[ULPIANUS libro quinto decimo ad edictum. ] §5.3.23.prUtrum autem omne pretium restituere debebit bonae fidei possessor an uero ita demum, si factus sit locupletior, uidendum: finge pretium acceptum uel perdidisse uel consumpsisse uel donasse.
[ULPIANUS in the fifteenth book on the Edict.] However, it must be considered whether a bona fide possessor will have to restore the whole price, or indeed only if he has been made richer. Imagine that he has either lost, consumed, or given away the received price.
et uerbum quidem peruenisse ambiguum est, solumne hoc contineret, quod prima ratione fuerit, an uero et id quod durat.
Indeed, even the word 'peruenisse' is ambiguous, whether it contains only this which was in the first calculation, or indeed also that which remains.
et puto sequentem clausulam senatus consulti, etsi haec sit ambigua, ut ita demum competat, si factus sit locupletior.
And I think that the following clause of the senate decree, although this itself may be ambiguous, is applicable only if he has been made richer.
§5.3.23.1Proinde si non solum pretium, sed etiam poena tardius pretio soluto peruenerit, poterit dici, quia locupletior in totum factus est, debere uenire, licet de pretio solummodo senatus sit locutus.
Accordingly, if not only the price but also a penalty has come to hand because the price was paid too late, it can be said that, since he has been made richer in total, this also ought to come [into the claim], although the senate spoke only of the price.