[PAULUS libro uicensimo secundo ad edictum. ] §13.6.22.prSi seruus, quem tibi commodauerim, furtum fecerit, utrum sufficiat contraria commodati actio (quemadmodum competit, si quid in curationem serui impendisti) an furti agendum sit, quaeritur.
[PAULUS, in the twenty-second book on the Edict.] If a slave whom I loaned to you should commit a theft, the question is asked whether the counter-action on loan is sufficient (just as it is available if you have expended anything on the medical care of the slave) or whether an action for theft must be brought.
et furti quidem noxalem habere qui commodatum rogauit procul dubio est, contraria autem commodati tunc eum teneri, cum sciens talem esse seruum ignoranti commodauit.
And indeed, there is no doubt that he who requested the loan has a noxal action for theft; but as for the counter-action on loan, the lender is held liable under it only when, knowing that the slave was of such character, he loaned him to one who was ignorant of it.