[ULPIANUS libro quadragensimo primo ad Sabinum. ] §46.3.18.prSi quis seruo pecuniis exigendis praeposito soluisset post manumissionem, si quidem ex contractu domini, sufficiet, quod ignorauerit manumissum: quod si ex causa peculiari, quamuis scierit manumissum, si tamen ignorauerit ademptum ei peculium, liberatus erit.
[ULPIANUS in the forty-first book on Sabinus.] If anyone has paid, after manumission, a slave who was put in charge of collecting money, if indeed it is from a contract of the master, it will be sufficient that he was ignorant that the slave had been manumitted; but if it is from a cause relating to the peculium, although he knew that the slave had been manumitted, if nevertheless he was ignorant that the peculium had been taken away from him, he will be released.
utroque autem casu manumissus si interuertendi causa id fecerit, furtum domino facit: nam et si debitori meo mandauero, ut Titio pecuniam solueret, deinde Titium uetuero accipere idque ignorans debitor Titio simulanti se procuratorem soluerit, et debitor liberabitur et Titius furti actione tenebitur.
But in both cases, if the manumitted person has done this for the purpose of embezzling, he commits theft against the master; for even if I have ordered my debtor to pay money to Titius, and then I have forbidden Titius to receive it, and the debtor, being ignorant of this, has paid it to Titius who pretends to be an agent, both the debtor will be released and Titius will be held liable under the action for theft.