[ULPIANUS libro trigesimo ad edictum. ] §25.2.17.prSi concubina res amouerit, hoc iure utimur, ut furti teneatur: consequenter dicemus, ubicumque cessat matrimonium, ut puta in ea, quae tutori suo nubsit uel contra mandata conuenit uel sicubi alibi cessat matrimonium, cessare rerum amotarum actionem, quia competit furti.
[ULPIAN, On the Edict, book 30.] If a concubine removes property, we apply this rule of law, that she is held liable for theft; consequently, we shall say that wherever there is no marriage—as, for example, in the case of a woman who married her guardian, or who married contrary to imperial mandates, or wherever else marriage does not exist—the action for removed property does not apply, because the action for theft is available.
§25.2.17.1Diuortii causa res amotas dicimus non solum eas, quas mulier amouit, cum diuortii consilium inisset, sed etiam eas quas nupta amouerit, si, cum discederet, eas celauerit.
By "property removed on account of divorce" we mean not only that which the woman removed after she had formed the intention of divorcing, but also that which she, being married, removed if, when she departed, she concealed it.
§25.2.17.2Non solum eas res, quae exstant, in rerum amotarum iudicium uenire Iulianus ait, uerum etiam eas, quae in rerum natura esse desierunt: simili modo etiam certi condici eas posse ait.
Julian says that not only those things which are in existence come into the action for removed property, but also those which have ceased to exist in the nature of things; in like manner, he says that they can also be sued for by a condictio for a certain thing.
§25.2.17.3Quae uiro suo res pignori datas amouerit, hoc iudicio tenebitur:
A woman who removes things given in pledge to her husband will be held liable under this action.