Paulus, On the Edict, Book XXXI. But what if he had not yet collected the purchase-money, or had sold the property for a smaller sum than he should have done? He must only assign his rights of action.

Paulus, On Sabinus, Book XXXI. Where a person refuses to return property, not to the owner of the same but to someone who demands it, and whom he does not think to be the genuine agent or heir of the person who made the deposit, he is not guilty of bad faith. However, if he should afterwards learn that the claimant had authority, an action can be brought against him, since he now begins to be guilty of bad faith, if he refuses to return the property. 1A personal action for recovery will also lie on account of property deposited, but not before fraud has been committed; for no one is liable to a personal action for recovery merely because he has received the deposit, but only when he has been guilty of fraud.

Paulus, On the Edict, Book XXXI. Ad Dig. 41,1,31 pr.Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 171, Note 5.The mere delivery of an article does not transfer its ownership, for this takes place only where a sale or some other just cause precedes delivery. 1A treasure is an ancient deposit of money, the memory of which no longer remains, so that it now has no owner. Hence, it becomes the property of him who finds it, because it belongs to no one else. On the other hand, if anyone, for the sake of profit, or actuated by fear, with a view to its preservation, hides money in the ground, it is not a treasure, and anyone who appropriates it will be guilty of theft.

Paulus, On the Edict, Book XXXI. If an action on deposit is brought against an heir, and lost, the plaintiff can bring one against the other heirs who cannot avail themselves of an exception on the ground of res judicata. For although the same question is involved in different actions, still the change of the parties against whom suit is individually brought gives the case a different aspect. If a suit is brought against the heir on account of fraud committed by the deceased, and afterwards one is brought against him for some fraudulent act of his own, an exception on the ground of res judicata will not operate as a bar, because a different question is involved.

Paulus, On the Edict, Book XXXI. If anyone should delegate a debtor whom he knew could protect himself by an exception on the ground of fraud, he will resemble a person who makes a gift under such circumstances, as he is considered to rely upon an exception to annul his act. If, however, he promises his creditor through ignorance, he cannot have recourse to an exception against him because the latter receives what is his own; but he who delegated him will be liable in a personal action for recovery, or one for an uncertain amount, if the money was not paid, or for a certain amount if it was paid; and therefore, when he has paid it, he can bring an action on mandate.