[POMPONIUS libro sexto decimo ad Sabinum. ] §24.3.18.prEtiam filios mulieris, qui patri heredes exstiterunt, in id quod facere possunt condemnandos Labeo ait.
[POMPONIUS, Book 16 on Sabinus] Labeo says that the sons of the wife, who have succeeded as heirs to their father, should also be condemned to the extent of what they are able to perform.
§24.3.18.1Licet in dotalibus rebus non solum dolum, sed et culpam maritus praestet, cum tamen quaeritur in iudicio de dote an facere possit, dolus dumtaxat comprehenditur, quia in rerum ipsius administratione non erat ab eo culpa exigenda.
Although in respect of dotal property a husband is liable not only for fraud but also for negligence, yet when in an action for dowry the question is asked whether he is able to perform, only fraud is included, because in the administration of his own property, negligence was not to be required of him.
quamquam eum dumtaxat dolum ei nocere putem, si facere non possit, quem propter uxorem adhibuit, ne ei solidum solueret, non so propter quemlibet alium.
Although I think that, if he is unable to perform, only that fraud hurts him which he employed in relation to his wife so that he would not pay her the full amount, and not that in relation to anyone else.
Ofilius autem aiebat, si dolo mariti res dotalis interisset et alioquin soluendo non esset, quamuis nihil dolo fecisset, quo minus soluendo esset, perinde tamen eum damnandum eius rei dotalis nomine in qua dolum fecisset, atque si dolo eius factum esset, quo minus facere possit.
But Ofilius used to say that if by the fraud of the husband a dotal thing has perished and otherwise he is not solvent, although he had done nothing by fraud to prevent him from being solvent, he should nevertheless be condemned under the name of that dotal thing in respect of which he had committed fraud, just as if it had been done by his fraud that he is unable to perform.
ceterum si circa interitum rei dotalis dolus malus et culpa mariti absit, actiones solas, quas eo nomine quasi maritus habet, praestandas mulieri, ueluti furti uel damni iniuriae.
But if, regarding the destruction of the dotal thing, fraud and negligence on the part of the husband are absent, only those actions which he has in that name as husband should be made available to the woman, such as actions for theft or for unlawful damage.