[PROCULUS libro quinto epistularum. ] §46.3.82.prSi, cum Cornelius fundum suum nomine Seiae uiro eius doti dedisset nec de eo reddendo quicquam cauisset, fecit, ut inter se uir et Seia paciscerentur, ut diuortio facto is fundus Cornelio redderetur: non puto diuortio facto uirum uetante Seia eum fundum Cornelio tuto redditurum esse, sicuti si, cum pactum conuentum nullum intercessisset, diuortio facto mulier iussit eum fundum Cornelio reddi, deinde antequam redderetur, uetuisset, non tuto redderetur.
[PROCULUS, in the fifth book of Letters.] If Cornelius, when he had given his own tract of land as a dowry to Seia's husband in her name and had not taken any security regarding its return, brought it about that the husband and Seia agreed between themselves that, upon divorce, that tract of land should be returned to Cornelius: I do not think that, upon divorce, if Seia forbids it, the husband will return that tract of land to Cornelius safely; just as if, when no agreement had intervened, upon divorce the woman ordered that tract of land to be returned to Cornelius, and then, before it was returned, she had forbidden it, it would not be safely returned.
sed si antequam Seia uetaret, Cornelio eum fundum reddidisset nec causam habuisset existimandi id inuita Seia facturum esse, nec melius nec aequius esse existimarem eum fundum Seiae reddi.
But if, before Seia forbade it, he had returned that tract of land to Cornelius and had no reason to think that he was doing this against Seia's will, I should not think it either better or more equitable for that tract of land to be returned to Seia.