[ULPIANUS libro uicensimo nono ad Sabinum. ] §47.2.14.prEum qui emit, si non tradita est ei res, furti actionem non habere, sed adhuc uenditoris esse hanc actionem Celsus scripsit.
[ULPIAN, on Sabinus, Book XXIX.] Celsus wrote that a buyer, if the thing has not been delivered to him, does not have the action for theft, but this action still belongs to the seller.
mandare eum plane oportebit emptori furti actionem et condictionem et uindicationem, et si quid ex his actionibus fuerit consecutus, id praestare eum emptori oportebit: quae sententia uera est, et ita et Iulianus.
He must clearly mandate the action for theft, the condictio, and the vindication to the buyer, and if he has obtained anything from these actions, he must make it good to the buyer. This opinion is correct, and Julian also holds this view.
et sane periculum rei ad emptorem pertinet, dummodo custodiam uenditor ante traditionem praestet.
And indeed, the risk of the thing belongs to the buyer, provided that the seller warrants custody before delivery.
§47.2.14.1Adeo autem emptor ante traditionem furti non habet actionem, ut sit quaesitum, an ipse subripiendo rem emptor furti teneatur.
Moreover, the buyer does not have the action for theft before delivery to such an extent that it has been questioned whether the buyer himself is liable for theft by stealthily taking the thing.
et Iulianus libro uicensimo tertio digestorum scribit: si emptor rem, cuius custodiam uenditorem praestare oportebat, soluto pretio subripuerit, furti actione non tenetur.
And Julian writes in the twenty-third book of his Digests: if the buyer, after paying the price, stealthily takes a thing for which the seller was obliged to warrant custody, he is not liable under the action for theft.
plane si antequam pecuniam solueret, rem subtraxerit, furti actione teneri, perinde ac si pignus subtraxisset.
Clearly, if he has withdrawn the thing before he paid the money, he is liable under the action for theft, just as if he had withdrawn a pledge.
§47.2.14.2Praeterea habent furti actionem coloni, quamuis domini non sint, quia interest eorum.
In addition, agricultural tenants have the action for theft, although they are not the owners, because they have an interest.
§47.2.14.3Is autem, apud quem res deposita est, uideamus, an habeat furti actionem.
Now let us see whether he with whom a thing has been deposited has the action for theft.
et cum dolum dumtaxat praestet, merito placet non habere eum furti actionem: quid enim eius interest, si dolo careat? quod si dolo fecit, iam quidem periculum ipsius est, sed non debet ex dolo suo furti quaerere actionem.
And since he warrants only against willful intent, it is rightly held that he does not have the action for theft; for what interest does he have if he is free from willful intent? But if he acted with willful intent, the risk is indeed already his own, but he ought not to acquire an action for theft out of his own willful intent.
§47.2.14.4Iulianus quoque libro uicensimo secundo digestorum scribit: quia in omnium furum persona constitutum est, ne eius rei nomine furti agere possint, cuius ipsi fures sunt, non habebit furti actionem is, apud quem res deposita est, quamuis periculo eius esse res coeperit qui eam contrectauit.
Julian also writes in the twenty-second book of his Digests: because it is established in the case of all thieves that they cannot sue for theft in respect of a thing of which they themselves are the thieves, he with whom a thing has been deposited will not have the action for theft, even though the thing has begun to be at the risk of him who meddled with it.
§47.2.14.5Papinianus tractat, si duos seruos ob decem aureos pignori acceperim et alter subripiatur, cum alter quoque, qui sit retentus, non minoris decem ualeret: utrum usque ad quinque tantum habeam furti actionem, quia in alio habeo saluos quinque? an uero, quia mori potest, dici debeat in decem fore actionem, etiamsi magni pretii sit is qui retinetur? et ita putat: non enim respicere debemus pignus, quod subreptum non est, sed id quod subtractum est.
Papinian discusses the case where I have received two slaves as a pledge for ten aurei and one is stolen, while the other, who is retained, is also worth not less than ten: whether I have the action for theft only up to five, because in the other I have five secured. Or indeed, because he might die, ought it to be said that the action will be for ten, even if the one who is retained is of great value? And he thinks so: for we ought not to look at the pledge which has not been stolen, but at that which has been taken away.
§47.2.14.6Idem scribit, si, cum mihi decem deberentur, seruus pignori datus subtractus sit, si actione furti consecutus fuero decem, non competere mihi furti actionem, si iterum subripiatur, quia desiit mea interesse, cum semel sim consecutus.
The same writer writes: if, when ten were owed to me, a slave given in pledge has been taken away, and if I have obtained ten by the action for theft, the action for theft does not belong to me if he is stolen again, because my interest ceased once I have obtained it.
hoc ita, si sine culpa mea subripiatur: nam si culpa mea, quia interest eo quod teneor pigneraticia actione, agere potero.
This is so if he is stolen without my fault; for if it is by my fault, because I have an interest in that I am held liable under the pledge action, I shall be able to sue.
quod si culpa abest, sine dubio domino competere actio uidetur, quae creditori non competit.
But if fault is absent, without doubt the action seems to belong to the owner, which does not belong to the creditor.
quam sententiam Pomponius quoque libro decimo ad Sabinum probat.
Pomponius also approves this opinion in the tenth book on Sabinus.
§47.2.14.7Idem dicunt, et si duo serui subrepti sint simul, competere utriusque nomine furti actionem creditori, sed non in totum, sed pro qua parte, in singulos diuiso eo quod ei debetur, eius interest: separatim autem duobus subreptis, si unius nomine solidum consecutus sit, alterius nihil consequetur.
They say the same thing: even if two slaves are stolen at the same time, the action for theft belongs to the creditor in respect of both, but not for the whole, but for that part in which he has an interest, the debt owed to him being divided among the individual slaves. However, if the two are stolen separately, if he has obtained the full amount under the name of one, he will obtain nothing under the name of the other.
§47.2.14.8Item Pomponius libro decimo ex Sabino scripsit, si is cui commodaui dolo fecerit circa rem commodatam, agere eum furti non posse.
Likewise, Pomponius wrote in the tenth book on Sabinus that if he to whom I lent a thing acts with willful intent regarding the thing lent, he cannot bring the action for theft.
§47.2.14.9Idem Pomponius probat et in eo, qui rem mandato alicuius accepit perferendam.
Pomponius approves the same in the case of one who has received a thing under someone's mandate to be delivered.