Digestorum libri
Ex libro VI
Dig. 5,1,76Alfenus libro sexto digestorum. Proponebatur ex his iudicibus, qui in eandem rem dati essent, nonullos causa audita excusatos esse inque eorum locum alios esse sumptos, et quaerebatur, singulorum iudicum mutatio eandem rem an aliud iudicium fecisset. respondi, non modo si unus aut alter, sed et si omnes iudices mutati essent, tamen et rem eandem et iudicium idem quod antea fuisset permanere: neque in hoc solum evenire, ut partibus commutatis eadem res esse existimaretur, sed et in multis ceteris rebus: nam et legionem eandem haberi, ex qua multi decessissent, quorum in locum alii subiecti essent: et populum eundem hoc tempore putari qui abhinc centum annis fuissent, cum ex illis nemo nunc viveret: itemque navem, si adeo saepe refecta esset, ut nulla tabula eadem permaneret quae non nova fuisset, nihilo minus eandem navem esse existimari. quod si quis putaret partibus commutatis aliam rem fieri, fore ut ex eius ratione nos ipsi non idem essemus qui abhinc anno fuissemus, propterea quod, ut philosophi dicerent, ex quibus particulis minimis constiteremus, hae cottidie ex nostro corpore decederent aliaeque extrinsecus in earum locum accederent. quapropter cuius rei species eadem consisteret, rem quoque eandem esse existimari.
Alfenus, Digest, Book VI. The following case was suggested. Certain judges were appointed to hear the same action, some of them having been excused after it was tried, others were appointed in their stead; and the question arose whether the change of some individual judges left the case in the same condition, or placed it in a different one? I answered that not only one or two might be changed, but all of them as well, and that the action would continue to be the same that it was previously, and in fact this was not the only case in which it happened that though the parts were changed, still the thing itself was considered to be the same, but this occurred in many other instances. For a legion is considered to be the same, even though many of those belonging to it may have been killed, and others put in their places; and the people are deemed to be the same now as they were a hundred years ago, although not one of them may at present be living; and also, where a ship has been so frequently repaired that not even a single plank remains which is not new, she is still considered to be the same ship. And if anyone should think that if its parts are changed, an article would become a different thing, the result would be that, according to this rule, we ourselves would not be the same persons that we were a year ago, because, as the philosophers inform us, the very smallest particles of which we consist are daily detached from our bodies, and others from outside are being substituted for them. Therefore, where the outward appearance of anything remains unaltered, the thing itself is considered to be the same.
Dig. 6,1,57Alfenus libro sexto digestorum. Is a quo fundus petitus erat ab alio eiusdem fundi nomine conventus est: quaerebatur, si alterutri eorum iussu iudicis fundum restituisset et postea secundum alterum petitorem res iudicaretur, quemadmodum non duplex damnum traheret. respondi, uter prior iudex iudicaret, eum oportere ita fundum petitori restitui iubere, ut possessori caveret vel satisdaret, si alter fundum evicisset, eum praestare.
Alfenus, Digest, Book VI. A party against whom a suit was brought for the recovery of land, was again sued by another for the same land; and the question arose if he should deliver the land to either of the plaintiffs by order of court, and afterwards judgment should be rendered in favor of the other plaintiff, how would he avoid sustaining a double loss? I answered that whichever judge decided the case first must order the land to be delivered to the plaintiff under the condition that he would execute a bond or give security to the possessor that if the other party recovered the land, he would deliver the same.