[IDEM libro quinto digestorum. ] §15.3.21.prFiliam familias duxit uxorem patre dotem promittente et conuenit inter omnes personas, uti eam pater aut ipsa se tueretur: maritus ei mutuos nummos dedit, cum iuste putaret patrem eius ministraturum tantum salarium, quantum dare filiae suae instituerat: eos nummos illa in usus necessarios sibi et in seruos quos secum habebat consumpsit, aliquantum et (cum ei res familiares creditae essent) ex pecunia mariti in easdem causas conuertit: deinde priusquam pater salarium expleret, moritur filia: pater impensam recusat: maritus res mulieris retinet: quaero, an de in rem uerso aduersus patrem actio competat.
[THE SAME, Digest, book 5] A man married a daughter under paternal power while her father promised a dowry, and it was agreed among all parties that either her father should support her or she herself should support herself. The husband gave her money as a loan, since he reasonably thought that her father would supply an allowance as large as he had begun to give to his daughter. She spent this money on her own necessary expenses and on the slaves she had with her, and also (since the household management had been entrusted to her) she converted a certain amount from her husband's money to the same purposes. Then, before the father could fully pay the allowance, the daughter died. The father refuses to pay the expenses, and the husband retains the woman's property. I ask whether an action concerning what was turned to account lies against the father.
respondit, si ad ea id quod creditum est erogatum esset, sine quibus aut se tueri aut seruos paternos exhibere non posset, dandam de in rem uerso utilem actionem.
He replied that if that which was lent had been expended on those things without which she could neither maintain herself nor support her father's slaves, an equitable action concerning what was turned to account ought to be granted.