[GAIUS libro quarto ad edictum prouinciale. ] §4.7.3.prquia etiam si cum eo, qui alterius prouinciae sit, experiar, in illius prouincia experiri debeo et potentiori pares esse non possumus.
[GAIUS, On the Provincial Edict, Book IV] Because even if I should bring an action against someone who belongs to another province, I must bring the action in his province, and we cannot be a match for a more powerful person.
§4.7.3.1Sed et si hominem quem petebamus manumiserit, durior nostra condicio fit, quia praetores faueant libertatibus.
But also, if he has manumitted a slave whom we were claiming, our condition becomes harder, because the praetors favor liberties.
§4.7.3.2Item si locum, in quo opus feceris, cuius nomine interdicto quod ui aut clam uel actione aquae pluuiae arcendae tenebaris, alienaueris, durior nostra condicio facta intellegitur, quia si tecum ageretur, tuis impensis id opus tollere deberes, nunc uero cum incipiat mihi aduersus alium actio esse quam qui fecerit, compellor meis impensis id tollere, quia qui ab alio factum possidet, hactenus istis actionibus tenetur, ut patiatur id opus tolli.
Likewise, if you have alienated a place in which you have done some work, on account of which you were liable under the interdict "concerning what is done by force or stealth" or by the action for warding off rainwater, our condition is understood to have been made harder; because if the action were brought against you, you would have to remove that work at your own expense, but now indeed, since an action begins to lie for me against someone other than the person who did the work, I am compelled to remove it at my own expense, because he who possesses what was done by another is liable under these actions only to the extent that he suffers the work to be removed.
§4.7.3.3Opus quoque nouum si tibi nuntiauerim tuque eum locum alienaueris et emptor opus fecerit, dicitur te hoc iudicio teneri, quasi neque tecum ex operis noui nuntiatione agere possim, quia nihil feceris, neque cum eo cui id alienaueris, quia ei nuntiatum non sit.
If I have also given you notice of a new work, and you have alienated that place and the buyer has done the work, it is said that you are liable under this action, as if I could neither bring an action against you on the basis of the notice of new work, because you have done nothing, nor against the person to whom you alienated it, because notice was not given to him.
§4.7.3.4Ex quibus apparet, quod proconsul in integrum restituturum se pollicetur, ut hac actione officio tantum iudicis consequatur actor, quantum eius intersit alium aduersarium non habuisse: forte si quas inpensas fecerit aut si quam aliam incommoditatem passus erit alio aduersario substituto.
From these things it is clear that what the proconsul promises, namely that he will restore to the original state, is that by this action the plaintiff should, through the office of the judge, obtain as much as it was of interest to him not to have had another adversary: for instance, if he has incurred any expenses or suffered any other inconvenience because another adversary was substituted.
§4.7.3.5Quid ergo est, si is, aduersus quem talis actio competit, paratus sit utile iudicium pati perinde ac si possideret? recte dicitur denegandam esse aduersus eum ex hoc edicto actionem.
What is the case, then, if the person against whom such an action lies is prepared to submit to a useful action just as if he were in possession? It is rightly said that the action against him under this edict should be denied.