Javolenus, Epistles, Book XIII. We should interpret as liberally as possible any favor of the Emperor which in fact proceeds from his Divine indulgence.

Javolenus, Epistles, Book XIII. A certain man bequeathed the usufruct of a third of his estate. The property of his heir was sold by his creditors, and the woman to whom the bequest was made received, in the place of the usufruct, the amount of the appraisement of the third part of the estate, and, through ignorance, the ordinary stipulation was omitted. I ask whether suit can be brought by the heir of the woman for the money which was given her, instead of the enjoyment of the usufruct, and if so, what kind of a suit? I answered that an action in factum should be granted.

Javolenus, Epistles, Book XIII. Ad Dig. 24,1,50 pr.Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 365, Note 5.Where a woman buys a slave for twenty aurei, and her husband pays five to the vendor at the time of the purchase, if a divorce takes place, he can certainly recover this sum. It makes no difference whether the slave has become deteriorated in value, or even if he should be dead, the husband will still be entitled to demand the five aurei; for the question arises, as to whether the woman has become enriched by the property of her husband, at the time when the question as to the return of the dowry arose. She is, in this instance, understood to have been pecuniarily benefited by having been released by the intervention of her husband from liability for a debt, which she would still have owed, if her husband had not paid the money. Nor does it make any difference for what reason the woman owed the money, that is to say, whether it was borrowed, or whether she owed it on account of some purchase. 1Ad Dig. 24,1,50,1Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 365, Note 14.Where the woman did not buy the slave, but received the money from her husband in order to buy him, then, in case the slave should die, or become depreciated in value, the loss must be borne by her husband, because, as she would not have purchased the slave if she had not received the money from her husband, he who gave it must bear the loss, provided the slave died; nor is the woman considered to have become enriched who was not released by her creditor, and is not in possession of what she purchased with her husband’s money.

The Same, Epistles, Book XIII. An estate was left to Mævius if he paid two hundred aurei to Callimacus, who could not take anything under a will, and the legatee was, nevertheless, obliged to comply with the condition and to pay the two hundred aurei, in order to become entitled to the land which was devised to him, even though he did not transfer the ownership of the said sum to the person who received it. For what difference does it make whether anyone is directed to pay the money to such a person, or to deposit it in some place, or to throw it into the sea? Money cannot come into the hands of an individual of this kind under the terms of a will, but he can acquire it as a donation mortis causa.

Javolenus, Epistles, Book XIII. But where the owner of the slave paid the money, he cannot recover it from him for whom he became surety, but he can do so from the person to whom he paid it, since a slave cannot become liable as surety. Hence it follows that he cannot recover it from him for whom he became surety, as he himself is liable for the debt, and will not be released by the payment of money due under an obligation for which the slave was not responsible.