The Same, On Quintus Mucius, Book XXXI. Quintus Mucius says that where a party has the right to conduct water every day, or during the summer, or for longer intervals, through the land of another; he has also the right to place pipes of earthenware or of any other material in the channel, so as to distribute the water more widely, and that he can do whatever he pleases in the channel, provided he does not render the water-course less valuable to the owner of the land.

Pomponius, On Quintus Mucius, Book XXXI. In all the questions above stated, the personality of the purchasers and vendors should be considered, and not that of those through whom the right of action on contract is acquired; for if my slave or my son who is under my control, makes a purchase in his own name, in my presence, the inquiry is not what my opinion is, but what the party who made the contract thinks.

The Same, On Quintus Mucius, Book XLI. What I have sold does not become the property of the purchaser, unless the price has been paid to me, or security has been furnished for payment, or unless we rely upon the good faith of the purchaser without any security.

Pomponius, On Quintus Mucius, Book XXXI. In the sale of a tract of land certain things should be guaranteed, even though they may not be contained in the agreement; for example, that the purchaser will not lose the land or the usufruct of the same by the assertion of a superior title. Again, there are certain things which the vendor is not compelled to provide unless they are expressly mentioned; as, for instance, a right of way, a pathway, a road on which to drive cattle, and a water-course. This rule also applies to urban servitudes. 1Where land which is sold is entitled to a servitude, and the vendor did not mention the fact, but, being aware of it, kept silent, and on this account the purchaser of the property, by not making use of the servitude through ignorance during the time established by law, lost it; certain authorities very properly hold that the vendor is liable to an action of purchase on the ground of fraud. 2Quintus Mucius says that anyone who mentions raw materials as not appurtenant to a house or a tract of land, states the same thing twice, for raw materials are things which belong neither to a house nor to land.

Pomponius, On Quintus Mucius, Book XXXI. It must be noted that, as soon as the purchaser begins to be in default, the vendor will be responsible, not for negligence, but only for fraud. If both vendor and purchaser should be in default, Labeo says that the purchaser will be more prejudiced thereby than the vendor. It must, however, be considered, whether the party who is last in default, is not the more prejudiced, for what would be the case if I notify the vendor, and he does not deliver the property which I bought, and then, when he afterwards tenders it, I refuse to accept it? It is clear that, in this instance I should be the one to suffer by the default. But if the default was caused by the purchaser, and then, while everything was intact, the vendor should be in default when he was able to make the delivery, it is only just that he should suffer by the later delay.

Pomponius, On Quintus Mucius, Book XXXI. That is to say by means of which use of the well is obtained.

Pomponius, On Quintus Mucius, Book XXXI. Any more than the chickens or other animals on the premises.

Pomponius, On Quintus Mucius, Book XXXI. Quintus Mucius stated the following case. The owner of a tract of land sold the standing trees on the same, and, after having received the money for the property, refused to deliver it. The purchaser asked what course he should take, and feared that the said trees would not be considered to belong to him. Pomponius replied that the trees standing upon the land were not separate from the latter, and therefore the purchaser could not bring suit to recover the trees as the owner of the same, but he would be entitled to an action on purchase.

Ad Dig. 19,2,52ROHGE, Bd. 3 (1872), S. 225: Ein Recht auf Theilung des Contractgegenstandes läßt sich aus dieser Bestimmung nicht herleiten.Pomponius, On Quintus Mucius, Book XXXI. If I lease you a tract of land for ten aurei, and you think that I am leasing it to you for five, the contract is void. If, however, I think that I am leasing it to you for less, and you think that you are leasing it for more, the lease will not be for a larger sum than I thought that it was.

The Same, On Quintus Mucius, Book XXXI. A freeman cannot acquire an estate for us. Anyone who is serving us in good faith as a slave can acquire one for us, if he enters upon it voluntarily, and is fully aware of his own condition. If, however, he should enter upon it by our order, he will neither acquire it for himself nor for us, if he did not have the intention of acquiring it for himself. But, if he had such an intention, he will acquire the estate for himself. 1Likewise, a freeman who is serving us in good faith as a slave can legally bind himself, by making a contract with us, which involves a purchase, a sale, or hiring, or leasing. 2If he wrongs us in any way, he will be liable to an action for injury, and, in this case, we can collect heavier damages from him than we can from a stranger. 3If persons of this kind transact any business with reference to our property, under our direction, or perform any acts as agents during our absence, an action should be granted against them, 3anot only when we have purchased them as slaves, but also if they have been given to us; or have been acquired as dowry, or through having been bequeathed to us; or are due to us from an estate; not only if we think that they are ours, but also where they are slaves owned in common, or are subject to usufruct; so that they do not acquire for us any more than they would have done if they had actually been slaves owned in common, or subject to the usufruct of others. 4Whatever a freeman, or a slave belonging to another, or one who serves us in good faith as a slave, cannot acquire for us, the freeman can acquire for hfmself, and the slave belonging to another can acquire for his master; except that a freeman who is serving in good faith can scarcely obtain property by usucaption based on possession, because he who is himself possessed is not understood to have possession. Nor can the owner of a slave of whom we have possession in good faith unconsciously acquire by usucaption what is included in the peculium of the slave, just as he cannot do this by means of a fugitive slave of whom he is not in possession.