[NERATIUS libro septimo membranarum. ] §5.3.57.prCum idem eandem hereditatem aduersus duos defendit et secundum alterum ex his iudicatum est, quaeri solet, utrum perinde ei hereditatem restitui oporteat, atque oporteret, si aduersus alium defensa non esset: ut scilicet si mox et secundum alium fuerit iudicatum, absoluatur is cum quo actum est, quia neque possideat neque dolo malo fecerit, quo minus possideret quod iudicio reuictus restituerit: an quia possit et secundum alium iudicari, non aliter restituere debeat quam si cautum ei fuerit, quod aduersus alium eandem hereditatem defendit.
[NERATIUS in his seventh book of Parchments.] When the same person defends the same inheritance against two parties, and judgment has been given in favor of one of them, it is commonly asked whether the inheritance ought to be restored to him in just the same way as it would have had to be if it had not been defended against another: so that, of course, if judgment should soon be given in favor of the other as well, the defendant would be acquitted, because he neither possesses nor has acted with malice so as not to possess what he restored after being defeated in court; or whether, since judgment might also be given in favor of the other, he ought not to restore it unless security has been given to him in respect of his defending the same inheritance against another.
sed melius est officio iudicis cautione uel satisdatione uicto mederi, cum et res salua sit ei, qui in exsecutione tardior uenit aduersus priorem uictorem.
But it is better, by the office of the judge, to relieve the defeated party by means of a promise or security, since the property is also preserved for him who comes later in execution against the prior victor.