Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book XXVIII. In order for the property to vest in the purchaser, it is not material whether the price is paid, or a surety given on this account. What we have stated with reference to a surety must be understood to be of wider application where security is given to the vendor for the purchase-money in any way whatsoever; for example, by means of another debtor, or by the delivery of a pledge; and in these instances it is the same as if the price had been actually paid.

Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book XXVII. Where anyone sells property belonging to another after title by prescription or usucaption has been acquired through lapse of time, he ceases to be liable to the purchaser for eviction. 1If an heir should sell a slave who was ordered to be free under the condition of paying a certain sum of money, and he states that the amount mentioned in the condition is greater than he was directed to pay, he will be liable to an action on purchase, provided the condition is such that it would have passed to the purchaser, that is to say, if the slave was directed to pay the heir; for if he was directed to pay anyone else, even though he may have stated the amount of money correctly, still, if he did not notify the purchaser that he was directed to make payment to another, he will be liable on the ground of eviction.

Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book XXVIII. Threatened injury is such as has not yet taken place, but which we fear may be caused in the future.

Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book XXVIII. The same rule applies where no one is willing to rent the house on account of it being out of repair.

Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book XXVIII. If a house which belongs to yourself and me in common adjoins another, which is my property, the question arises whether, if the house owned in common threatens to cause me any damage, you should furnish me security against the injury which may be sustained by my own building; that is to say, for that portion of the said house of which you are the owner. This opinion is adopted by several authorities. I, however, perceive a difficulty because I myself can repair my own house, and I can recover, in an action of partnership or one in partition, any expenses incurred for a portion of the same. For if I have a building in common with you, which is in bad condition, and you are in default in repairing the same, our instructors deny that you should be compelled to give security, because I myself can make the repairs and will be entitled to recover by an action on partnership, or in partition a proportionate share of the expenses which I have incurred; and therefore the giving of a bond would be of no use, because I can be reimbursed for any loss in another way. It is clear that the opinion of our instructors was, that we should consider a stipulation provided for indemnity in the case of threatened injury to be useless, where one can be indemnified for his loss by another action; which rule is understood to be applicable to the case above mentioned.