[IDEM libro duodecimo quaestionum. ] §47.2.81.prSi uendidero neque tradidero seruum et is sine culpa mea subripiatur, magis est, ut mihi furti competat actio: et mea uidetur interesse, quia dominium apud me fuit uel quoniam ad praestandas actiones teneor.
[THE SAME, in the twelfth book of Questions.] If I have sold but not delivered a slave, and he is stolen without my fault, it is more correct to say that an action for theft is available to me; and it seems to be in my interest, because the ownership remained with me, or because I am bound to cede the actions to the buyer.
§47.2.81.1Cum autem iure dominii defertur furti actio, quamuis non alias, nisi nostra intersit, competat, tamen ad aestimationem corporis, si nihil amplius intersit, utilitas mea referenda est, idque et in statuliberis et in legato sub condicione relicto probatur: alioquin diuersum probantibus statui facile quantitas non potest.
But when an action for theft is granted by right of ownership, although it is not available unless we have an interest, nevertheless, if there is no further interest, my interest is to be measured by the value of the object itself; and this is also approved in the case of slaves conditionally freed and in a legacy left under a condition; otherwise, for those who assert the contrary, the amount cannot easily be established.
quia itaque tunc sola utilitas aestimationem facit, cum cessante dominio furti actio nascitur, in istis causis ad aestimationem corporis furti actio referri non potest.
Therefore, because only personal interest determines the valuation when the action for theft arises in the absence of ownership, in these cases the action for theft cannot be referred to the valuation of the object.
§47.2.81.2Si ad exhibendum egissem optaturus seruum mihi legatum et unus ex familia seruus subreptus, heres furti habebit actionem: eius interest: nihil enim refert, cur praestari custodia debeat.
If I had brought an action to produce in order to choose a slave bequeathed to me, and one slave from the household was stolen, the heir will have the action for theft; it is in his interest; for it does not matter why the duty of custody should be performed.
§47.2.81.3Cum raptor omnimodo furtum facit, manifestus fur existimandus est:
Since a robber commits theft in every way, he must be considered a manifest thief.
§47.2.81.4Is autem, cuius dolo fuerit raptum, furti quidem non tenebitur, sed ui bonorum raptorum.
But he by whose fraud the robbery was committed will not be held liable under the action for theft, but under that for robbery.
§47.2.81.5Si Titius, cuius nomine pecuniam perperam falsus procurator accepit, ratum habeat, ipse quidem Titius negotiorum gestorum aget, ei uero, qui pecuniam indebitam dedit, aduersus Titium erit indebiti condictio, aduersus falsum procuratorem furtiua durabit: electo Titio non inique per doli exceptionem, uti praestetur ei furtiua condictio, desiderabitur.
If Titius, in whose name a false agent has mistakenly received money, ratifies it, Titius himself will sue for unauthorized administration, but the one who gave the money not due will have an action for return of undue payment against Titius, while the action for return of stolen property will persist against the false agent. If Titius is chosen, it will not be unfair to demand, by means of an exception of fraud, that the action for return of stolen property be ceded to him.
quod si pecunia fuit debita, ratum habente Titio furti actio euanescit, quia debitor liberatur.
But if the money was due, when Titius ratifies it, the action for theft vanishes, because the debtor is released.
§47.2.81.6Falsus autem procurator ita demum furtum pecuniae faciet, si nomine quoque ueri procuratoris, quem creditor habuit, adsumpto debitorem alienum circumuenerit.
But a false agent will only commit theft of money if, also assuming the name of the true agent whom the creditor had, he deceives another's debtor.
quod aeque probatur et in eo, qui sibi deberi pecuniam ut heredi Sempronii creditoris adseuerauit, cum esset alius.
This is equally approved in the case of one who asserted that money was due to him as the heir of Sempronius the creditor, when someone else was the heir.
§47.2.81.7Qui rem Titii agebat, eius nomine falso procuratori creditoris soluit et Titius ratum habuit: non nascitur ei furti actio, quae statim, cum pecunia soluta est, ei qui dedit nata est, cum Titii nummorum dominium non fuerit neque possessio.
One who was managing Titius's affairs paid a false agent of the creditor in Titius's name, and Titius ratified it; no action for theft arises for him, which arose for the one who gave the money immediately when the money was paid, since Titius had neither ownership nor possession of the coins.
sed condictionem indebiti quidem Titius habebit, furtiuam autem qui pecuniam dedit: quae, si negotiorum gestorum actione Titius conueniri coeperit, arbitrio iudicis ei praestabitur.
But Titius will indeed have an action for return of undue payment, while the one who gave the money will have the action for return of stolen property; which, if Titius begins to be sued under the action for unauthorized administration, will be ceded to him by the decision of the judge.