[ULPIANUS libro uicensimo octauo ad Sabinum. ] §18.2.11.prQuod autem Sabinus scribit fundum in diem addici non posse rursus, qui semel fuerat in diem addictus, ratione eiusmodi defendit, quia prioris, inquit, emptoris statim fit, scilicet quasi non uideatur melior condicio allata, si non secure secundo emptori fundus addicitur, sed alia licitatio prospicitur.
[ULPIAN, On Sabinus, book 28.] Now, as for what Sabinus writes, that a land which has once been provisionally sold on better terms cannot be provisionally sold on better terms again, he defends it by the following reasoning: because, he says, it immediately becomes the property of the prior purchaser, that is to say, as if a better condition is not deemed to have been offered if the land is not securely knocked down to the second purchaser but another bidding is looked forward to.
sed Iulianus libro quinto decimo digestorum scribsit interesse multum, quid inter contrahentes actum sit, nec impedire quicquam uel hoc agi, ut saepius fundus collocetur, dum uel prima uel secunda uel tertia adiectione res a uenditore discedat.
But Julian writes in the fifteenth book of his Digests that it matters a great deal what was agreed between the contracting parties, and that nothing prevents even this from being agreed, namely, that the land may be offered for sale repeatedly, so long as the property departs from the seller by either the first, second, or third increased bid.
§18.2.11.1Item quod Sabinus ait, si tribus uendentibus duo posteriori addixerint, unus non admiserit adiectionem, huius partem priori, duorum posteriori emptam, ita demum uerum est, si uariis pretiis partes suas distraxerunt,
Likewise, what Sabinus says—that if, of three sellers, two have knocked down the property to a later purchaser, and one has not accepted the increased bid, the share of this latter is bought by the prior purchaser, and the shares of the two by the later purchaser—is true only if they sold their shares at different prices,