[IDEM libro trigensimo secundo ad edictum. ] §12.7.2.prSi fullo uestimenta lauanda conduxerit, deinde amissis eis domino pretium ex locato conuentus praestiterit posteaque dominus inuenerit uestimenta, qua actione debeat consequi pretium quod dedit? et ait Cassius eum non solum ex conducto agere, uerum condicere domino posse: ego puto ex conducto omnimodo eum habere actionem: an autem et condicere possit, quaesitum est, quia non indebitum dedit: nisi forte quasi sine causa datum sic putamus condici posse: etenim uestimentis inuentis quasi sine causa datum uidetur.
[THE SAME, in his thirty-second book On the Edict.] If a fuller has contracted to clean clothes, and then, after they were lost, having been sued by the owner on the contract of letting, has paid their value, and afterwards the owner has found the clothes, by what action ought he to recover the price which he paid? And Cassius says that he can not only sue on the contract of hiring, but also bring a condictio against the owner. I think that he certainly has an action on the contract of hiring; but whether he can also bring a condictio is questioned, because he did not pay what was not due; unless perhaps we think that it can be claimed by condictio in this way, as having been paid, as it were, without cause; for, since the clothes have been found, it seems to have been paid, as it were, without cause.