[IDEM libro singulari quaestionum publice tractatarum. ] §42.8.24.prPupillus patri heres extitit et uni creditorum soluit: mox abstinuit hereditate paterna: bona patris ueneunt: an id quod accepit creditor reuocandum sit, ne melioris condicionis sit quam ceteri creditores? an distinguimus, per gratificationem acceperit an non, ut, si per gratificationem tutorum, reuocetur ad eandem portionem, quam ceteri creditores fuerint laturi: sin uero iuste exegerit, ceteri creditores neglexerint exactionem, interea res deterior facta sit, uel mortalitate uel subductis rebus mobilibus uel rebus soli ad irritum perductis, id quod acceperit creditor reuocari nullo pacto potest, quoniam alii creditores suae neglegentiae expensum ferre debeant.
[THE SAME in the single book of questions publicly discussed.] A pupil became heir to his father and paid one of the creditors; shortly afterwards he abstained from his father's inheritance. The father's goods are being sold. Is what the creditor received to be revoked, so that he may not be in a better position than the other creditors? Or do we make a distinction, whether he received it through favoritism or not, so that, if it was through the favoritism of the tutors, it should be revoked to the same portion which the other creditors would have received? But if he demanded it justly, while the other creditors neglected to demand it, and in the meantime the property became worse, either by mortality, or by the removal of movables, or by the real property being rendered worthless, what the creditor received cannot by any means be revoked, since the other creditors must bear the charge of their own negligence.
quid ergo, si, cum in eo essent, ut bona debitoris mei uenirent, soluerit mihi pecuniam, an actione reuocari ea possit a me? an distinguendum est, is optulerit mihi an ego illi extorserim inuito et, si extorserim inuito, reuocetur, si non extorserim, non reuocetur? sed uigilaui, meliorem meam condicionem feci, ius ciuile uigilantibus scriptum est: ideoque non reuocatur id quod percepi.
What then if, when they were on the point of selling my debtor's goods, he paid me money? Can it be revoked from me by an action? Or must a distinction be made, whether he offered it to me or I extorted it from him against his will, so that, if I extorted it against his will, it should be revoked, but if I did not extort it, it should not be revoked? But I was vigilant, I made my condition better; the civil law is written for the vigilant. Therefore, what I have received is not revoked.