[ULPIANUS libro quinto decimo ad edictum. ] §5.3.31.prSi quid possessor soluit creditoribus, reputabit, quamquam ipso iure non liberauerit petitorem hereditatis: nam quod quis suo nomine soluit, non debitoris, debitorem non liberat.
[ULPIANUS, on the Edict, book 15] If a possessor has paid anything to creditors, he shall deduct it, even though he has not discharged the claimant of the inheritance by operation of law; for what someone pays in his own name, not in that of the debtor, does not discharge the debtor.
et ideo Iulianus libro sexto digestorum scribit ita id imputaturum possessorem, si cauerit se petitorem defensum iri.
And therefore, Julian writes in the sixth book of his Digests that the possessor will deduct it in this way only if he has given security that the claimant will be defended.
sed an et bonae fidei possessor debeat defendendum cauere, uidendum erit, quia in eo quod soluit non uidetur locupletior factus: nisi forte habeat condictionem et hoc nomine uidetur locupletior, quia potest repetere: finge enim eum, dum se heredem putat, soluisse suo nomine.
But it will have to be considered whether even a possessor in good faith ought to give security for defense, because in what he paid, he does not seem to have been made richer; unless perhaps he has an action for recovery of undue payment and is deemed richer on this account, because he can recover it: for imagine that he, while he thought himself to be the heir, paid in his own name.
et uidetur mihi Iulianus de solo praedone ut caueat sensisse, non etiam de bonae fidei possessore: condictionem tamen praestare debebit.
And it seems to me that Julian thought that only the plunderer should give security, and not also the possessor in good faith; however, he will have to yield the action for recovery.
sed et petitor si a creditoribus conueniatur, exceptione uti debebit.
But also the claimant, if he is sued by the creditors, will have to use an exception.
§5.3.31.1Sed si ipsi aliquid praedoni debebatur, hoc deducere non debebit: maxime si id fuit debitum, quod natura debebatur.
But if anything was owed to the plunderer himself, he will not have to deduct this, especially if it was a debt which was owed naturally.
quid tamen si expediebat petitori id debitum esse dissolutum propter poenam uel aliam causam? potest dici ipsum sibi uel soluisse uel debuisse soluere.
What, however, if it was to the interest of the claimant that this debt be discharged on account of a penalty or another cause? It can be said that he either paid himself or ought to have paid.
§5.3.31.2Iustus autem possessor dubio procul debebit deducere, quod sibi debetur.
A just possessor, however, will beyond doubt have to deduct what is owed to him.
§5.3.31.3Sicut autem sumptum quem fecit deducit, ita si facere debuit nec fecit, culpae huius reddat rationem, nisi bonae fidei possessor est: tunc enim, quia quasi suam rem neglexit, nulli querellae subiectus est ante petitam hereditatem: postea uero et ipse praedo est.
Moreover, just as he deducts the expense which he made, so if he ought to have done something and did not do it, he must render an account for this negligence, unless he is a possessor in good faith; for then, because he neglected it as if it were his own property, he is subject to no complaint before the inheritance is claimed; but afterwards, he too is a plunderer.
§5.3.31.4Illud plane praedoni imputari non potest, cur passus est debitores liberari et pauperiores fieri et non eos conuenit, cum actionem non habuerit.
It clearly cannot be imputed to the plunderer why he allowed the debtors to be released and to become poorer and did not sue them, since he did not have an action.
§5.3.31.5Quod autem possessori solutum est an restituere debeat, uideamus: et si bonae fidei possessor fuit siue non, debere restituere placet, et quidem si restituerit, ut Cassius scribit et Iulianus libro sexto, liberari ipso iure debitores.
But let us see whether he ought to restore what has been paid to the possessor; and whether he was a possessor in good faith or not, it is held that he ought to restore it, and indeed, if he restores it, as Cassius writes and Julian in his sixth book, the debtors are discharged by operation of law.