De restitutione minorum conclusiones

28. If he presents himself as a major, ought he to be restored? And if indeed by his own deceit, he is not to be heard; if by the deceit of the adversary, or of both, or even of neither, we constantly assert that aid ought to be given.
29. Moreover, this will also turn on the examination of the cause, whether perhaps another action might compete, without restitution in full. For if he is protected by common aid and mere law, extraordinary aid ought not to be given to him.
30. Now it must be seen who can restore in full. And both the prefect of the city and other magistrates can restore in full according to their jurisdiction, as much in other cases (yet not against the sentence of a major) as against their own sentence. Which law we affirm with Bartolus that today it also competes to minor magistrates, so that they may restore in full.
31. Which is so true that the benefit of restitution in full is not to be denied to a minor even against the Emperor's sentence.
32. Interpreters vary on whether full examination of the cause is required when a minor desires to be restored against a sentence. We agree with Salicetus: if the minor primarily implores the aid of restitution against a sentence, a full examination is required; if incidentally, a summary one is sufficient.
33. Since the Praetor promises no judgment or action, it is understood from this edict that no proper action or caution proceeds, but all this hangs on the examination of the Praetor.
34. With restitution in full decreed, each person receives his own right; wherefore also those who have contracted with minors are to be put back into the condition in which they were before the contract.