[PAULUS libro sexto quaestionum. ] §24.1.55.prUxor marito suo pecuniam donauit: maritus ex pecunia sibi donata aut mobilem aut soli rem comparauit: soluendo non est et res extant: quaero, si mulier reuocet donationem, an utiliter condicticia experiatur? uidetur enim maritus, quamuis soluendo non sit, ex donatione locupletior effectus, cum pecunia mulieris res comparata exstet.
[PAULUS, in the sixth book of Questions.] A wife donated money to her husband. Out of the money donated to him, the husband purchased either a movable thing or a piece of land. He is insolvent, and the things are still in existence. I ask: if the woman revokes the donation, can she effectively bring an action for recovery? For it seems that the husband, although he is insolvent, has been made richer by the donation, since the thing purchased with the woman's money is in existence.
respondi: locupletiorem esse ex donatione negari non potest: non enim quaerimus, quid deducto aere alieno liberum habeat, sed quid ex re mulieris possideat.
I answered: it cannot be denied that he is richer by the donation; for we do not ask what he holds free after deducting his debts, but what he possesses out of the woman's property.
solo enim separatur hic ab eo, cui res donata est, quod ibi res mulieris permanet et uindicare directo potest: et erit deterior causa uiri, si ei pecunia quatenus res ualet, non ultra id tamen quod donatum est, condicatur, quam si dotis iudicio conueniatur.
For he is distinguished from the person to whom a thing was donated only by this, that in the latter case the woman's thing remains and she can vindicate it directly. And the husband's position will be worse if he is sued for the money up to the value of the thing, yet not beyond what was donated, than if he were sued in an action on the dowry.
sed nihil prohibet etiam in rem utilem mulieri in ipsas res accommodare.
But nothing prevents granting the woman an equitable action in rem for the things themselves.