[MARCELLUS libro sexto digestorum. ] §17.1.49.prSeruum Titii emi ab alio bona fide et possideo: mandatu meo eum Titius uendidit, cum ignoraret suum esse, uel contra ego uendidi illius mandatu, cum forte is, cui heres exstiterit, eum emisset: de iure euictionis et de mandatu quaesitum est.
[MARCELLUS, Digest, Book VI.] I bought Titius's slave from another person in good faith and possess him. Titius sold him under my mandate, while being ignorant that the slave was his own; or conversely, I sold him under his mandate, when by chance the person to whom he became heir had bought him. Questions have been raised regarding the right of eviction and the mandate.
et puto Titium, quamuis quasi procurator uendidisset, obstrictum emptori neque, si rem tradidisset, uindicationem ei concedendam, et idcirco mandati eum non teneri, sed contra mandati agere posse, si quid eius interfuisset, quia forte uenditurus non fuerit.
And I think that Titius, although he had sold him as if he were an agent, is bound to the buyer, and if he had delivered the property, he should not be granted a recovery action; and therefore he is not liable under the mandate, but conversely he can bring an action on the mandate if it was in his interest, because perhaps he would not have been going to sell him.
contra mandator, si rem ab eo uindicare uelit, exceptione doli summouetur et aduersus uenditorem testatoris sui habet ex empto iure hereditario actionem.
On the other hand, the mandator, if he should wish to claim the property from him, is barred by the plea of fraud, and he has an action on purchase by hereditary right against the seller of his testator.