Notae ad Papiniani Quaestionum libros
Ex libro IV
Dig. 45,1,116Idem libro quarto quaestionum. Decem stipulatus a Titio postea, quanto minus ab eo consequi posses, si a Maevio stipularis, sine dubio Maevius universi periculum potest subire. sed et si decem petieris a Titio, Maevius non erit solutus, nisi iudicatum Titius fecerit. Paulus notat: non enim sunt duo rei Maevius et Titius eiusdem obligationis, sed Maevius sub condicione debet, si a Titio exigi non poterit: igitur nec Titio convento Maevius liberatur (qui an debiturus sit, incertum est) et solvente Titio non liberatur Maevius (qui nec tenebatur), cum condicio stipulationis deficit, nec Maevius pendente stipulationis condicione recte potest conveniri: a Maevio enim ante Titium excussum non recte petetur.
Ad Dig. 45,1,116ROHGE, Bd. 13 (1874), Nr. 62, S. 174: Schadlosbürgschaft. Einwand der Vorausklage.The Same, Questions, Book IV. If, after having stipulated for ten aurei from Titius, you stipulate with Mævius for all that you cannot obtain from Titius, there is no doubt that Mævius can be compelled to assume responsibility for the payment of the entire amount. If, however, you bring an action against Titius for the ten aurei, Mævius will not be released from liability until Titius has paid the judgment. Paulus says that Mævius and Titius are not liable under the same obligation, but that Mævius is liable on condition that you cannot collect the amount from Titius. Therefore, after Titius has been sued, Mævius will not be discharged from liability, because it is uncertain whether he will owe the money or not; and if Titius should pay, Mævius will not be released, as he was not liable; for the condition upon which the stipulation was dependent has failed; and Mævius cannot properly be sued, while the condition of the stipulation is still pending, for nothing legally can be demanded of him until Titius has been exhausted.