Paulus, On Plautius, Book IV. Matters which have always had a certain interpretation should, under no circumstances, be changed.

Ad Dig. 12,1,29Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 482, Note 7.Paulus, On Plautius, Book IV. Where an owner employs his slave as his agent, Julianus holds that it may be said that he is liable to a personal action for recovery just as if he had contracted in pursuance of the order of the party by whom he was appointed.

The Same, On Plautius, Book IV. For neither the increase nor the decrease of the peculium will affect the right of action on the promise.

Ad Dig. 14,3,14Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 407, Note 7.Paulus, On Plautius, Book IV. The same rule will apply if a slave belonging to another has been appointed to manage a business owned in common; for an action for the entire amount should be granted against either of the owners, and what either of them has paid he can recover a share of, either by the action on partnership, or by that for the partition of property held in common. It is certain that, wherever the action on partnership or that for the division of common property does not lie, it is established that each party can only have judgment rendered against him for his share; as, for example, where one to whose slave money was lent, having appointed two heirs, gave the slave his freedom; for each heir can only be sued for his share, because the action for the division of property held in common cannot be brought between them.

The Same, On Plautius, Book IV. Whenever a notice is placed in a shop as follows: “I forbid any business to be transacted with my slave Januarius,” it is established that the master has only obtained a release from liability under the Institorian Action, and not under that on the peculium. 1Sabinus gave the opinion that where a slave had become a surety, an action De peculio should not be granted against the master, unless the security had been furnished for the business of the master, or concerning property belonging to the peculium. 2If the action De peculio has once been brought, although when judgment is rendered there is found to be less in the peculium than he owes, it has, nevertheless, been established that there is no ground for giving security with reference to a future increase in the peculium, as this takes place in the action on partnership, because the partner owes the entire amount. 3Where a creditor of the slave has recovered a portion of the debt from the purchaser, Proculus says that an equitable action can be brought against the vendor for the remainder, but the plaintiff must not be allowed, in the beginning, to divide the action, so as to proceed at the same time against the purchaser and the vendor; since it is enough that this alone should be granted to him; so that when, having selected one defendant, he recovers less than the debt, an action will be granted him against the other, the former action having been rescinded. This is the modern practice. 4Not only any creditor whosoever can institute proceedings against the vendor on account of business previously transacted, but the purchaser himself can also do so, (and this opinion was held by Julianus), although he himself can make a deduction against another plaintiff, provided he makes allowance for what he has in his hands. 5Where a slave is sold without his peculium, the result is that the vendor can make use of the deduction; and if, after the sale, the slave becomes indebted to the vendor, this does not diminish the peculium, because he does not owe his master. 6What we have stated with reference to purchaser and vendor is the same as if ownership was changed in any other way, as by a legacy or by the gift of a dowry; for the peculium of the slave, wherever it may be, is understood to resemble the property of a freeman.

Paulus, On Plautius, Book IV. If a master, or a father, being about to receive a loan of money, directs it to be paid to his slave or his son, there is no doubt that a personal suit for recovery can be brought against him, himself; and it is certain that, in this instance, the present action will not lie. 1Ad Dig. 15,4,5,1Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 407, Note 7.Where one of the masters of a slave directed a contract to be entered into with him, he alone will be liable; but if two directed this to be done, an action can be brought against either of them for the entire amount, because they resemble two parties who have given a mandate.

Ad Dig. 31,3Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 93, Note 5.The Same, On Plautius, Book IV. Where a bequest is made as follows: “Let my heir be charged to deliver such-and-such property, if he does not ascend to the Capitol,” the legacy is valid, although it is in his power either to ascend, or not to ascend to the Capitol.

Paulus, On Plautius, Book IV. If, however, a bequest should be made as follows, “If my daughter should marry Titius,” it is held to be valid if she should be married at the time of the death of the testator, even though at the time the will was made she was not marriageable.

Paulus, On Plautius, Book IV. Where anyone acquires by usucaption property belonging to another which was donated mortis causa, he is not considered to have obtained it from the party to whom the property belongs, but from him who gave him the opportunity for usucaption.

Paulus, On Plautius, Book IV. For it is not the order of the written instrument which should be considered, but what appears to be the intention of the parties must be determined according to law.

The Same, On Plautius, Book IV. He who has given a slave that did not belong to him in payment, will be released, if the slave is acquired by usucaption.

Paulus, On Plautius, Book IV. The Divine Antoninus Pius stated in a Rescript that persons learned in the law, who demanded their fees, could collect them.

The Same, On Plautius, Book IV. No one is liable for a debt on the ground that he can collect from another what he has paid for him.