Conclusiones ex tit. D. de rei vindicatione

83. However, it seems truer that the contrary is the case, such that he cannot preserve useful expenses by opposing an exception.
84. Yet, that he may remove them without injury to the thing is not denied to him, unless it appears that he made them with the intention of donating them.
85. Which also obtains in a possessor in good faith, if the plaintiff is not wealthy, and he himself would not have made such expenses.
86. So much so that if either it cannot be done at all, as in the case of a learned boy, or the scraping off cannot be done without injury to the thing, the thing must be restored to him without any account of expenses.
87. If, however, he who is not wealthy knew that such expenses were being made because the possessor warned him, and did not contradict, or if he is about to sell the thing immediately for a greater price, he will be held to account for even the useful expenses.
88. But a possessor in good faith does not obtain the luxurious ones.
89. However, it is permitted that he scrape them off, unless the owner is prepared to give as much as the possessor would have had if these things were removed.
90. Indeed, a possessor in bad faith loses them entirely.
91. Where the thing which is claimed is to be sought and restored is not unworthily asked: and we say either before the judge of the place where the thing is situated, or before the judge of the place in which the defendant has his domicile or court, even if the thing is elsewhere.
92. For it is in the discretion of the plaintiff to choose where he wishes to seek it.
93. Whence it happens that, if the plaintiff has proceeded in the domicile of the defendant, and the judge pronounces that the thing should be restored there, it must indeed be exhibited there by the defendant, but at the expense of the plaintiff; for he should blame himself for not seeking it rather in the place where the thing was.
94. However, this proceeds thus in a movable thing: for an immovable thing...