[ULPIANUS libro trigensimo ad edictum. ] §13.7.22.prSi pignore subrepto furti egerit creditor, totum, quidquid percepit, debito eum imputare Papinianus confitetur, et est uerum, etiamsi culpa creditoris furtum factum sit.
[ULPIANUS, On the Edict, Book 30] If a creditor brings an action for theft after the pledge is stolen, Papinian confesses that he must impute to the debt everything that he recovered; and this is true, even if the theft occurred through the negligence of the creditor.
multo magis hoc erit dicendum in eo, quod ex condicione consecutus est.
Much more must this be said in the case of what he obtained through a condictio.
sed quod ipse debitor furti actione praestitit creditori uel condicione, an debito sit imputandum uideamus: et quidem non oportere id ei restitui, quod ex furti actione praestitit, peraeque relatum est et traditum, et ita Papinianus libro nono quaestionum ait.
But let us see whether what the debtor himself has paid to the creditor under an action for theft or a condictio should be imputed to the debt; and indeed, it is uniformly reported and handed down that what he paid under the action for theft does not have to be restored to him, and so Papinian says in the ninth book of his Questions.
§13.7.22.1Idem Papinianus ait et si metus causa seruum pigneratum debitori tradiderit, quem bona fide pignori acceperat: nam si egerit quod metus causa factum sit et quadruplum sit consecutus, nihil neque restituet ex eo quod consecutus est nec debito imputabit.
The same Papinian says that this also applies if, because of fear, he has delivered a pledged slave to the debtor, whom he had received in good faith as a pledge; for if he sues on the ground of what was done through fear and recovers fourfold, he will neither restore any of what he recovered nor impute it to the debt.
§13.7.22.2Si praedo rem pignori dederit, competit ei et de fructibus pigneraticia actio, quamuis ipse fructus suos non faciet (a praedone enim fructus et uindicari extantes possunt et consumpti condici): proderit igitur ei, quod creditur bona fide possessor fuit.
If a plunderer has given a thing in pledge, the action on pledge is available to him also concerning the fruits, although he himself does not make the fruits his own (for from a plunderer, fruits can both be claimed by vindication if they exist, and recovered by condictio if consumed); therefore, it will benefit him that the creditor was a bona fide possessor.
§13.7.22.3Si post distractum pignus debitor, qui precario rogauit uel conduxit pignus, possessionem non restituat, contrario iudicio tenetur.
If, after the sale of the pledge, the debtor, who requested the pledge precariously or hired it, does not restore possession, he is liable to the contrary action.
§13.7.22.4Si creditor, cum uenderet pignus, duplam promisit (nam usu hoc euenerat et conuentus ob euictionem erat et condemnatus), an haberet regressum pigneraticiae contrariae actionis? et potest dici esse regressum, si modo sine dolo et culpa sic uendidit et ut pater familias diligens id gessit: si uero nullum emolumentum talis uenditio attulit, sed tanti uenderet, quanto uendere potuit, etiamsi haec non promisit, regressum non habere:
If the creditor, when selling the pledge, promised double (for this had happened in practice and he was sued on eviction and condemned), would he have a recourse by the contrary action on pledge? And it can be said that there is recourse, provided that he sold thus without fraud and fault and conducted it like a diligent paterfamilias; but if such a sale brought no benefit, but he sold it for as much as he could have sold it, even if he did not promise this, he has no recourse: