The Same, On the Urban Edict Relating to Freedom, Book II. The produce of a slave consists of his services, and on the other hand, the services of a slave are what he produces. And, as, in other matters, the produce is understood to be what is left after the necessary expenses have been deducted, this is also the case with refence to the services of slaves.

Ad Dig. 10,4,13ROHGE, Bd. 11 (1874), Nr. 121, S. 395: Klage des Inhabers des Umlaufexemplars (Secunda) gegen den Verwahrer des Acceptexemplars (Prima) des Wechsels auf Herausgabe. Begründung der Klage.Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 474, Note 5.Gaius, On the Edict of the Urban Prætor; Title, Cases Relating to Liberty. Where a freeman is said to be detained by anyone, an interdict is available against him who is said to detain him for the purpose of compelling him to produce him; as an action for his production is held to be of no force in a case of this kind, because it is considered to lie only in favor of one who has a pecuniary interest.

Gaius, On the Edict of the Prætor; Title, Concerning the Cause of Freedom, Book II. If a son demands that a freedman of his father shall be reduced to slavery, in order to preserve for himself a case of eviction against a third party, he will not lose the benefit of prætorian possession of the estate.

Gaius, On the Edict of the Urban Prætor, Title: Concerning Actions Relating to Freedom. Because the slavery to which our relatives are subjected causes us grief and injury.

Gaius, On the Edict of the Urban Prætor, Title: Actions Relating to Freedom. The right to appear in court should, however, only be granted to a patron where the liberty of his freedman is involved, and the latter has permitted himself to be sold without his patron’s knowledge.

Gaius, On the Edict of the Urban Prætor, Book II. It will be even more equitable to adopt such a course where the person who has been reduced to slavery is insane, or an infant; for this privilege should then not only be granted to near relatives but also to strangers.

Gaius, On the Edict of the Urban Prætor, Title: Actions Relating to Freedom. Where two parties, that is to say, the alleged usufructuary and the alleged owner, are defendants at the same time against him who has brought an action to obtain his freedom, one of them may happen to be absent. It may be doubted whether, under such circumstances, the Prætor can permit the one who is present to appear alone against the alleged slave, because the rights of the third party should not be prejudiced by the collusion or the negligence of another. It can more properly be held that one of them may proceed in such a way that the rights of the other will remain unimpaired. If the absent party should appear before the case has been terminated, he must be sent before the same judge, unless he gives a good reason why this should not be done; for instance, if he alleges that the judge is his enemy. 1We say that the same rule will apply where of two or more persons who assert that they are the owners of the alleged slave some are present, and others are absent. 2Therefore, in both cases, we must consider if the one who first instituted proceedings should be defeated, whether this will benefit the other, who gained his case, or vice versa; that is to say, if either one of them should succeed, whether this will profit the other; as the heir of a freedman obtains an advantage from the fact that his patron had been defrauded by the manumission of slaves. If it is held that a judgment rendered in favor of one will benefit the other; the result will be that if the latter again brings suit, he can be opposed by a replication on the ground that the matter has already been decided. If, indeed, it is held that he does not derive any advantage from the decision, the doubt will arise whether what was claimed by the party who lost the case belongs to either of them, or whether he against whom the action was brought, or he who was successful, is entitled to it; and it is evident that a prætorian action ought to be granted to the party who gained the case, as the Prætor should, by no means, permit the man to be part slave and part free.

Gaius, On the Edict of the Urban Prætor, Title: Actions with Reference to Freedom. Even though, during his flight he acted as a freeman, we hold that the same rule will apply.

Gaius, On the Edict of the Urban Prætor, Title: Actions Relating to Freedom. It is certain that in the action in factum under discussion, judgment should only be rendered for the amount of damages which were caused by fraud, and not for what was due to negligence. Therefore, even if the alleged slave should be released from liability in a case of this kind, still, suit can afterwards be brought against him under the Aquilian Law, as by this law he will also be liable for negligence. 1Again, it is certain that in this action not only our own property but also that of another for which we are responsible can be claimed as having been lent or hired. But it is clear that this proceeding does not apply to property merely deposited with us for safe-keeping, because it is not at our risk.

Gaius, On the Edict of the Urban Prætor: Title, Actions Relating to Freedom. If an option has been bequeathed to anyone demanding his liberty in court, whatever has been stated with reference to the bequest of an estate will also apply to that of an option. 1The right to bring a second action to obtain freedom is sometimes granted; as for instance, where a party alleges that he lost the first case because his freedom depended upon a condition which had not previously been complied with. 2Although it is commonly stated that, after a case involving freedom has been decided, the person whose condition was in controversy is considered to be free; still, if he is really a slave, it is certain that he, nevertheless, will acquire for his master whatever has been delivered to or promised him, just as if no question had arisen concerning his freedom. We shall see that there is no dispute as to his possession, since his master ceases to possess him after the case has been decided. The better opinion is that he acquires possession, although he is not possessed by him. And, as it has been settled that we acquire possession by our slaves, even if they are fugitives, why should it be wondered at that we also acquire possession by one whose right to freedom we deny?

Gaius, On the Edict of the Urban Prætor, Title: Actions Relating to Freedom. To prevent the excessive indulgence of certain masters toward their slaves from contaminating the highest Order in the State, through suffering their slaves to claim the right of free birth and to be judicially declared free, a Decree of the Senate was enacted in the time of Domitian, by which it was provided, that: “If anyone can prove that an act was due to collusion, and the man pronounced to be free was actually a slave, the latter will belong to him who exposed the collusion.”

Gaius, On the Edict of the Urban Prætor, Title: On Cases Involving Freedom. If a trespasser should expel both the owner and the usufructuary from a tract of land, and the usufructuary should lose his right on account of not having used it during the prescribed time, no one doubts that the owner can institute proceedings against the trespasser, either alone or with the usufructuary; or, if he should not do so, he can retain the usufruct after it has been restored to him, and any damages sustained by the usufructuary shall be recovered from him who was responsible for the loss.