Ex Plautio libri
Ex libro II
Dig. 12,6,45Iavolenus libro secundo ex Plautio. Si is, qui hereditatem vendidit et emptori tradidit, id, quod sibi mortuus debuerat, non retinuit, repetere poterit, quia plus debito solutum per condictionem recte recipietur.
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.
Dig. 18,2,19Iavolenus libro secundo ex Plautio. Fundo in diem addicto si postea pretium adiectum est et venditor alio fundo applicito eum ipsum fundi posteriori emptori addixit et id sine dolo malo fecit, priori emptori obligatus non erit: nam quamvis non id tantum, quod in diem addictum erat, sed aliud quoque cum eo venierit, tamen, si venditor dolo caret, prioris emptoris causa absoluta est: id enim solum intuendum est, an priori venditori bona fide facta sit adiectio.
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.
Dig. 18,4,8Iavolenus libro secundo ex Plautio. Quod si nulla hereditas ad venditorem pertinuit, quantum emptori praestare debuit, ita distingui oportebit, ut, si est quidem aliqua hereditas, sed ad venditorem non pertinet, ipsa aestimetur, si nulla est, de qua actum videatur, pretium dumtaxat et si quid in eam rem impensum est emptor a venditore consequatur.
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.
Dig. 18,4,10Iavolenus libro secundo ex Plautio. Quod si in venditione hereditatis id actum est, si quid iuris esset venditoris, venire nec postea quicquam praestitu iri: quamvis ad venditorem hereditas non pertinuerit, nihil tamen eo praestabitur, quia id actum esse manifestum est, ut quemadmodum emolumentum negotiationis, ita periculum ad emptorem pertineret.
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.
Dig. 21,2,60Iavolenus libro secundo ex Plautio. Si in venditione dictum non sit, quantum venditorem pro evictione praestare oporteat, nihil venditor praestabit praeter simplam evictionis nomine et ex natura ex empto actionis hoc quod interest.
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.
Dig. 41,4,4Iavolenus libro secundo ex Plautio. Emptor fundi partem eius alienam esse non ignoraverat: responsum est nihil eum ex eo fundo longa possessione capturum. quod ita verum esse existimo, si, quae pars aliena esset in eo fundo, emptor ignoraverat: quod si certum locum esse sciret, reliquas partes longa possessione capi posse non dubito. 1Idem iuris est, si is, qui totum fundum emebat, pro indiviso partem aliquam alienam esse scit: eam enim dumtaxat non capiet, ceterarum partium non impedietur longa possessione capio.
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.
Dig. 45,3,34Iavolenus libro secundo ad Plautium. Si servus testamento manumissus, cum se liberum esse ignoraret et in causa hereditaria maneret, pecuniam heredi stipulatus est, nihil debebitur heredibus, si modo scierint eum testamento manumissum, quia non potest videri iustam servitutem servisse iis, qui illum liberum esse non ignorabant. distat ista causa eius, qui liber emptus bona fide servit, quia in eo et ipsius et emptoris existimatio consentit: ceterum is, qui scit hominem liberum esse, quamvis ille condicionem suam ignoret, ne possidere quidem eum potest videri.
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.