The Same, On the Edict of the Curule Ædiles, Book II. A sale without consideration and imaginary, is considered not to be made at all, and therefore the alienation of the property is not taken into consideration.

Paulus, On the Edict of the Curule Ædiles, Book II. And, generally speaking, “Or any other animal likely to commit injury, whether it be at large or tied, but incapable of being restrained so as not to cause damage,”

The Same, On the Edict of the Curule Ædiles, Book II. The Ædiles, with great justice, refuse to permit a slave to be accessory to property of less value than himself, in order to avoid fraud being committed either against the Edict or against the Civil Law, and also, as Pedius says, against the dignity of mankind; otherwise the same rule would apply as in the other matters, since it would be ridiculous for a tract of land to be considered accessory to a tunic. Anything, however, may be permitted to be accessory to the sale of a slave, for very frequently the peculium is more valuable than the slave himself, and sometimes a sub-slave, classed as an accessory, is worth more than the principal slave who is sold. 1An action is granted under this Edict against the party who had the greatest interest in the sale of the slave, because dealers in slaves generally form partnerships, so that whatever they do is held to be transacted in common; for it seemed just to the Ædiles that the actions which they established should be brought either against the party who owned the greater share of the property—or at least who did not own less than the others—in order that the buyer might not be compelled to engage in litigation with many persons; although an action on purchase can be brought against each individual partner in proportion to his share; for this kind of men are much inclined to gain, as well as to the commission of dishonorable acts. 2Ad Dig. 21,1,44,2ROHGE, Bd. 10 (1874), S. 275: Actio redhibitoria. Zurückgabe der fehlerhaften Sache. Untergang derselben ohne Verschulden des Empfängers nach erklärtem Rücktritte.In an action for the return of property, or for its appraisement, a doubt arises whether a party who has sold a slave belonging to another will be liable, at the same time, on the ground of eviction, or because of unsoundness, or on account of the flight of the slave. For it may be said that the purchaser has no further interest where he has been deprived of the possession of the slave by a better title, whether he is sound or a fugitive; but it is to the interest of the purchaser that he should have been sound when he possessed him on account of his services, and the obligation does not increase because of what may have subsequently happened, for just as soon as the slave is delivered, the stipulation relating to the interest of the purchaser becomes operative.

Paulus, On the Edict of the Curule Ædiles, Book II. Property is held to have been obtained by a creditor through eviction, where the expectation of holding it has been almost lost by the purchaser. Therefore, where eviction took place under the Servian Action, the stipulation in fact becomes operative; but as, where the money is paid by the debtor, the purchaser can hold the slave when the pledge is released, if the vendor is sued, he can avail himself of an exception on the ground of bad faith.

Paulus, On the Edict of the Curule Ædiles, Book II. Where I sold a slave and promised double his value to the purchaser in case of eviction, and he had already bound himself to me by the same stipulation; and I afterwards become his heir, and the slave is lost through a superior title, the stipulation in no respect becomes operative. I am not held to have been deprived of him by eviction, since I sold him, nor was he evicted from the party to whom I made the guarantee, since I could, with very little propriety, be said to be liable to pay myself double damages. 1Again, if the purchaser should become the heir of the owner of the slave, as the slave cannot be evicted from him, nor can he be held to evict him from himself, the stipulation for double the amount of his value will not become operative. Therefore, in these cases an action on sale should be brought. 2Where anyone purchases a tract of land, and takes security against eviction, and sells the said land to a purchaser who becomes his heir; or, on the other hand, the purchaser becomes the heir of the vendor, in case the land is lost by eviction, the question arises whether suit can be brought against the sureties. I think that, in either case, the sureties will be liable, since when a debtor becomes the heir of his creditor, a kind of an account is opened between the heir and the estate, and the estate is understood to have become larger for the debtor, since the money which was owing to the estate has been paid and the property of the heir is diminished to that extent. On the other hand, when a creditor becomes the heir of his debtor, the assets of the estate are held to be diminished, just as if the estate itself had paid the creditor. Therefore, whether he who had taken security against eviction himself made the sale to the purchaser, or whether the latter becomes the heir of the vendor, the sureties will be liable; and if the estates of the vendor and the purchaser should pass into the hands of the same person, he can bring an action against the sureties.

Paulus, On the Edict of the Curule Ædiles, Book II. Where it was stated to the vendor that he must bind himself to pay either simple, triple, or quadruple damages, he can be sued in an action on purchase without reference to lapse of time; for he who pays double damages is not compelled to give security, as is generally supposed, but the mere promise is sufficient, unless something else should be agreed upon. 1If I submit a question to arbitration, and an award is rendered against me, an action on the ground of eviction should not be granted me against the vendor, for I have not acted from necessity. 2Where a slave is sold under a stipulation for double damages, if he should be evicted, an addition with reference to the eviction of a share of said slave will be necessary, for a slave cannot be held to be evicted where only a share in him is involved. 3If the purchaser was able to acquire title by usucaption and does not do so, he is considered to have done this through his own fault, and hence, if the slave is evicted, the vendor will not be liable. 4If notice is given to the agent of the promisor (and the latter is present at the time), and has bound himself with reference to eviction, and is not ignorant of the fact, the promisor will still be liable. 5He also will be liable who took measures to avoid being notified. 6Where, however, the purchaser was not able to ascertain the whereabouts of the vendor, although the latter did nothing to conceal himself, the stipulation will, nevertheless, become operative. 7Trebatius says that it has been established as equitable that, in case of a stipulation for double damages, a ward can be notified without the authority of his guardian, if the latter does not appear.

Paulus, On the Edict of the Curule Ædiles, Book II. Where the purchaser of a slave becomes the heir of the vendor, or vice versa, and the slave is evicted, shall double his value be deducted, or only his actual value, in computing the amount due under the Falcidian Law; for the amount would be double if there should be another heir? The more equitable opinion is, that while the heir is the same, only the actual value of the slave should be calculated.

Paulus, On the Edict of the Curule Ædiles, Book II. A signet ring is not embraced in the term “ornament.”