Marcellus, Digest, Book VI. The inquiry was made can one of a number of joint-owners legally build on land held in common by them without the consent of the others; that is to say, if he is forbidden to do so by the said joint-owners, can he institute proceedings against them and allege that he has a right to build; or can the other joint-owners bring an action against him, and assert they have a right to prevent him, or that he has no right to build; and if the building is already constructed, can they not bring suit against him on the ground that he has no right to have a building there under the circumstances? This can be best answered by saying that a joint-owner has a better right to prevent building, than to build; because he who is attempting to perform an act of this kind (as I have already stated), if he wishes to use the common property, according to his own pleasure, as if he were the sole owner of the same, is appropriating to his own individual use a right which belongs to others.

Ad Dig. 17,1,49Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 172, Note 10; Bd. I, § 197, Note 6.Marcellus, Digest, Book VI. I purchase a slave of Titius in good faith, and have possession of him. Titius sold him by my direction, not being aware that he really belonged to him; or, on the other hand, I myself sold him at the direction of Titius, who became the heir of the party who purchased him; the question arises whether an action on the ground of superior title, and one on mandate will lie? I am of the opinion that Titius, although he made the sale as agent, is liable to the purchaser; and that he would not be entitled to an action for recovery, even if he had delivered the property, and therefore that an action on mandate will lie, if he was interested in the slave not being sold. On the other hand, the mandator, if he wishes to receive the property from him, will be barred by an exception on the ground of fraud, and will be entitled, as heir, to an action based on the purchase of the testator, who left him the property, against the vendor.

Marcellus, Digest, Book VI. It was included in the terms of a sale of land that the purchaser should be entitled to sixty casks as accessory to the same, and as there were a hundred of these, it was held that the vendor had the power to select those which he wished to furnish.

Ad Dig. 19,2,47Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 293, Note 10.Marcellus, Digest, Book VI. When it is ascertained that a purchaser or a lessee has sold or leased the property to several other parties, in such a way that each of them is responsible for the entire amount, they can only be compelled to pay their shares where it is established that they are all solvent; although, perhaps, it would be more just that, even where they are all solvent, the claimant should not be deprived of the right of suing any one of them that he wishes, if he does not refuse to assign the rights of action which he has against the others.

Marcellus, Digest, Book VI. The question is asked whether or not the intercalary day should be counted in favor of the party against whom judgment was rendered, in the time prescribed for levying execution on the judgment. Should it also be included in the time fixed by law for the right of action to be extinguished? It should undoubtedly be held that the time is prolonged by the intercalary day; for instance, where a question arises with reference to usucaption which is to be completed within a prescribed period, or to actions which must be brought within a certain time, as is the case with the greater portion of those which have reference to the acts of the Jildiles. If, however, anyone should sell a tract of land under the condition that, unless the price was paid within thirty days, the sale should be void, will the purchaser be entitled to the benefit of the intercalary day? I hold that he will not.