[ULPIANUS libro trigensimo octauo ad edictum. ] §47.6.3.prQuotiens tantum praestat dominus, quantum praestaretur, si unus liber fecisset, cessat ceterorum nomine actio, non aduersus ipsum, uerum etiam aduersus emptorem dumtaxat, si forte quis eorum, qui simul fecerant, uenierit.
[ULPIAN on the Edict, book 38] Whenever the owner pays as much as would be paid if a single free person had done [it], the action in the name of the rest ceases, not only against [the owner] himself, but also against the buyer at least, if by chance any of those who had acted together has been sold.
idemque et si fuerit manumissus.
And the same applies even if [the slave] has been manumitted.
quod si prius fuerit ablatum a manumisso, tunc dabitur aduersus dominum familiae nomine: nec enim potest dici, quod a manumisso praestitum est, quasi a familia esse praestitum.
But if [the amount] was first exacted from the manumitted person, then [an action] will be granted against the owner in the name of the household: for it cannot be said that what was paid by the manumitted person was paid, as it were, by the household.
plane si emptor praestiterit, puto denegandam in uenditorem actionem: quodammodo enim hoc a uenditore praestitum est, ad quem nonnumquam regressus est ex hac causa, maxime si furto noxaque solutum esse promisit.
Clearly, if the buyer has paid, I think the action against the seller should be denied: for in a way this has been paid by the seller, against whom there is sometimes recourse on this account, especially if he promised that [the slave] was free from theft and damage.
§47.6.3.1Sed an, si legati serui nomine uel eius, qui donatus est, actum sit cum legatario uel eo, cui donatus est, agi possit etiam cum domino ceterorum, quaeritur: quod admittendum puto.
But it is asked whether, if an action is brought on account of a bequeathed slave or one who has been donated, against the legatee or the one to whom he was donated, an action can also be brought against the owner of the rest [of the slaves]: which [view] I think should be admitted.
§47.6.3.2Huius edicti leuamentum non tantum ei, qui seruos possidens condemnatus praestitit tantum, quantum, si unus liber fecisset, datur, uerum ei quoque, qui idcirco condemnatus est, quia dolo fecerat quo minus possideret.
The relief of this edict is granted not only to him who, possessing the slaves [and] being condemned, paid as much as if a single free person had done [it], but also to him who was condemned for the reason that he had acted with malice so that he would not possess them.