Furii Anthiani Opera
Ad edictum libri
Ex libro I
Dig. 2,14,62Furius Anthianus libro primo ad edictum. Si reus, postquam pactus sit a se non peti pecuniam ideoque coepit id pactum fideiussori quoque prodesse, pactus sit ut a se peti liceat: an utilitas prioris pacti sublata sit fideiussori, quaesitum est. sed verius est semel adquisitam fideiussori pacti exceptionem ulterius ei invito extorqueri non posse.
Furius Anthianus, On the Edict, Book I. Where a debtor, after having agreed that suit shall not be brought against him for the debt (in such a way that the contract also benefits the surety), made another contract that suit may be brought against him; the question arose as to whether the surety was deprived of the benefit of the first agreement? It is the better opinion that where the right to an exception has been once acquired by the surety, it cannot afterwards be taken from him without his consent.
Dig. 4,3,40Furius Anthianus libro primo ad edictum. Is, qui decepit aliquem, ut hereditatem non idoneam adiret, de dolo tenebitur, nisi fortasse ipse creditor erat et solus erat: tunc enim sufficit contra eum doli mali exceptio.
Furius Anthianus, On the Edict, Book XI. He who deceives anyone in order to induce him to enter upon an estate which is not sufficient to pay its creditors, shall be liable for fraud, unless he himself is the sole creditor; for then it will be sufficient to plead an exception on the ground of fraud against him.
Dig. 6,1,80Furius Anthianus libro primo ad edictum. In rem actionem pati non compellimur, quia licet alicui dicere se non possidere, ita ut, si possit adversarius convincere rem ab adversario possideri, transferat ad se possessionem per iudicem, licet suam esse non adprobaverit.
Ad Dig. 6,1,80ROHGE, Bd. 21 (1877), Nr. 84, S. 261: Folgen leichtsinnigen Leugnens.Furius Anthiannus, On the Edict, Book I. We are not compelled to endure an action in rem, because anyone is allowed to allege that he is not in possession, so that if his adversary can prove that the other party is actually in possession of the property, he can have the possession transferred to himself by an order of court; even though he does not prove that the property is his.