[PAULUS libro septimo ad Sabinum. ] §25.2.6.prContra nurum quoque socero hoc iudicium dandum Atilicinus et Fulcinius aiunt, quotiens filio familias dos data est: §25.2.6.1socerum ob res diuortii causa amotas furti agere non posse.
[PAULUS, On Sabinus, book 7.] Atilicinus and Fulcinius say that this action should also be granted to a father-in-law against his daughter-in-law, whenever a dowry has been given to a son under paternal power: a father-in-law cannot bring an action for theft on account of property removed on the occasion of a divorce.
§25.2.6.2Item cum rerum amotarum etiam in uirum datur iudicium: si filius familias maritus sit, utrum de peculio an in ipsum actio dari debeat? eadem repetemus, quae de filia familias diximus.
Likewise, since the action for property removed is also granted against a husband: if the husband is under paternal power, should the action be granted concerning his peculium or against himself? We shall repeat the same things that we said concerning a daughter under paternal power.
§25.2.6.3Si post diuortium maritus decesserit, heres eius rerum amotarum iudicio uti potest.
If the husband dies after the divorce, his heir can bring the action for property removed.
§25.2.6.4Item heres mulieris ex hac causa tenebitur, sicut condictionis nomine ex causa furtiua.
Likewise, the heir of the wife will be liable on this ground, just as under the title of a condictio on the ground of theft.
§25.2.6.5Sed si morte mariti solutum sit matrimonium, heres mariti hereditatis petitione uel ad exhibendum actione eas consequi poterit.
But if the marriage was dissolved by the death of the husband, the heir of the husband will be able to recover them by a petition for inheritance or by an action for production.
Aristo et condici ei posse recte putat, quia ex iniusta causa apud eam essent.
Aristo rightly thinks that a condictio can also be brought against her, because they are in her possession without a just cause.
§25.2.6.6Quod si mortuo uiro amouerit, non facit furtum, quia rei hereditariae nondum possessae non fit furtum: ideoque aut uindicari poterunt aut in hereditatis petitionem uenient.
But if she has removed them after the death of her husband, she does not commit theft, because there is no theft of an inheritance that has not yet been possessed; and therefore they can either be claimed by vindication or they will fall under the petition for inheritance.