[PAULUS libro septimo ad Sabinum. ] §25.2.1.prRerum amotarum iudicium singulare introductum est aduersus eam quae uxor fuit, quia non placuit cum ea furti agere posse: quibusdam existimantibus ne quidem furtum eam facere, ut Nerua Cassio, quia societas uitae quodammodo dominam eam faceret: aliis, ut Sabino et Proculo, furto quidem eam facere, sicuti filia patri faciat, sed furti non esse actionem constituto iure, in qua sententia et Iulianus rectissime est:
[PAULUS, on Sabinus, book 7.] A special action for property removed was introduced against a woman who was a wife, because it was not accepted that one could bring an action for theft against her: some thinking, as Nerva and Cassius do, that she does not even commit theft, because the partnership of life makes her in a way a mistress; others, as Sabinus and Proculus do, that she indeed commits theft, just as a daughter might do to her father, but that by established law there is no action for theft, in which opinion Julian also is most correctly of.