[37]
Actions on the formula, “What has become of that
money,” are usually decided, not by any proceeding taken
especially with reference to them, but by those which were adopted in the
case of the original defendant. Therefore, if Gabinius had either given
sureties, or if the people had got as large a sum out of his property as the
damages amounted to, then, however large a sum had been obtained from him by
Postumus, none would have been demanded back again. So that it may easily be
seen, that in a case of this sort, the money is only demanded back again
from any one who has been clearly proved in the former action to have become
possessed of it. But at present what is the question under discussion? Where
in the world are we? What can be either said or imagined so unprecedented,
so unsuitable, so preposterous as this?
This text is part of:
Search the Perseus Catalog for:
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.