Julianus, Digest, Book XLIX. Where a man has received real property as security, it is not unjust that he should be granted a prætorian action to enforce a servitude to which it is subject; just as an action of this kind will be granted for the recovery of the land itself. It is established that the same rule must be observed with respect to a party who holds land under a perpetual lease.

Julianus, Digest, Book XLIX. If, however, the usufructuary should serve the notice upon the owner of the land himself, the service will be void, for he cannot bring an action against the owner, as he can against the neighbor, alleging that he has not built his house any higher against the usufructuary’s consent. But if the usufruct become diminished in value through the construction of the new building, he can claim his usufruct.

The Same, Digest, Book XLIX. Where a person who is entitled to a right of way serves notice upon someone who has a built a house where he has the right to pass, his act will be void; but he will not be prevented from bringing an action to recover the servitude to which he is entitled.

Julianus, Digest, Book XLIX. If anyone who has Titius as his creditor, being well aware that he is not solvent, makes a testamentary grant of freedom, and then, after having paid Titius in full, has Sempronius as his creditor, and dies, without making any change in his will, the grants of freedom should be confirmed, even if the estate is not insolvent; because, for grants of freedom to be rescinded, we require two conditions to exist, namely, the intention to commit fraud, and the perpetration of the same. And if the creditor, whom it was the intention to defraud in the beginning, was not cheated, there was originally no intention to deceive him who was actually defrauded. Therefore grants of freedom are confirmed:

Julianus, Digest, Book XLIX. All debtors who are released for the purpose of defrauding creditors are, by this action, restored to their former liabilities. 1Ad Dig. 42,8,17,1ROHGE, Bd. 5 (1872), S. 45: Anfechtung einer in Form eines onerosen Geschäfts fraudandi animo geübten Liberalität. Der gutgläubige Empfänger haftet nur zum Belaufe seiner Bereicherung.Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 368, Note 6.Lucius Titius, having creditors, transferred all his property to his freedmen, who were also his natural children. The opinion was given that, although it was not suggested that Titius proposed to commit fraud, still, as he knew that he had creditors, and alienated all his property, he should be understood to have had the intention of defrauding them; and, therefore, although his children were not aware that this was the intention of their father, they would be liable under this action. 2If a husband, intending to defraud his creditors, after the dissolution of his marriage, returns his wife’s dowry before the time prescribed by law for him to return it, the wife will be liable under this action for the amount of the interest of the creditors in having her dowry returned at the proper time; for the Prætor understands that payment made before the designated time is fraudulent.

The Same, Digest, Book XLIX. Two persons cannot hold the same property by a precarious title, any more than two can hold possession of the same thing through violence, or clandestinely; for two just or unjust possessions of it cannot exist at one and the same time. 1Anyone who requests that my slave be transferred to him under a precarious title is considered to hold him from me under such a title, if I grant his request; and hence he will be liable to me under the interdict in question. 2Where anything is requested to be granted under a precarious tenure, we cannot only make use of this interdict, but also of the proceeding for the recovery of property whose amount is undetermined; that is to say, the Actio Præscriptis Verbis.

Julianus, Digest, Book XLIX. Ad Dig. 43,33,1 pr.Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 226a, Note 11; Bd. I, § 236, Note 5.If a tenant on a farm brings a female slave on the land, for the purpose of pledging her, and afterwards sells her, an interdict should be granted in order to obtain possession of a child born to the said female slave while she was in the hands of the purchaser. 1Ad Dig. 43,33,1,1Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 236, Note 5.If a tenant brings property on a farm, which is owned by two persons, for the purpose of pledging the same, with the understanding that it shall be jointly encumbered to both of them, each one can properly make use of the Salvian Interdict against a third party; but if this interdict is granted with reference to them alone, the position of the possessor will be preferable. If, however, it was agreed that the property should be equally encumbered to each of the joint-owners of the land, a prætorian action should be granted between them, and against other parties, by means of which each of the said joint-owners can obtain possession of half the property. 2It is proper that the same rule should be observed where a tenant brings property held in common with another upon the land, for the purpose of pledging the same, so that pursuit of the pledge may only be made for half of the value of the property in question.