Javolenus, On Plautius, Book I. Where a party who has received a legacy under a will brings an action for the recovery of the estate, and, for some reason or other, the legacy is not returned, it is the duty of the judge to cause the estate to be surrendered to the plaintiff, after deducting the amount which he received.

Javolenus, On Plautius, Book I. Where a woman wishing to give a dowry to the man whom she intends to marry releases him from liability for the money which he owes her, and the marriage does not take place, she can very properly bring suit against him to recover the money; because it makes no difference, since he received it without consideration, whether it was actually paid to him or he obtained a release for it.

Javolenus, On Plautius, Book I. An heir delivered a slave who was not expressly bequeathed, and gave a guarantee against fraud and the slave was afterwards evicted. The legatee could bring an action on the will against the heir, even though the latter was ignorant that the slave was the property of another.

Javolenus, On Plautius, Book I. Where a woman is about to marry a son under paternal control, and promises a dowry to her father-in-law in the following terms: “Whatever your son owes me shall be yours as my dowry,” I think that it makes a difference whether the obligation of the son or the right of action which the woman has against the father for property employed for his benefit, is referred to in the promise; for if what the son is required to pay is meant, all the money for which he is liable is included in the promise of the dowry. If, however, what the father must pay out of the peculium for property employed for his benefit is referred to, an estimate should be made of how much that was at the time when the promise was given, and this sum will be considered to form the dowry for which judgment can be rendered against the father, in the name of the son, at the above-mentioned date. If, however, it is not perfectly clear which obligation the woman had in mind, the presumption is that she had reference to the debt of the son, unless it is perfectly evident that the contrary is the case.

Javolenus, On Plautius, Book I. Where a tract of land is specifically devised, any addition made to it after the will has been drawn up will also form part of the legacy, even if the words, “Which will be mine,” are not added; provided that the testator did not hold this property separate from the estate, but had united it to the first tract of land devised in its entirety.

Javolenus, On Plautius, Book I. Where legacies are repeated in making a substitution, grants of freedom are also included in the repetition.

Javolenus, On Plautius, Book II. Where a party sold an estate and transferred it to the purchaser, but failed to retain what the deceased owed him, he can bring an action for its recovery; as anything which is paid in excess of what is due can properly be recovered by a personal action.

Javolenus, On Plautius, Book II. Where a tract of land has been sold dependent upon a better offer being made, and a higher price is subsequently offered, and the vendor adjudges the said tract to the second purchaser, together with another adjoining it, and does this without fraudulent intent; he will not be liable to the former purchaser, even though he not only sold him what was included in the offer at a higher price, but also another tract; still, if the vendor was not guilty of fraud, the transaction with the first purchaser is at an end, for it should only be considered whether the transfer to the second purchaser was made in good faith.

Ad Dig. 18,4,8ROHGE, Bd. 16 (1875), Nr. 43, S. 150: Verpflichtungen aus dem Verkaufe eines nicht existirenden Kaufobjekts. Eigener Wechsel an eigene Ordre. Einfluß des Irrthums.Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 307, Note 5; Bd. II, § 315, Note 7.Javolenus, On Plautius, Book II. Where the vendor has no right of succession to an estate, in order to ascertain how much he should pay the purchaser, a distinction must be made, namely: where a right of succession, in fact, exists, but does not belong to the vendor, it should be appraised; but if there is no right of succession at all, with reference to which the agreement appears to have been made, the purchaser can recover from the vendor only the price which he paid, and any expenses which he incurred on account of the property.

Javolenus, On Plautius, Book II. If it was agreed upon in the sale of the succession to an estate that any rights of the vendor should be sold, but that afterwards nothing should be guaranteed by him, and even though the right of succession did not belong to the vendor, he would, nevertheless, not be liable on this account, because it was manifestly the intention that as any profit arising from the transaction would belong to the purchaser, he must also bear the risk.

Javolenus, On Plautius, Book II. Where it is not stated at the time of the sale to what extent the vendor should be liable in case of eviction, he will not be liable on this ground for more than simple damages, and for the amount of the interest of the purchaser dependent upon the nature of the action of sale.

Javolenus, On Plautius, Book II. A purchaser knew that a part of the land which he bought belonged to another. The opinion was given that he could not obtain any of the land by virtue of long possession. I think that this is true, if the purchaser was not aware what part of the land belonged to another; for if he knew that it was a certain tract of it, I have no doubt that he could obtain the remainder on the ground of long possession. 1The same rule of law applies, if a man who purchased an entire tract of land was aware that an undivided part of it belonged to someone else; for he can not only acquire that part by usucaption, but he will not be prevented from acquiring the remaining parts by long possession.

Javolenus, On Plautius, Book II. If a slave who has been manumitted by will, but is not aware that he is free, remains as part of the estate, and stipulates for money for the heir, the heirs will not be entitled to anything, provided they knew that he had been manumitted by the will, because his servitude cannot be considered lawful where he serves those who knew that he was free. This case differs from that of a freeman who, having been purchased, serves in good faith as a slave; because, in this instance, the opinion of himself and the purchaser agree as to his condition. He, however, who knows a man to be free, although he may be ignorant of his condition, cannot be held to possess him.

Javolenus, On Plautius, Book III. Where water flows into a part of a canal, even though if it does not reach the extreme end of the same, all parts of said canal are held to be used.

Javolenus, On Plautius, Book III. When two persons have promised or stipulated for the same sum of money, each of them binds and is bound for the full amount by operation of law. Therefore, having made the demand, the entire obligation is discharged by the release of one of them.

The Same, On Plautius, Book IV. A party who pays in the name of the heir and with money belonging to the heir, legacies which are not due, cannot himself bring an action for the recovery of what he paid; but if he paid the money of the heir without the knowledge of the latter, then the owner of the money, it is held, can properly bring suit to recover it. The same rules apply to corporeal property of all kinds.

Javolenus, On Plautius, Book IV. When suit is brought for the production of a slave who has been given in pledge, proceedings must be instituted against the creditor, and not against the debtor; for the reason that he who gave the slave in pledge only possesses him by the right of usucaption. In all other respects, however, he who receives property possesses it, and this is true to such an extent that the possession of him who gives property in pledge can also be included.

Javolenus, On Plautius, Book V. That can not correctly be called “property” which is productive of more inconvenience than benefit.