Conclusiones ex tit. D. de rei vindicatione

72. Furthermore, if an action of the Lex Aquilia law concerning property damage or for injury has been acquired by the possessor after the lawsuit was contested, he shall restore them to the plaintiff.
73. Add that if the thing has been made worse than it was at the time the lawsuit was contested, the judge will take this into account so that the possessor is condemned to the extent that it has been made worse.
74. Unless the plaintiff prefers to proceed against such a possessor by the Lex Aquilia.
75. Finally, if the requested thing has perished, the possessor is held for the price, even if his fraud or fault did not intervene.
76. Which, however, seems to be accepted regarding one who had bad faith even before the lawsuit was contested.
77. For he to whom the contestation of the lawsuit finally brought bad faith, since he is not compelled to leave his right undefended, will not answer for the destruction of the thing without his fraud or fault.
78. Indeed, if the fraud or fault of the possessor intervened, the laws intend that the fruits which could have been perceived from the thing by the owner be provided not only until the day of destruction, but up to the day of judgment.
79. But just as the possessor is held to the plaintiff to restore the thing with its entire cause, so also the plaintiff will refund expenses to the possessor of the thing claimed, with the exception of those which are to be offset by the fruits.
80. And indeed, since some expenses are necessary, some useful, and some luxurious, both the possessor in good faith and the possessor in bad faith account for the necessary ones to the plaintiff.
81. But the possessor in good faith preserves useful expenses by opposing the exception of fraud.
82. Which some maintain should be granted also to the possessor in bad faith out of kindness, no less in this special action than in the general petition of an inheritance.