... Theses hasce miscellaneas ex iure decerptas

Nevertheless, we believe it is more consistent with both law and reason that the same thing can be restored, having set aside those doubts.

It has often been doubted whether a creditor for whom a certain day for payment is established can sue with impunity before that day. Some try to demonstrate with many arguments that the creditor can in no way sue before the said day, especially if it is objected by the adversary that he cannot sue before the time. However, the contrary view—that it is indeed permitted for the creditor himself to sue the debtor on a day or under a condition, so that the debt is paid when the day arrives or the condition is met—is more pleasing.

A creditor who has gathered fruits from an estate, or any other principal thing, is obligated and bound to credit them toward the principal sum. However, in the case where someone gathers fruits from a pledged thing with his own great labor, such as by cultivating it, these yield to his own gain and convenience, and are not counted toward the principal. This does not apply if an agreement is made regarding the gathering of fruits, instead of interest or in place of usury, understanding this, however, of interest that is permitted by law.

There is a dispute among Jurisconsults ICos abbreviation for Iurisconsultos, legal experts whether prescription the process of acquiring rights or title through long-term possession runs against those who are aware as well as those who are ignorant. Distinguishing between corporeal and incorporeal things, or rights, we determine, contrary to Gomez Antonio de Gómez, a 16th-century Spanish jurist and others, that the prescription of the latter does not proceed except with the knowledge and patience of the adversary. But we say that it is more true in law that for the former, it runs against both those who are aware and those who are ignorant.