[IDEM libro octauo quaestionum. ] §21.2.65.prRem hereditariam pignori obligatam heredes uendiderunt et euictionis nomine pro partibus hereditariis spoponderunt: cum alter pignus pro parte sua liberasset, rem creditor euicit: quaerebatur an uterque heredum conueniri possit? idque placebat propter indiuisam pignoris causam.
[IDEM libro octauo quaestionum.] Co-heirs sold an inherited property subject to a pledge and undertook a warranty on account of eviction in proportion to their hereditary shares. When one of them had released the pledge for his own part, the creditor evicted the property. It was asked whether both heirs could be sued. And this was approved because of the undivided nature of the pledge.
nec remedio locus esse uidebatur, ut per doli exceptionem actiones ei qui pecuniam creditori dedit praestarentur, quia non duo rei facti proponerentur.
Nor did there seem to be room for a remedy, such as that actions should be granted through an exception of doli to the one who gave the money to the creditor, because they were not proposed as joint debtors.
sed familiae herciscundae iudicium eo nomine utile est: nam quid interest, unus ex heredibus in totum liberauerit pignus an uero pro sua dumtaxat portione? cum coheredis neglegentia damnosa non debet esse alteri.
But the action for division of an inheritance is useful in that respect; for what difference does it make whether one of the heirs released the pledge in its entirety or indeed only for his own portion? Since the negligence of a co-heir ought not to be damaging to the other.