[ULPIANUS libro sexto decimo ad edictum. ] §6.1.15.prItem si uerberatum tradidit, Labeo ait etiam iniuriarum competere actionem petitori. §6.1.15.1Si quis rem ex necessitate distraxit, fortassis huic officio iudicis succurretur, ut pretium dumtaxat debeat restituere.
[ULPIANUS, in the sixteenth book on the Edict.]\n\nLikewise, if he delivered up a beaten [slave], Labeo says that an action for damages (iniuriae) is also available to the plaintiff.\n\nIf someone sold the property out of necessity, perhaps he will be assisted by the office of the judge, so that he only ought to restore the price.
nam et si fructus perceptos distraxit, ne corrumpantur, aeque non amplius quam pretium praestabit. §6.1.15.2Item si forte ager fuit qui petitus est et militibus adsignatus est modico honoris gratia possessori dato, an hoc restituere debeat? et puto praestaturum. §6.1.15.3Si seruus petitus uel animal aliud demortuum sit sine dolo malo et culpa possessoris, pretium non esse praestandum plerique aiunt: sed est uerius, si forte distracturus erat petitor si accepisset, moram passo debere praestari: nam si ei restituisset, distraxisset et pretium esset lucratus.
For even if he sold the gathered fruits to prevent them from spoiling, he will likewise not pay anything more than the price.\n\nLikewise, if by chance the property claimed was land and it was assigned to soldiers, a small amount having been given to the possessor by way of gratuity, must he restore this? And I think he must make it good.\n\nIf the slave claimed or another animal died without fraud or fault on the part of the possessor, most authorities say that the price does not have to be paid. But it is more correct that, if by chance the plaintiff would have sold it if he had received it, it must be paid to the one who suffered delay; for if he had restored it to him, the plaintiff would have sold it and gained the price.