[IDEM libro tertio decimo ad Sabinum. ] §17.2.60.prSocium, qui in eo, quod ex societate lucri faceret, reddendo moram adhibuit, cum ea pecunia ipse usus sit, usuras quoque eum praestare debere Labeo ait, sed non quasi usuras, sed quod socii intersit moram eum non adhibuisse: sed si aut usus ea pecunia non sit aut moram non fecerit, contra esse: item post mortem socii nullam talem aestimationem ex facto heredis faciendam, quia morte socii dirimatur societas.
[THE SAME in the thirteenth book on Sabinus] Labeo says that a partner who, in returning what he had made as profit from the partnership, caused delay, must also pay interest if he himself used that money; however, not as if it were interest, but because it was in the interest of the partner that he should not have caused delay. But if he either did not use that money or did not cause delay, the opposite is true. Likewise, after the death of a partner, no such valuation is to be made based on the act of the heir, because the partnership is dissolved by the death of the partner.
§17.2.60.1Socius cum resisteret communibus seruis uenalibus ad fugam erumpentibus, uulneratus est: impensam, quam in curando se fecerit, non consecuturum pro socio actione Labeo ait, quia id non in societatem, quamuis propter societatem inpensum sit, sicuti si propter societatem eum heredem quis instituere desisset aut legatum praetermississet aut patrimonium suum neglegentius administrasset: nam nec compendium, quod propter societatem ei contigisset, ueniret in medium, ueluti si propter societatem heres fuisset institutus aut quid ei donatum esset.
When a partner, while resisting common slaves offered for sale who were breaking out into flight, was wounded, Labeo says that he will not recover the expense which he incurred in treating himself by the action on partnership, because that was spent not on the partnership, although it was spent on account of the partnership; just as if, on account of the partnership, someone had ceased to appoint him as heir, or had passed over a legacy, or if he had managed his own patrimony rather neglectfully. For neither would any gain which came to him on account of the partnership come into the common fund, as for instance if, on account of the partnership, he had been appointed heir or something had been donated to him.