[GAIUS libro sexto ad edictum prouinciale. ] §9.4.27.prSi noxali iudicio agitur de seruo qui pignoris iure tenetur aut de eo cuius usus fructus alterius est, admonendi sumus, si creditor uel usufructuarius praesens defensionem suscipere noluerit, proconsulem interuenturum et pignoris persecutionem uel usus fructus actionem negaturum.
[GAIUS, Book 6 of the Commentary on the Provincial Edict] If a noxal action is brought concerning a slave who is held under right of pledge, or concerning one whose usufruct belongs to another, we must be advised that, if the creditor or the usufructuary, being present, refuses to undertake the defense, the proconsul will intervene and deny the pursuit of the pledge or the action for the usufruct.
quo casu dici potest ipso iure pignus liberari (nullum enim pignus est, cuius persecutio negatur): usus fructus autem, etiamsi persecutio eius denegetur, ipso iure durat eo usque, donec non utendo constituto tempore pereat.
In which case it can be said that the pledge is released by operation of law (for there is no pledge whose pursuit is denied); the usufruct, however, even if its pursuit is denied, continues by operation of law until it perishes by non-use within the established time.
§9.4.27.1Ex his quae diximus de seruo qui alicui pignoris iure obligatus est deque statulibero et de eo cuius usus fructus alienus est, apparet eum, qui alienum seruum in iure suum esse responderit, quamuis noxali iudicio teneantur, non tamen posse noxae deditione ipso iure liberari, quia nullum ad actorem dominium transferre possunt, cum ipsi domini non sint.
From what we have said concerning a slave who is bound to someone under right of pledge, and concerning a statuliber, and concerning one whose usufruct belongs to another, it is apparent that he who answers in court that another's slave is his, although they are held by the noxal action, yet cannot be released by operation of law through noxal surrender, because they can transfer no ownership to the plaintiff since they themselves are not the owners.
certe tamen, si ex ea causa traditum postea dominus uindicet nec litis aestimationem offerat, poterit per exceptionem doli mali repelli.
Nevertheless, certainly, if the owner later claims the slave who was delivered on that account, and does not offer the estimated value of the litigation, he can be repelled by the exception of malice.