This library is built in the open.
If you spot an error, have a suggestion, or just want to say hello — we’d love to hear from you.

wax, wine, grain, oil, and bread, in which some wrongly deny that a loan can consist.
Regarding these things, we assert with our Emperor that they accept their function in their own genus by way of payment rather than by species; therefore, we do not give as a loan lands, houses, clothes, horses, and the like.
Although Salmasius has denied it, we affirm that the ownership of all those things which pass into a loan is transferred simultaneously; not because a loan is the transfer of ownership, but because it contains the transfer of ownership.
Since, however, it is abundantly gathered from the aforementioned that in a loan we do not receive the same species that we gave, it will not be a loan if I have agreed that I shall restore to you the very same coins which I received from you as a loan.
It is a matter of undoubted law that this loan is, by its nature, gratuitous; yet, by a stipulation added to the loan, a debtor may be compelled to pay interest for the use of the money.
Therefore, no one should doubt that interest is lawful, to such an extent that a princely rescript cannot abolish it at its own pleasure.
Certain unique rules are accepted regarding money lent. For if I order my debtor to give money to you, you are obligated to me, even though you have not received my coins. And what is accepted in the case of two persons must also be accepted in the case of the same person: as when you owe me money by reason of a mandate, and it has been agreed,