Ad Dig. 14,6,20Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 288, Note 11.The Same, On the Decrees of the Senate, Book V. If a person to whom money was lent while he was under the control of his father, after he himself becomes the head of the family, through ignorance makes a promise of the money in such a way that a new obligation is created, and suit is brought on the stipulation, an exception founded on the facts should be filed.

Pomponius, Decrees of the Senate, Book V. By the following words: “Their birth having been acknowledged,” the Decree of the Senate must be understood only to refer to those who would have been considered freeborn. 1By the clause, “Would have left,” it must be understood that whatever such persons have obtained from the property of him by whom they were manumitted must be restored. Let us see in what manner this must be interpreted, whether they must return whatever has been acquired by them by means of the property of their masters, or what they have abstracted from them without their knowledge, or whether this includes the property which has been granted and donated by the persons who manumitted them. The latter is the better opinion.