[ULPIANUS libro primo ad edictum aedilium curulium. ] §21.1.33.prProinde Pomponius ait iustam causam esse, ut quod in uenditione accessurum esse dictum est tam integrum praestetur, quam illud praestari debuit quod principaliter uenit: nam iure ciuili, ut integra sint quae accessura dictum fuerit, ex empto actio est, ueluti si dolia accessura fundo dicta fuerint.
[ULPIANUS in the first book on the edict of the curule aediles.] Accordingly, Pomponius says that there is a just cause why that which was declared to be an accession in a sale should be delivered in as sound a condition as that which was principally sold ought to have been delivered; for under the civil law there is an action on purchase to the effect that what was declared to be an accession should be sound, as, for example, if it was declared that jars would be an accession to a land.
sed hoc ita, si certum corpus accessurum fuerit dictum: nam si seruus cum peculio uenerit, ea mancipia quae in peculio fuerint sana esse praestare uenditor non debet, quia non dixit certum corpus accessurum, sed peculium tale praestare oportere, et quemadmodum certam quantitatem peculii praestare non debet, ita nec hoc.
But this is so only if it was declared that a specific body would be an accession; for if a slave is sold with his peculium, the seller is not bound to warrant that those slaves who are in the peculium are sound, because he did not say that a specific body would be an accession, but that the peculium ought to be delivered as such, and just as he is not bound to warrant a specific quantity of the peculium, so neither is he bound to this.
eandem rationem facere Pomponius ait, ut etiam, si hereditas aut peculium serui uenierit, locus edicto aedilium non sit circa ea corpora, quae sunt in hereditate aut in peculio.
Pomponius says that the same reasoning applies, so that even if an inheritance or the peculium of a slave is sold, there is no place for the edict of the aediles regarding those bodies which are in the inheritance or in the peculium.
idem probat et si fundus cum instrumento uenierit et in instrumento mancipia sint.
He also approves the same if land is sold with its equipment and there are slaves in the equipment.
puto hanc sententiam ueram, nisi si aliud specialiter actum esse proponatur.
I think this opinion is correct, unless it is shown that something else was specially agreed upon.
§21.1.33.1Si uendita res redhibeatur, seruus quoque qui ei rei accessit, licet nullum in eo uitium sit, redhibetur.
If the thing sold is returned, the slave who was an accession to that thing is also returned, even though there is no defect in him.