The Same, Digest, Book XIX. Where anyone who has lent an article to be used, sells it, and directs it to be delivered to the purchaser, and the borrower does not deliver it; in some instances the owner will be held to have lost possession, and in others he will not. For the owner will only lose possession when the article which has been lent is not returned when he demands it. But what if there was a just and reasonable cause for returning it, and not merely that the borrower desired to retain possession of the property?

Ad Dig. 43,16,12Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 157, Note 6; Bd. II, § 400, Note 7.Marcellus, Digest, Book XIX. A tenant refused to permit a man to whom the lessor had sold the land and directed to take possession to enter upon it; and this tenant was afterwards forcibly dispossessed by another. The question arose, who would be entitled to the interdict Unde vi? I held that it did not make any difference whether the tenant prevented the owner himself, or the purchaser to whom the owner had ordered possession to be given, from entering upon the premises. Hence the interdict Unde vi would lie in favor of the tenant, and he himself would be liable to a similar interdict in favor of the lessor, whom he was considered to have ejected, when he refused to give possession to the purchaser, unless he did so for a just and reasonable cause.

Marcellus, Digest, Book XIX. A certain man gave the same property in pledge at two different times, the second creditor brought an action on pledge against the first one, and gained the case, and the first afterwards brought a similar action against the second. The question arose whether an exception on the ground of res judicata would operate as a bar. If the second creditor had pleaded the exception before the property had been pledged to him, and he could advance nothing which was new and valid, the exception would undoubtedly be a bar, for it brings up the same point which had already been decided.