Celsus, Digest, Book XII. Where a slave steals from another party, he will be liable for theft in his own name if he becomes free; but a personal action for recovery cannot be brought against him unless he handled the property after he was free.

Ad Dig. 38,1,30ROHGE, Bd. 4 (1872), S. 429: Unterschied zwischen Schiedsspruch und arbitrium boni viri bezüglich der Anfechtbarkeit.ROHGE, Bd. 16 (1875), Nr. 109, S. 427, 430: Vervollständigung absichtlich unvollständiger Vereinbarung. Arbitrium boni viri. Taxation des Geschäftsantheils eines ausgetretenen Gesellschafters.ROHGE, Bd. 18 (1876), Nr. 91, S. 345: Arbitrium merum, boni viri. Anfechtung propter magnam improbitatem.Celsus, Digest, Book XII. If a freedman should swear to render all the services that his patron may desire, the wishes of the patron will not be considered, except so far as is consistent with justice. The intention of freedmen who leave their services to the discretion of their patrons is based upon the fact that the latter will act with justice, and not because they wish to bind themselves heedlessly. 1An action is granted to a patron against his freedwoman, who marries without his consent, for services due from her before marriage.

Celsus, Digest, Book XII. No one commits a theft by denying that a deposit has been made with him. For the denial itself does not constitute an offence, although it comes very near doing so. But if the person should acquire possession of the property for the purpose of appropriating it, he perpetrates a theft. It does not make any difference whether the bailor had a ring on his finger, or the box which contained it, if, when it was deposited with the bailee, the latter intended to appropriate it. 1If an article which you have promised to return on a certain day under a penalty is stolen from you, and, for this reason, you are required to bear the loss, this will also be taken into account in bringing the action for theft. 2A stolen child grew up in the hands of the thief. The latter is guilty of stealing the youth as well as the child, and still, there is but one theft; hence he is liable for double damages; an estimate being made of the greatest value that the child had at any time after having been stolen. As the action for theft can only be brought once, what reference does this have to the question above proposed? For, if he had been stolen from the thief, and then recovered by him from the other criminal, even if he had committed two thefts, the action could not be brought against the thief more than once. I do not doubt that the estimate of the value of the youth rather than that of the infant should be made; for what would be so ridiculous as to consider the condition of the thief to be improved on account of the continuation of his crime? 3If the sale of a slave is annulled, the purchaser cannot bring the action of theft against the vendor, because the slave, after his purchase and before he was returned, stole something. 4When a stolen slave commits a theft against the thief himself, it is decided that the thief will be entitled to an action against the owner on this account, for fear that the crimes of such slaves may be committed with impunity to themselves, and be a source of profit to their masters, as the peculium of slaves of this kind is frequently increased by their thefts. 5If a tenant, after the expiration of his lease, remains for more than a year, and gathers the crops without the consent of the owner, let us see whether an action for the theft of the harvest and vintage cannot be brought against him. I do not think that there is any doubt that he is a thief, and if he consumes the stolen property suit can be brought to recover its value.

The Same, Digest, Book XII. Nothing can be demanded before the time when it can be delivered, according to the natural course of things; and when the date of payment is inserted into an obligation, it cannot be collected unless the time has elapsed.