[IDEM libro tertio ex Minicio. ] §47.2.60.prSi is, qui rem commodasset, eam rem clam abstulisset, furti cum eo agi non potest, quia suum recepisset et ille commodati liberatus esset.
[THE SAME in the third book from Minicius.] If a person who had lent a thing for use has secretly taken it away, an action for theft cannot be brought against him, because he would have recovered his own property and the other would have been released from liability under the loan for use.
hoc tamen ita accipiendum est, si nullas retinendi causas is cui commodata res erat habuit: nam si impensas necessarias in rem commodatam fecerat, interfuit eius potius per retentionem eas seruare quam ultro commodati agere, ideoque furti actionem habebit.
This, however, is to be understood in this way only if the person to whom the thing had been lent had no grounds for retaining it; for if he had incurred necessary expenses on the thing lent, it was more to his interest to secure them by retention than to bring an action on the loan for use of his own accord, and therefore he will have an action for theft.