Tryphoninus, Disputations, Book XV. Where a slave belonging to another steals my property and afterwards comes into my hands as owner, the right of action for theft to which I was entitled is extinguished, if it has not yet been made use of; and if I should afterwards dispose of the slave whom I bought before issue was joined, the right of action for theft will not be renewed; but if I purchase him after issue has been joined, the vendor can have judgment rendered against him:

Tryphoninus, Disputations, Book XV. Suppose a thief is prepared to defend a personal action brought against him for the recovery of stolen property; as long as the property exists I have a right to bring the action, but where it is afterwards destroyed, the ancient authorities held that the right still remained, because it was their opinion that where a man had, in the beginning, handled the property without the consent of the owner, he is always in default with reference to returning it, because he ought not to have removed it.

Tryphoninus, Disputations, Book XV. When it is said that prætorian possession of an estate contrary to the provisions of the will is granted to children, this should be understood to mean that it is sufficient that there was a will at the time of the death of their father, under which they could either accept the estate, or demand possession of it under the Prætorian Edict; although neither of these things was done, or could have been done afterwards. For if all the appointed heirs and their substitutes should die before the testator, and an heir should be appointed who was not capable of taking under the will, it would be useless to claim possession contrary to the provisions of the will, which would be absolutely without effect.

Tryphoninus, Disputations, Book XV. When a son left the death of a father unavenged, and a slave having detected the murderer, had deserved his freedom on this account, I held that the son should not be considered as the patron of the slave, for the reason that he was unworthy. 1Where a false codicil had been made, which at first was considered to be genuine, and the heir, ignorant of the fact, granted freedom to certain slaves by virtue of a trust created by said codicil, it was stated in a Rescript of the Divine Hadrian that the slaves would be free, but that they must pay the heir their full value. And it was justly held that the said slaves should become the manumitted freedmen of the heir, for the reason that his right over them as patron still remained in force.

Tryphoninus, Disputations, Book XV. Julianus very properly held that if you forcibly dispossess me of land, on which there is movable property, you will be obliged, under the interdict Unde vi, to restore to me not only the possession of the land, but also that of the movable property which was there at the time; even though I may have been in default in proceeding against you under the interdict; so that if some of the slaves or cattle have died, or any other property has been destroyed by accident, you will, nevertheless, be obliged to make restitution, because you are in default more than a debtor is considered to be.