Marcellus, Digest, Book V. Our ancestors were very far from thinking that anyone who came forward for the destruction of his country and to kill his parents and children should be mourned; so where a son killed his father or a father his son, if either had been guilty of such an offence, they held that the act was without criminality; and that the party should even be rewarded.

Marcellus, Digest, Book V. So that even if a thief or a depredator lends property he will be entitled to an action on loan.

Marcellus, Digest, Book V. Where two heirs fraudulently interfere with property which has been deposited with the deceased, they will, in some instances, only be liable for a portion of the same, for if they divide ten thousand aurei which were deposited with the deceased, and misappropriate five thousand of them, and both are solvent, they will each be liable for half, because the plaintiff has no further interest. But where they have melted a plate or permitted this to be done by someone else, or have committed any other kind of fraud, they can be sued for the entire amount, just as if they themselves had been charged with the safekeeping of the property; for it is certain that each one of them is guilty of fraud, and unless they were liable for the whole amount, restoration of the property could not take place. Nor does it appear absurd for one to think that unless restitution of the entire property is made, he against whom suit has been brought cannot be released but must have judgment rendered against him, if the property was not restored in proportion of the share of the estate to which he was heir.

Ad Dig. 20,1,27Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 129, Note 7; Bd. I, § 249, Note 5.Marcellus, Digest, Book V. A certain man gave a slave in pledge, and then placed him in chains for some trifling offence, and afterwards released him; and, because the debtor did not pay the debt, the creditor sold the slave for a lower price than he was worth when pledged. Can an action be brought by the creditor against the debtor because the suit on the loan was not sufficient to enable him to recover the deficiency? What if the debtor should have killed or blinded the slave? If he had killed him, he would be bound to produce him in court, but if he had blinded him, we should grant an action for malicious injury to the amount of the interest of the creditor; because by disabling or confining the slave the debtor had diminished the value of the pledge. Let us suppose that no action will lie on the ground of a loan, for the reason that the case has been lost. I do not think that the matter is unworthy of the attention and assistance of the Prætor. Ulpianus says, in a note, that if the debtor put the slave in chains in order to injure the creditor, he will be liable; but if he did so because he deserved punishment, he will not be.

Ad Dig. 45,1,95Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 250, Note 3; Bd. II, § 361, Note 3.The Same, Digest, Book V. Where anyone stipulates for the construction of a house, he only acquires the obligation when it is evident in what place he desired the house to be built, and if he is interested in having it built there.