[MODESTINUS libro quinto responsorum. ] §21.2.63.prHerennius Modestinus respondit non obesse ex empto agenti, quod denuntiatio pro euictione interposita non esset, si pacto ei remissa esset denuntiandi necessitas.
[MODESTINUS from the fifth book of responses.] Herennius Modestinus responded that it is no obstacle to one suing on the purchase that notice on account of eviction had not been given, if the necessity of giving notice had been remitted to him by a pact.
Gaia Seia §21.2.63.1fundum a Lucio Titio emerat et quaestione mota fisci nomine auctorem laudauerat et euictione secuta fundus ablatus et fisco adiudicatus est uenditore praesente: quaeritur, cum emptrix non prouocauerat, an uenditorem poterit conuenire.
Gaia Seia had bought a tract of land from Lucius Titius, and when an issue was raised in the name of the treasury, she had cited the seller as warrantor, and eviction having followed, the land was taken away and adjudged to the treasury in the presence of the seller. It is asked, since the buyer had not appealed, whether she can sue the seller.
Herennius Modestinus respondit, siue quod alienus fuit cum ueniret siue quod tunc obligatus, euictus est, nihil proponi, cur emptrici aduersus uenditorem actio non competat.
Herennius Modestinus responded that, whether the land was evicted because it belonged to another when it was sold, or because it was pledged at that time, there is no reason proposed why the buyer should not have an action against the seller.
§21.2.63.2Herennius Modestinus respondit: si emptor appellauit et bonam causam uitio suo ex praescriptione perdidit, ad auctorem reuerti non potest.
Herennius Modestinus responded: if the buyer appealed and through his own fault lost a good case due to a procedural bar, he cannot return to the warrantor.