[PAULUS libro tertio quaestionum. ] §20.3.3.prAristo Neratio Prisco scripsit: etiamsi ita contractum sit, ut antecedens dimitteretur, non aliter in ius pignoris succedet, nisi conuenerit, ut sibi eadem res esset obligata: neque enim in ius primi succedere debet, qui ipse nihil conuenit de pignore: quo casu emptoris causa melior efficietur.
[PAULUS, in his third book of Questions.] Aristo wrote to Neratius Priscus: even if it has been contracted in such a way that the prior creditor should be satisfied, one does not succeed to the right of pledge, unless it has been agreed that the same property should be pledged to oneself; for he who himself has agreed nothing concerning the pledge ought not to succeed to the right of the first. In which case, the position of the purchaser will be rendered better.
denique si antiquior creditor de pignore uendendo cum debitore pactum interposuit, posterior autem creditor de distrahendo omisit non per obliuionem, sed cum hoc ageretur, ne posset uendere, uideamus, an dici possit huc usque transire ad eum ius prioris, ut distrahere pignus huic liceat.
Finally, if the prior creditor has entered into an agreement with the debtor concerning the sale of the pledge, but the subsequent creditor has omitted to make an agreement concerning its disposal, not through forgetfulness, but because this was being negotiated, namely, that he should not be able to sell, let us see whether it can be said that the right of the prior creditor passes to him to such an extent that he is permitted to sell the pledge.
quod admittendum existimo: saepe enim quod quis ex sua persona non habet, hoc per extraneum habere potest.
I think this should be admitted; for it is often the case that what one does not have in one's own person, one can have through a third party.