Neratius, Parchments, Book III. There is no doubt that the parties can withdraw in all contracts relating to purchase, sale, leasing, hiring, and other similar obligations, where everything remains the same by the common consent of those who have bound themselves. The opinion of Aristo goes still farther, for he thinks that if I have performed all the acts which it was necessary for me to perform as vendor, with regard to the property sold to you; and, while you still owe me the purchase money, it is agreed between us that you shall restore to me everything relating to the property sold, which was delivered to you by me, and that you shall not pay the purchase money; and, in accordance with this, you do return it to me, you will cease to owe me the money; because good faith which governs matters of this kind admits of this interpretation and agreement. It does not matter whether the agreement is made to abandon the contract, all things as to which we bound ourselves remaining the same; or whether you return everything which I delivered to you, and we then agree that you shall not give me anything on account of the contract. It is certain that the following cannot be accomplished by a contract which has reference to annulling what has been done; that is, that you may be compelled to return to me what I have already given you; since, in this way, the business would be transacted not so much by annulling our former contract, as by creating new obligations between ourselves.

Neratius, Parchments, Book III. The Publician Action was not invented for the purpose of depriving the real owner of his property (and this is proved in the first place on equitable principles; and in the second place by the use of the exception: “If the property in dispute does not belong to the possessor”); but, for the reason that where a man purchases anything in good faith and has obtained possession of it, he, rather than his adversary, should be entitled to hold it.

Neratius, Parchments, Book III. An usufructuary is not permitted to put fresh plaster on walls which are rough; because, even though by improving the house he would render the condition of the owner better, he cannot do this through any right of his own; for it is one thing for him to take care of what he has received, and another to do something new.

Neratius, Parchments, Book III. You and I were both joint heirs to the estate of Lucius Titius, and I sold my share of a tract of land belonging to the estate, and then an action for the partition of the estate was brought between us. In this instance, the share which was mine will not be included in the case, since when it was sold it was no longer a part of the estate; nor will your share be taken into consideration, because even if it remains in its former legal condition and belongs to the estate; still, by the sale of my share the ownership of it ceased to be common. Whether one heir does not sell his share or several do not do so, is of no importance; provided a certain portion which has been alienated by one of the heirs and has ceased to form part of the estate.

Neratius, Parchments, Book III. If the property which I am obliged to deliver in accordance with the contract of sale is taken from me by force, although I am required to be responsible for its safe-keeping, it is still more proper that I should only be required to transfer to the purchaser my rights of action for the recovery of said property; because its safe custody is of very little advantage where violence is employed. I should assign to you not only the rights of action which relate to profit, but also such as have reference to loss, so that you may obtain all the gain as well as be responsible for the expense. 1I should assign to you not only what I myself have acquired by means of the said property, but also what the purchaser would have acquired if the slave had been delivered to him at once. 2Ad Dig. 19,1,31,2Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 199, Note 13.Two of us purchased the same property from a party who was not the owner, the purchase and sale were concluded without bad faith. and the property was delivered. Whether we both made the purchase from the same person, or from two different ones, he must be protected who first acquired his right; that is to say, the one to whom delivery was first made. Where one of two parties makes a purchase from the owner of the property, he must by all means be protected.

Neratius, Parchments, Book III. A man wished to make a present to his wife, and a debtor of hers, who was not solvent, promised her a dowry. The husband will only be responsible to the extent that the debtor was solvent, and if the latter should acquire anything which might enable him to meet his obligations, the responsibility will increase in proportion to the amount which he acquired. And it will continue to exist, even if he afterwards became more indigent because when the dowry was promised, the donation consisted only of what could not be collected from the debtor, and when the latter became solvent, the obligation still persisted, on account of the donation; since the matter is in the same condition as it would be if the debtor had been wealthy at the time when the dowry was promised.

Neratius, Parchments, Book III. A slave is ordered to be free if he pays ten aurei to the heir. He has the amount, but he owes an equal sum to his master. He will not be free by payment of these ten aurei, because where a slave is permitted to pay money out of his peculium for the purpose of complying with a condition, we must understand this to mean that he must not pay what does not belong to his peculium. I am perfectly aware that this money can be said to form part of his peculium; although if the slave had nothing else, he would have no peculium. But it cannot be doubted that the intention of those who established the rule was that the slave should have the power of making payment out of his peculium, just as out of his patrimony, because this could be conceded as being done without any injury to his master. If, however, anyone should go farther, the case would not differ much from one where a person might hold that the slave complied with the condition by the payment of money which he had stolen from his master.

Neratius, Parchments, Book III. While we are examining the interdicts which have reference to water used during the summer, we think that we should first determine what summer water is, concerning which an interdict is usually granted relating to the preceding season; that is to say, whether summer water should be decided to be such as one only has a right to use during the summer, whether the intention of him who has the right to conduct it during that season ought to be taken into account; whether this designation depends upon the nature of the water itself, which can only be conducted during the summer; or whether the advantage to the places to which it is conducted should be considered. Hence it was held that the water was properly so called on account of two things; namely, its nature, and the benefit of the land upon which it is conveyed; so that if its nature is such that it can only be conducted during the summer, even though it is also desired to do this during the winter; or if its nature permits it to be conducted during any season of the year, and the benefit to the places where it is taken only requires its use during the summer by the persons entitled to it, it is very properly called summer water.

Ad Dig. 46,7,16Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 479, Note 10.Neratius, Parchments, Book III. When I desire to institute proceedings against one of several sureties, under a stipulation to pay the judgment because the case has not been defended, and the surety is ready to pay his share, judgment should not be rendered in my favor against him. For it is not just for him. to be annoyed by an action, or be compelled to interpose a denial, where he is ready to pay what he owes without a judgment by which his adversary could not compel him to pay a larger sum.

Neratius, Parchments, Book III. He who has not a legitimate father derives his origin from his mother, which should be reckoned from the day on which he was born.