[IAUOLENUS libro sexto ex posterioribus Labeonis. ] §23.4.32.prUxor uiro fundum aestimatum centum in dotem dederat, deinde cum uiro pactum conuentum fecerat, ut diuortio facto eodem pretio uxori uir fundum restitueret: postea uolente uxore uir eum fundum ducentorum uendiderat, et diuortium erat factum.
[JAVOLENUS, from the sixth book of Epitomes of Labeo's Posterity.] A wife had given her husband a tract of land valued at one hundred as dowry, and had then made an agreement with her husband that, if a divorce occurred, the husband should restore the land to the wife at the same valuation. Afterwards, with the consent of the wife, the husband had sold the land for two hundred, and a divorce occurred.
Labeo putat uiro potestatem fieri debere, utrum uelit ducenta uel fundum reddere, neque ei pactum conuentum remitti oportere.
Labeo thinks that the husband should be given the choice of whether he wishes to return two hundred or the land, and that the agreement should not be released to him.
idcirco puto hoc Labeonem respondisse, quoniam uoluntate mulieris fundus ueniit: alioquin omnimodo fundus erat restituendus.
Therefore, I think Labeo gave this opinion because the land was sold with the consent of the woman; otherwise, the land would have had to be restored in any case.
§23.4.32.1Si pater filiae nomine certam pecuniam in dotem promiserat et pactus est, ne inuitus eam solueret: nihil ab eo exigendum puto, quia id, quod pacto conuento ne inuitus exigeretur conuenerit, in dotis causam esse non uideretur.
If a father had promised a certain sum of money as dowry on behalf of his daughter and agreed that he should not pay it against his will, I think nothing should be demanded from him, because that which was agreed by the agreement, namely, that it should not be demanded against his will, would not seem to be within the cause of a dowry.