Francisci Hotomani iurisconsulti observationum liber IIII

WONDROUS CON-
FLICT IN THE QUESTION OF
a deposit, that the same amount be returned.

CHAPTER I.

A decorative drop cap M begins the text.There is a great and almost incredible hesitation of the great Papinianus on the question of whether, from a deposit of money under the condition that an equal amount be returned, interest is owed due to delay, in the law Lucius 24, Digest, on deposit. For he maintains that a deposit is only that which, when the same thing must be returned, is deposited. But if it were agreed that an equal amount be paid back, that matter, he says, goes beyond the well-known terms of a deposit. However, since interest is not owed from strict contracts unless stipulated, he thinks an absurdity follows if we say that such a type of deposit is a loan mutuum a loan of fungibles to be replaced by an equivalent, and that through that agreement it turns into a credit, yet that through that agreement interest is not owed. Law Titius 24, Digest, on the prescript of words; law the same 10, section if anyone to Titius; law he who does business 34, Digest, on mandate; law if for a father 10, section 2, Digest, on what has been converted into one's own property. Therefore, doubting, hesitating, and wavering, although he argued that it was not a deposit, he finally concludes that interest on that type of deposit is not owed unless by agreement. But if this is so, it must be that that agreement was of good faith bonae fidei of good faith, since interest can be sought by agreement only in those contracts. Law when some 17, section from leased, Digest, on interest; Law 5, Code, on pacts between buyer and seller; Law partner 60, Digest, for partnership. Alfenus opposes Papinianus’s earlier opinion most openly in law in the ship 31, Digest, on letting and hiring, where