[IDEM libro trigensimo octauo ad edictum. ] §13.1.10.prSiue manifestus fur siue nec manifestus sit, poterit ei condici.
[THE SAME, in his thirty-eighth book on the Edict.] Whether he be a manifest thief or a non-manifest thief, a condictio can be brought against him.
ita demum autem manifestus fur condicione tenebitur, si depraehensa non fuerit a domino possessio eius: ceterum nemo furum condicione tenetur, posteaquam dominus possessionem adpraehendit.
However, a manifest thief will be liable under a condictio only if possession of the thing has not been recovered by the owner; for otherwise, no thief is liable under a condictio after the owner has recovered possession.
et ideo Iulianus, ut procedat in fure manifesto tractare de condictione, ita proponit furem deprensum aut occidisse aut fregisse aut effudisse id quod interceperat.
And therefore Julian, so that the discussion of condictio in the case of a manifest thief may proceed, sets forth the case that the thief caught in the act has either killed, broken, or poured out that which he had intercepted.
§13.1.10.1Ei quoque, qui ui bonorum raptorum tenetur, condici posse Iulianus libro uicensimo secundo digestorum significat.
Julian, in the twenty-second book of his Digests, indicates that a condictio can also be brought against one who is liable for robbery.
§13.1.10.2Tamdiu autem condictioni locus erit, donec domini facto dominium eius rei ab eo recedat: et ideo si eam rem alienauerit, condicere non poterit.
However, there will be room for a condictio only so long as the ownership of that thing does not depart from the owner by his own act; and therefore, if he has alienated that thing, he will not be able to bring a condictio.
§13.1.10.3Unde Celsus libro duodecimo digestorum scribit, si rem furtiuam dominus pure legauerit furi, heredem ei condicere non posse: sed et si non ipsi furi, sed alii, idem dicendum est cessare condictionem, quia dominium facto testatoris, id est domini, discessit.
Whence Celsus writes in the twelfth book of his Digests that, if the owner has unconditionally bequeathed the stolen thing to the thief, the heir cannot bring a condictio against him; but even if he bequeathed it not to the thief himself but to another, the same must be said, namely, that the condictio ceases, because ownership has departed by the act of the testator, that is, the owner.