[IAUOLENUS libro tertio epistularum. ] §38.5.12.prLibertus cum fraudandi patroni causa fundum Seio tradere uellet, Seius Titio mandauit, ut eum accipiat, ita ut inter Seium et Titium mandatum contrahatur.
[JAVOLENUS in the third book of Epistles.] When a freedman, for the purpose of defrauding his patron, wished to transfer a tract of land to Seius, Seius mandated Titius to receive it, so that a contract of mandate was entered into between Seius and Titius.
quaero, post mortem liberti patronus utrum cum Seio dumtaxat qui mandauit actionem habet, an cum Titio qui fundum retinet, an cum quo uelit agere possit? respondit: in eum, cui donatio quaesita est, ita tamen si ad illum res peruenerit, actio datur, cum omne negotium, quod eius uoluntate gestum sit, in condemnationem eius conferatur.
I ask whether, after the death of the freedman, the patron has an action against Seius alone who gave the mandate, or against Titius who retains the land, or whether he can sue whichever of them he wishes? He replied: An action is granted against the person for whom the donation was intended, provided, however, that the property has reached him; since every transaction which has been carried out by his will should contribute to his condemnation.
nec potest uideri id praestaturus quod alius possidet, cum actione mandati consequi rem possit, ita ut aut ipse patrono restituat aut eum cum quo mandatum contraxit restituere cogat.
Nor can he be deemed unable to perform that which another possesses, since he can recover the property by the action of mandate, so that he may either himself restore it to the patron or compel the person with whom he contracted the mandate to restore it.
quid enim dicemus, si is, qui in re interpositus est, nihil dolo fecit? non dubitabimus, quin omnimodo cum eo agi non possit.
For what shall we say if he who was interposed in the matter acted without any malice? We shall not doubt that he cannot be sued in any way.
quid enim non potest uideri dolo fecisse, qui fidem suam amico commodauit quam alii quam sibi ex liberti fraude adquisiit.
For how can he be deemed to have acted with malice, who lent his credit to a friend and acquired the property through the fraud of the freedman for another rather than for himself?