[IDEM libro tertio decretorum. ] §49.14.50.prUalerius Patruinus procurator imperatoris Flauio Stalticio praedia certo pretio addixerat.
[THE SAME, from the Third Book of Opinions.] Valerius Patruinus, procurator of the emperor, had knocked down certain estates to Flavius Stalticius at a fixed price.
deinde facta licitatione idem Stalticius recepta ea licitatione optinuerat et in uacuam possessionem inductus erat.
Afterwards, an auction having been held, the same Stalticius, having accepted that bidding, had obtained them and had been put into vacant possession.
de fructibus medio tempore perceptis quaerebatur: Patruinus fisci esse uolebat.
A question arose concerning the fruits gathered in the intervening time: Patruinus wanted them to belong to the treasury.
plane si medio tempore inter primam licitationem et sequentem adiectionem percepti fuissent, ad uenditorem pertinerent (sicut solet dici, cum in diem addictio facta est, deinde melior condicio allata est) nec moueri deberemus, quod idem fuisset, cui et primo addicta fuerant praedia.
Clearly, if they had been gathered in the intervening time between the first auction and the subsequent addition, they would belong to the seller (as is usually said when an adjudication with a day-clause has been made, and then a better condition is offered), and we ought not to be moved by the fact that he was the same person to whom the estates had also first been knocked down.
sed cum utraque addictio intra tempus uindemiarum facta fuisset, recessum est ab hoc tractatu itaque placebat fructus emptoris esse.
But since both adjudications had been made within the time of the grape-harvest, this line of reasoning was abandoned, and so it was decided that the fruits belonged to the buyer.
§49.14.50.1Papinianus et Messius nouam sententiam induxerunt, quia sub colono erant praedia, iniquum esse fructus ei auferri uniuersos: sed colonum quidem percipere eos debere, emptorem uero pensionem eius anni accepturum, ne fiscus colono teneretur, quod ei frui non licuisset: atque si hoc ipsum in emendo conuenisset.
Papinian and Messius introduced a new opinion, that since the estates were under a tenant, it was unjust for all the fruits to be taken away from him; but that the tenant indeed ought to gather them, while the buyer would receive the rent of that year, lest the treasury be liable to the tenant because he had not been permitted to enjoy the fruits, and just as if this very thing had been agreed upon in the purchase.
pronuntiauit tamen secundum illorum opinionem, quod quidem domino colerentur, uniuersos fructus habere: si uero sub colono, pensionem accipere.
Nevertheless, he pronounced according to their opinion, that if indeed they were cultivated by the owner, he should have all the fruits; but if they were under a tenant, he should receive the rent.
§49.14.50.2Tryphonino suggerente, quid putaret de aridis fructibus, qui ante percepti in praediis fuissent, respondit, si nondum dies pensionis uenisset, cum addicta sunt, eos quoque emptorem accepturum.
When Tryphoninus suggested what he thought of the dry fruits which had previously been gathered on the estates, he replied that if the day for the payment of the rent had not yet come when they were knocked down, the buyer would also receive them.