[PAULUS libro secundo ad edictum aedilium curulium. ] §21.2.41.prSi ei cui uendidi et duplam promissi, cum ipse eadem stipulatione mihi cauisset, heres exstiterim, euicto homine nulla parte stipulatio committitur: neque enim mihi euinci uidetur, cum uendiderim eum, neque ei cui me promissorem praestarem, quoniam parum commode dicar ipse mihi duplam praestare debere.
[PAULUS, on the Edict of the Curule Aediles, Book II.] If I become the heir of a person to whom I sold a slave and promised double the price, although he had himself secured me by the same stipulation, then, if the slave is evicted, the stipulation is not committed on either side; for on the one hand, since I sold him, he is not deemed to be evicted from me, and on the other hand, neither is he from the person to whom I presented myself as the promisor, since it would be rather unsuitable to say that I myself ought to pay the double amount to myself.
§21.2.41.1Item si domino serui heres exstiterit emptor, quoniam euinci ei non potest nec ipse sibi uidetur euincere, non committitur duplae stipulatio.
Likewise, if the buyer becomes the heir to the owner of the slave, since the slave cannot be evicted from him, nor is he deemed to evict himself, the stipulation for the double amount is not committed.
his igitur casibus ex empto agendum erit.
Therefore, in these cases, an action must be brought on the purchase.
§21.2.41.2Si is, qui fundum emerit et satis de euictione acceperit et eundem fundum uendiderit, emptori suo heres exstiterit, uel ex contrario emptor uenditori heres exstiterit: an euicto fundo cum fideiussoribus agere possit, quaeritur.
If a person who bought a tract of land and received sufficient security against eviction, and then sold the same land, becomes the heir of his own buyer, or conversely, if the buyer becomes the heir of his own seller, the question arises whether, upon the eviction of the land, he can sue the sureties.
existimo autem utroque casu fideiussores teneri, quoniam et cum debitor creditori suo heres exstiterit, ratio quaedam inter heredem et hereditatem ponitur et intellegitur maior hereditas ad debitorem peruenire, quasi soluta pecunia quae debebatur hereditati, et per hoc minus in bonis heredis esse: et ex contrario cum creditor debitori suo exstitit heres, minus in hereditate habere uidetur, tamquam ipsa hereditas heredi soluerit.
However, I think that in both cases the sureties are liable, because even when a debtor becomes the heir of his creditor, a certain account is set up between the heir and the inheritance, and it is understood that a larger inheritance comes to the debtor, as if the money owed to the inheritance had been paid, and by this, there is less in the assets of the heir; and conversely, when a creditor becomes the heir of his debtor, he is deemed to have less in the inheritance, as if the inheritance itself had paid the heir.
siue ergo is qui de euictione satis acceperat emptori cui ipse uendiderat, siue emptor uenditori suo heres exstiterit, fideiussores tenebuntur.
Therefore, whether the person who had received sufficient security against eviction becomes the heir of the buyer to whom he sold, or the buyer becomes the heir of his seller, the sureties will be liable.
et si ad eundem uenditoris et emptoris hereditas recciderit, agi cum fideiussoribus poterit.
And if the inheritance of both the seller and the buyer falls to the same person, an action can be brought against the sureties.