retradas quamdiu enim aliquid ex re uendita apud te superesset, ex uendito me habere actionem constat.

3. Si locum sepulchri emeris et propius eum locum, antequam mortuus ibi inferatur, aedificatum a uenditore fuerit, poteris ad eum reuerti.

4. Si uas aliquod mihi uendideris et dixeris certam mensuram capere uel certum pondus habere, ex empto tecum agam, si minus praestes. sed si uas mihi uendideris ita, ut adfirmares integrum, si id integrum non sit, etiam id quod eo nomine perdiderim praestabis mihi: si uero non id actum sit, ut integrum praestes, dolum malum dumtaxat praestare te debere. Labeo contra putat et illud solum obseruandum, ut, nisi in contrarium id1 actum sit, omnimodo integrum praestari debeat: et est uerum. quod et in locatis doliis praestandum Sabinum respondisse Minicius refert.

5. Si tibi iter uendidero, ita demum auctorem me laudare poteris, si tuus fuerit fundus cui adquirere seruitutem uolueris: iniquum est enim me teneri, si propter hoc adquirere seruitutem non potueris, quia dominus uicini fundi non fueris.

6. Sed si fundum tibi uendidero et ei fundo iter accessurum dixero, omnimodo tenebor itineris nomine, quia utriusque rei quasi unus uenditor obligatus sum.

7. Si filius familias rem uendiderit mihi et tradiderit, sic ut pater familias tenebitur.

a contract for putting up the buildings (locatio conductio operis). See p. 46 ante. A similar transaction to the present is discussed in D. 19. 5. 13, 1, with this difference, that no price is to be paid for the site; consequently, it is not sale, but an innominate real contract with the usual remedy of actio praescriptis verbis.

§ 3. The law prescribed a certain free space to be left round burial-grounds. From L. 13 of the title Finium regundorum (Digest, 10,tit. 1), we learn there was a law at Rome, on the model of Solon's, that if a man dug a grave on his land near his neighbour's march he must leave a margin as wide as the grave was deep.

§ 4. For express warranty, compare L. 13, § 3 post. The opinion of Sabinus that there is no implied warranty of soundness in the sale of a vas is set aside by Labeo and Pomponius, who 1 ut id, nisi in contrarium? (Mom.)

re-convey the building; for it is settled that so long as any part of the subject sold remains in your hands I can bring an action ⚫ on sale against you.

3. If you buy a place for a burying-ground, and the seller, before any interment takes place, erects a building [on his own ground] without observing the prescribed distance, you will have legal recourse against him.

4. If you sell me a vessel declaring it to be of a certain capacity or a certain weight, an action on purchase will lie if you supply a smaller one. But if you sell me a vessel with an assurance that it is sound, and it proves not to be sound, you will also have to compensate me for any loss thereby incurred: but if it was not agreed that you should supply a sound one, you will only be responsible for fraud. Labeo, on the contrary, is of opinion that the rule is simply that soundness is always implied, unless there is an arrangement to the contrary; and this is the correct view. According to an opinion of Sabinus, reported by Minicius, the same rule applies to vats let to hire.

5. If I have sold you a right to a footpath, you cannot cite me as your author unless the land for which you desired to acquire the servitude belongs to you; for it is not fair that I should be responsible if you were precluded from acquiring the servitude by the fact that you were not proprietor of the lands adjoining.

6. But if I have sold you a piece of ground and promised a path to it as an accessory, I shall certainly be held liable in respect of the access, having come under the same obligation as if I had sold the two things together.

7. If a filius familias has sold and delivered a thing to me, he is responsible just like a pater familias.

extended to this case the principle of the edict that the seller is liable even for secret faults if they are so serious as to prevent the purchaser having the use of the thing. For the same rule where vats are hired, see D. 19. 2. 19, 1.

§ 5. The rule was nemo potest seruitutem adquirere uel urbani uel rustici praedii, nisi qui habet praedium (D. 8. 4. 1, 1).

§ 7. Speaking generally, a filius familias could be debtor but

8. Si dolo malo aliquid fecit uenditor in re uendita, ex empto eo nomine actio emptori competit: nam et dolum malum eo iudicio aestimari oportet, ut id, quod praestaturum se esse pollicitus sit uenditor emptori, praestari oporteat.

9. Si uenditor sciens obligatum aut alienum uendidisset et adiectum sit neue eo nomine quid praestaret,' aestimari oportet dolum malum eius, quem semper abesse oportet in iudicio empti, quod bonae fidei sit.

Fundum mihi cum uenderes deducto usu fructu, dixisti eum usum fructum Titii esse, cum is apud te remansurus esset. si coeperis eum usum fructum uindicare, reuerti aduersus te non potero, donec Titius uiuat nec in ea causa esse coeperit, ut, etiamsi eius usus fructus esset, amissurus eum fuerit: nam tunc, id est si capite deminutus uel mortuus fuerit Titius, reuerti potero ad te uenditorem. idemque iuris est, si dicas eum usum fructum Titii esse, cum sit Sei.

8. PAULUS libro v ad Sabinum.

Si tibi liberum praedium tradidero, cum seruiens tradere debe

not creditor in a contract; filius familias ex omnibus causis tanquam pater familias obligatur (D. 44. 7. 39 ; cp. Inst. iii. 19. 6). But he was capable of contract to the fullest extent in respect of his peculium castrense (see p. 10 ante).

§ 8. See p. 92 ante.

§ 9. If the seller's conduct is fraudulent, e.g. if he knowingly sells a res aliena without informing the vendee, a proviso that he is not to answer for eviction (pactum de non praestanda euictione) will not shield him from liability for any damage sustained. The buyer's remedy is the actio empti, which, as an equitable (bonae fidei) action, covers all claims on account of fault or fraud.

L. 7.-Mancipation and in iure cessio were both competent modes of creating a usufruct in the way here contemplated, i.e. where the owner transfers the bare ownership and reserves the usufruct (deducto usufructu); it could not be done by delivery

8. If the vendor has done some intentional harm to the subject sold, the vendee can obtain redress by the action on purchase; for fraudulent intent should be taken into account in that action, in order that all engagements by the vendor to the vendee may be made good.

9. If a man has sold what he knows to be pledged or to belong to another, and has stipulated 'that he shall not be responsible on such grounds,' damages should be given for the fraud; for fraud should never show itself in the action on sale where regard is had to equity.

In selling me a piece of ground with a reservation of the usufruct, you stated that it belonged to Titius, whereas it was really reserved for yourself. If you bring an action claiming the usufruct as yours, I shall have no recourse against you during Titius' lifetime unless his position undergoes such a change that he would forfeit the usufruct supposing it belonged to him; in which case, that is to say, if Titius die or lose his status, I shall have recourse against you as the seller. The law is the same, if you represent Titius as owner of the usufruct, when it really belongs to Seius.

8. PAUL.

If I deliver to you an estate free from servitude, when I

(Vat. Frag. 47). Here the seller falsely represents that Titius is fructuary, but that causes no damage; the only effect is that he is held to his statement, so that the usufruct is at an end on the death or capitis diminutio of Titius. In the classical law the right of usufruct lapsed on the slightest change of status (as by adoption or adrogation); Justinian settled that only maxima or media capitis diminutio should extinguish the right. Inst. ii. 4. 3.

L. 8 pr.-Marcian says that the actio ex uendito or the incerti condictio would be available to have the servitude imposed which had been omitted at delivery (D. 8. 2. 35). Cp. D. 12. 6. 22, 1.

rem, etiam condictio incerti competit mihi, ut patiaris eam seruitutem, quam debuit,1 imponi.

1. Quod si seruum praedium in traditione fecero, quod liberum tibi tradere debui, tu ex empto habebis actionem remittendae eius seruitutis gratia, quam pati non debeas.

9. POMPONIUS libro xx ad Sabinum.

Si is qui lapides ex fundo emerit tollere eos nolit, ex uendito agi cum eo potest, ut eos tollat.

10. ULPIANUS libro XLVI ad Sabinum.

Non est nouum, ut duae obligationes in eiusdem persona de eadem re concurrant : cum enim is qui uenditorem obligatum habebat ei qui eundem uenditorem obligatum habebat heres exstiterit, constat duas esse actiones in eiusdem persona concurrentes, propriam et hereditariam, et debere heredem institutum, si uelit separatim duarum actionum commodo uti, ante aditam hereditatem proprium uenditorem conuenire, deinde adita hereditate hereditarium: quod si prius adierit hereditatem, unam quidem actionem mouere potest, sed ita, ut per eam utriusque contractus sentiat commodum. ex contrario quoque si uenditor uenditori heres exstiterit, palam est duas euictiones eum praestare debere.

L. 9.-It is the duty of the vendee to carry away the thing sold, and he may be called on to do so immediately if there is no agreement or custom to the contrary. Cp. D. 18. 6. 1, 3 (sale of wine); Pothier, Vente, § 290 sq.

The leading case in English Law is Greaves v. Ashlin (1813) 3 Camp. 425. In that case the seller, after some delay, gave the buyer notice that if the goods were not carried away immediately he should re-sell them, and he did so. The buyer sued him for non-delivery. It was laid down on the one hand that the buyer's neglect did not entitle the seller to put an end to the contract, and sell the goods to another; and on the other hand that if the buyer does not carry away the goods bought, within a reasonable time, the seller may charge him warehouse room, or he may bring an action for not removing them, should he be prejudiced by the delay.' See S. G. B. § 39; Benj. p. 708.

1 debui. Pb.