[MARCIANUS libro singulari ad formulam hypothecariam. ] §20.6.8.prSicut re corporali extincta, ita et usu fructu exstincto pignus hypothecaue perit.
[MARCIANUS, in his single book on the Hypothecary Formula.] Just as a pledge or hypothec perishes when the corporeal thing is destroyed, so also does it perish when the usufruct is extinguished.
§20.6.8.1Creditor, ne pignori hypothecaeue sit res, pacisci potest: et ideo si heredi pactus fuerit, ei quoque proderit pactum, cui restituit hereditatem ex senatus consulto Trebelliano.
A creditor can agree that a thing shall not be held as a pledge or hypothec; and therefore, if he has made an agreement with the heir, the agreement will also benefit the person to whom the heir has restored the inheritance under the Trebellian senatusconsult.
§20.6.8.2Si procurator debitoris in rem suam sit, non puto dubitari debere, quin pactum noceat creditori.
If the debtor's procurator is appointed for his own benefit, I do not think there should be any doubt that the agreement is prejudicial to the creditor.
itemque si a parte creditoris procurator in rem suam exstiterit, paciscendo inutilem sibi faciet hypothecariam actionem, in tantum, ut putem recte dici et dominis litis hoc casu nocere hanc exceptionem.
Likewise, if on the part of the creditor there is a procurator in his own interest, by making an agreement he will render the hypothecary action useless to himself, to such an extent that I think it is correctly said that this exception also prejudices the principals of the suit in this case.
§20.6.8.3Si conuenerit, ne pars dimidia pro indiuiso pignori sit, quaecumque fundi eius pars a quolibet possessore petatur, dimidia non recte petetur.
If it is agreed that an undivided half share shall not be pledged, whatever part of that land is claimed from any possessor, a half will not be correctly claimed.
§20.6.8.4Si plures dederint pro indiuiso et cum uno creditor paciscatur, ne hypothecae sit, deinde ab eo petat, etiamsi hic cum quo pactus est solidum fundum possideat, pro indiuiso quia de parte conuenisset, non repellit eum a toto.
If several persons have given a property as an undivided share, and the creditor agrees with one of them that it shall not be held as a hypothec, and then sues him, even if this person with whom he agreed possesses the entire land, because the agreement was made concerning an undivided share of a part, he does not repel the creditor from the whole.
§20.6.8.5An pacisci possint filius familias et seruus, ne res pignori sit, quam peculiariter hypothecam acceperint et habent liberam administrationem, uideamus, an quemadmodum donare non possunt, ita nec pacisci ne pignori sit possint.
Let us consider whether a filius familias and a slave can agree that a thing, which they have received as a hypothec as part of their peculium and of which they have free administration, shall not be held as a pledge, or whether, just as they cannot make a donation, they also cannot agree that it shall not be pledged.
sed dicendum est, ut concedere possint, scilicet si pretium pro pactione accipiant, quasi uendant.
But it must be said that they can concede this, provided of course that they receive a price for the agreement, as if they were selling it.
§20.6.8.6Si uoluntate creditoris fundus alienatus est, inuerecunde applicari sibi eum creditor desiderat, si tamen effectus sit secutus uenditionis: nam si non uenierit, non est satis ad repellendum creditorem, quod uoluit uenire.
If a land is alienated with the consent of the creditor, the creditor shamelessly desires it to be applied to himself, provided, however, that the effect of the sale has followed; for if it has not been sold, the fact that he wished it to be sold is not sufficient to repel the creditor.
§20.6.8.7Superuacuum est quaerere agrum specialiter hypothecae datum permissu creditoris uenisse, si ipse debitor rem possideat: nisi quod potest fieri, ut debitor permissu creditoris uendiderit, deinde postea bona fide redemerit ab eodem uel ab alio, ad quem per successionem ea res pertinere coepisset, aut si ipse debitor emptori heres exstiterit: uerumtamen cum pecunia soluta non sit, doli mali suspicio inerit translata ad praesens tempus, ut possit creditor replicationem doli mali obicere.
It is superfluous to inquire whether a land specially given as a hypothec has been sold with the permission of the creditor, if the debtor himself possesses the thing; except that it can happen that the debtor sold it with the permission of the creditor, and then afterwards bought it back in good faith from the same person or from another to whom the thing had begun to belong by succession, or if the debtor himself has become the heir to the buyer. However, since the money has not been paid, a suspicion of fraud will remain, transferred to the present time, so that the creditor can interpose a replication of fraud.
§20.6.8.8Illud uideamus, si Titius debitor uoluntate creditoris sui uendiderit Maeuio uel ei, a quo Maeuius emerit, et postea Maeuius Titio heres exstiterit et creditor ab eo petat, quid iuris sit.
Let us consider what the law is if the debtor Titius, with the consent of his creditor, has sold a thing to Maevius or to the person from whom Maevius bought it, and afterwards Maevius becomes the heir to Titius, and the creditor sues him.
sed iniquum est auferri ei rem a creditore, qui non successionis iure sed alio modo rem nactus est.
But it is inequitable that the thing should be taken away by the creditor from one who acquired it not by right of succession but in some other way.
potest tamen dici, cum Titii dolus in re uersaretur, ne creditor a possessore pecuniam recipiat, iniquissimum esse ludificari eum.
However, it can be said that, since Titius's fraud was involved in the matter to prevent the creditor from receiving the money from the possessor, it is most inequitable for the creditor to be trifled with.