[ULPIANUS libro uicensimo octauo ad Sabinum. ] §18.2.6.prItem quod dictum est fructus interea captos emptorem priorem sequi, totiens uerum est, quotiens nullus emptor existit, qui meliorem condicionem adferat, uel falsus exsistit: sin uero exstitit emptor posterior, fructus refundere priorem debere constat, sed uenditori.
[ULPIANUS, on Sabinus, book 28.] Likewise, what has been said, that the fruits gathered in the meantime belong to the first purchaser, is true only so long as no purchaser appears who offers a better term, or if a fictitious one appears. But if a subsequent purchaser does appear, it is established that the first purchaser must return the fruits, but to the seller.
et ita Iulianus libro quadragensimo octauo digestorum scripsit.
And so Julianus wrote in the forty-eighth book of his Digests.
§18.2.6.1Si quis extiterit, qui meliorem condicionem adferat, deinde prior emptor aduersus eum licitatus sit et penes eum emptum remanserit, dubitari poterit, utrum fructus ipse habeat, quasi nulla meliore condicione allata, an uero uenditoris sint, licet eadem sit persona, quae meliorem condicionem attulit.
If anyone should appear who offers a better term, and then the first purchaser bids against him and the property remains purchased in his hands, it may be doubted whether he himself should have the fruits, as if no better term had been offered, or whether they belong to the seller, even though the person who offered the better term is the same.
quod ratio facere uidetur: intererit tamen quid acti sit: et ita Pomponius scribit.
Reason seems to support this latter view; however, it will matter what was agreed upon, and so Pomponius writes.