[PAULUS libro octauo ad Plautium. ] §39.2.21.prSi filius familias inquilinus sit, uideamus, an damni infecti nomine in possessionem aedium uicinarum mittendus sit (quaeritur enim, an filius familias non uidetur damnum pati, si res peculiares sint) et pater possit stipulari, si quid ei damni fiat.
[PAULUS, in the eighth book on Plautius.] If a son of a family is a tenant, let us see whether he ought to be put into possession of the neighboring building on account of threatened damage (for the question is raised whether a son of a family does not seem to suffer damage if the property is part of his peculium) and whether the father can stipulate if any damage should occur to him.
et placet utrumque eorum in possessionem mitti, nisi sic filius conduxerat, ut eius periculo aedes essent: tunc enim, quia solus tenetur ex locato, recte dicetur ipsum mittendum in possessionem, nisi ei caueatur.
And it is held that both of them should be put into possession, unless the son had leased the building on such terms that the building was at his own risk; for in that case, because he alone is bound under the lease, it will be correctly said that he himself should be put into possession, unless security is given to him.