[IDEM libro uicensimo septimo ad edictum. ] §13.1.8.prIn re furtiua condictio ipsorum corporum competit: sed utrum tamdiu, quamdiu exstent, an uero et si desierint esse in rebus humanis? et si quidem optulit fur, sine dubio nulla erit condictio: si non optulit, durat condictio aestimationis eius: corpus enim ipsum praestari non potest.
[THE SAME, in his twenty-seventh book on the Edict.] In the case of a stolen thing, the condictio lies for the physical objects themselves. But is this only so long as they exist, or indeed also if they have ceased to exist in human affairs? And if indeed the thief has offered the thing, without doubt there will be no condictio; if he has not offered it, the condictio for its valuation continues to exist, for the physical object itself cannot be delivered.
§13.1.8.1si ex causa furtiua res condicatur, cuius temporis aestimatio fiat, quaeritur.
If a thing is claimed by condictio on the ground of theft, it is asked at what time its valuation should be made.
placet tamen id tempus spectandum, quo res umquam plurimi fuit, maxime cum deteriorem rem factam fur dando non liberatur: semper enim moram fur facere uidetur.
Nevertheless, the prevailing view is that that time must be looked to at which the thing was ever at its highest value, especially since a thief is not released by delivering a thing that has been deteriorated; for a thief is always deemed to be in default.
§13.1.8.2Nouissime dicendum est etiam fructus in hac actione uenire.
Finally, it must be said that fruits also come into this action.