[GAIUS libro sexto ad edictum prouinciale. ] §5.3.17.prQuod si possessor hereditatis ob id, quod ex testamento heredem se esse putaret, legatorum nomine de suo soluit, si quis ab intestato eam hereditatem euincat, licet damnum uidetur esse possessoris, quod sibi non prospexerit stipulatione 'euicta hereditate legata reddi', attamen quia fieri potest, ut eo tempore soluerit legata, quo adhuc nulla controuersia mota sit, et ob id nullam interposuerit cautionem, placet in eo casu euicta hereditate dandam ei esse repetitionem.
[GAIUS in the sixth book on the provincial Edict.] But if a possessor of an inheritance, because he thought himself to be the heir under a testament, paid legacies out of his own property under the name of legacies, and if someone wins back that inheritance as an intestate heir, although the loss seems to be that of the possessor because he did not provide for himself by the stipulation 'that the legacies are to be returned if the inheritance is evicted', yet because it is possible that he paid the legacies at a time when no controversy had yet been raised, and for that reason interposed no security, it is accepted that in that case, the inheritance having been evicted, a claim for recovery is to be given to him.
sed cum cessante cautione repetitio datur, periculum est, ne propter inopiam eius, cui solutum est legatum, nihil repeti possit, et ideo secundum senatus consulti sententiam subueniendum ei est, ut ipse quidem ex retentione rerum hereditariarum sibi satisfaciat, cedat autem actionibus petitori, ut suo periculo eas exerceat.
But when a claim for recovery is given in the absence of a security, there is a danger that, because of the insolvency of the person to whom the legacy was paid, nothing can be recovered, and therefore, according to the opinion of the senate-consult, he should be relieved in this way: that he himself indeed may satisfy himself from the retention of hereditary things, but should cede his actions to the claimant so that the latter may exercise them at his own risk.