[ULPIANUS libro tertio disputationum. ] §24.3.21.prSed et si ideo maritus ex dote expendit, ut a latronibus redimeret necessarias mulieri personas uel ut mulier uinculis uindicet de necessaris suis aliquem, reputatur ei id quod expensum est siue pars dotis sit, pro ea parte, siue tota dos sit, actio dotis euanescit.
[ULPIANUS, Book 3 of Disputations] But also, if a husband makes an expenditure from the dowry for the purpose of ransoming from robbers persons near to his wife, or so that the wife may release someone of her close connections from bonds, what has been expended is credited to him; if it is a part of the dowry, for that part, or if it is the whole dowry, the action for the dowry is extinguished.
et multo magis idem dicendum est, si socer agat de dote, debere rationem haberi eius quod in ipsum impensum est, siue ipse maritus hoc fecit siue filiae ut faciat dedit: sed et si non pater experiretur, sed post mortem eius filia sola de dote ageret, idem erit dicendum: cum enim doli exceptio insit de dote actioni ut in ceteris bonae fidei iudiciis, potest dici, ut et Celso uidetur, inesse hunc sumptum actioni de dote, maxime si ex uoluntate filiae factus sit.
And much more must the same be said if the father-in-law sues for the dowry, namely, that account must be taken of what was expended on him himself, whether the husband himself did this or gave it to his daughter so that she might do it. But even if the father does not sue, but after his death the daughter alone sues for the dowry, the same must be said; for since the defense of fraud is inherent in the action for dowry as in other actions of good faith, it can be said, as it also seems to Celsus, that this expense is inherent in the action for dowry, especially if it was made with the consent of the daughter.