[PAULUS libro septimo ad Plautium. ] §47.2.67.prSi is, qui rem pignori dedit, uendiderit eam: quamuis dominus sit, furtum facit, siue eam tradiderat creditori siue speciali pactione tantum obligauerat: idque et Iulianus putat.
[PAULUS in the seventh book on Plautius.] If he who has given a thing in pledge sells it, although he is the owner, he commits theft, whether he had delivered it to the creditor or had only obligated it by a special agreement; and Julian also thinks so.
§47.2.67.1Si is, cui res subrepta sit, dum apud furem sit, legauerat eam mihi, an, si postea fur eam contrectet, furti actionem habeam? et secundum Octaueni sententiam mihi soli competit furti actio, cum heres suo nomine non habeat, quia, quacumque ratione dominium mutatum sit, domino competere furti actionem constat.
If he from whom a thing was stolen, while it was in the possession of the thief, bequeathed it to me, do I have an action for theft if the thief subsequently touches it? According to the opinion of Octavenus, the action for theft belongs to me alone, since the heir does not have it in his own name; for it is established that, in whatever way ownership has changed, the action for theft belongs to the owner.
§47.2.67.2Eum, qui mulionem dolo malo in ius uocasset, si interea mulae perissent, furti teneri ueteres responderunt.
The ancient jurists answered that he who had summoned a muleteer to court with malicious intent is liable for theft if in the meantime the mules have perished.
§47.2.67.3Iulianus respondit eum, qui pecuniis exigendis praepositus est, si manumissus exigat, furti teneri.
Julian answered that he who was appointed to collect money is liable for theft if, having been manumitted, he collects it.
quod ei consequens est dicere et in tutore, cui post pubertatem solutum est.
Consequently, he says the same in the case of a tutor to whom payment was made after the pupil reached puberty.
§47.2.67.4Si tu Titium mihi commendaueris quasi idoneum, cui crederem, et ego in Titium inquisii, deinde tu alium adducas quasi Titium, furtum facies, quia Titium esse hunc credo, scilicet si et ille qui adducitur scit: quod si nesciat, non facies furtum, nec hic qui adduxit opem tulisse potest uideri cum furtum factum non sit: sed dabitur actio in factum in eum qui adduxit.
If you recommend Titius to me as a fit person for me to trust, and I inquire into Titius, and then you bring another person as if he were Titius, you will commit theft because I believe this person to be Titius, provided, of course, that he who is brought also knows this. But if he does not know, you will not commit theft, nor can he who brought him be seen to have rendered assistance, since no theft has been committed; but an action on the facts will be granted against him who brought him.
§47.2.67.5Si stipulatus de te sim 'per te non fieri, quo minus homo Eros intra kalendas illas mihi detur', quamuis mea interesset eum non subripi (cum subrepto eo ex stipulatu non teneris, si tamen per te factum non sit quo minus mihi daretur), non tamen furti actionem me habere.
If I have stipulated with you 'that it should not be due to you that the slave Eros is not given to me within those Kalends,' although it was in my interest that he should not be stolen (since, if he is stolen, you are not liable under the stipulation, provided that it was not due to you that he was not given to me), nevertheless I do not have an action for theft.