it shall be revoked; just as if the debtor had fraudulently manumitted him. 6It was stated by Labeo that anyone who receives what belongs to him should not be considered to have committed fraud, that is to say, where anyone receives a debt to which he is entitled; for it would be unjust to hold that a debtor whom a Governor forces to make payment against his will can refuse to do so with impunity. This entire Edict has reference to contracts in which the Prætor does not intervene, as, for example, those involving pledges and sales. 7It should be noted that Julianus has said (and this is also our practice) that where anyone receives money that is due to him, before possession is taken of the property of the debtor, even though he is perfectly aware that the latter is insolvent, he does not come within the terms of this Edict, for he has only provided for his own interest. Any creditor, however, who receives what is due to him after the property of the debtor has been levied on, can be compelled to contribute his share, and be placed on the same footing as the other creditors; for he ought not to deprive them of anything after the property has been taken in execution, as, for this reason, the position of all the creditors becomes the same. 8This Edict punishes him who, knowing that a debtor has the intention of cheating his creditors, receives from him the property of which they have been defrauded. Hence, if any act is done for the purpose of defrauding creditors, and he who received the property was ignorant of the fact, the provisions of the Edict are not considered to apply. 9Moreover, it must be noted that where anyone either purchases or stipulates for any property belonging to a debtor, who has the intention of cheating his creditors (even though the latter may give their consent), or makes any other contract, he will not be held to have done anything to defraud his creditors; for no one is considered to defraud those who are aware of the fact, and give their consent. 10Where any business is done with: a minor for the purpose of defrauding his creditors, Labeo says that it must, by all means, be annulled, if the creditors are defrauded; for the reason that the ignorance of a minor, which results from his age, should not be injurious to his creditors, and profitable to himself. This is our practice. 11Ad Dig. 42,8,6,11ROHGE, Bd. 5 (1872), S. 45: Anfechtung einer in Form eines onerosen Geschäfts fraudandi animo geübten Liberalität. Der gutgläubige Empfänger haftet nur zum Belaufe seiner Bereicherung.In like manner, we say where a donation is fraudulently made to anyone, there should be no inquiry as to whether the person to whom the article was given was aware of the nature of the transaction or not, but only whether the creditors were defrauded. He who was ignorant of the fraud is not understood to have been injured by it, as he only loses a source of gain, and no loss is inflicted upon him. Against those, however, who have experienced the generosity of one whom they did not know to be insolvent, an action should only be granted to the extent to which they have become pecuniarily benefited, and no farther. 12In like manner, if a slave receives an article from a person whom he himself knows to be insolvent, but his master is not aware of the fact, the question arises, will the master be liable? Labeo says that he will be liable to the extent of being compelled to return what came into his hands; or an action De peculio can be brought against him, or one De in rem verso, if he has profited by the transaction. The same rule should be adopted in the case of a son under paternal control. If, however, the owner of the slave was aware that the debtor was insolvent, he can be sued in his own name. 13Again, if the necessary heir has paid the legacies, and afterwards his property is sold, Proculus says that, even if the legatees were ignorant of his insolvency, an equitable action should, nevertheless, be granted. There is no doubt as to this. 14Ad Dig. 42,8,6,14Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 463, Note 21.The available days of the year, during which suit can be brought from the date of the sale, should be computed by us in this action.

Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LXVI. No one is considered to defraud those who are aware of the facts, and give their consent.