pays it because it is incumbent upon him, then the same applies to all his obligations: he must reimburse whoever fulfils them on his behalf and thereby does him a kindness. This applies when the payer acts voluntarily; how much more so when he is compelled to pay what is due from him? For if he does not give a powerful oppressor what he demands, the oppressor will inflict great harm upon him, either through physical punishment or by taking an even greater amount. In that case, he must pay what will avert the greater of the two harms by accepting the lesser. If someone else pays on his behalf without being compelled, that person is entitled to recover what he paid from him. How much more so if he is compelled to pay on his behalf!

Furthermore, when the demand is made of all the partners, it has already been explained that none of them may refuse to pay his share in a way that results in greater oppression of the others. Payment then becomes obligatory upon all the partners: each must pay the share that falls to him when the amount demanded is divided fairly among them.

Anyone who pays another’s share without being compelled is entitled to recover it from him. He has done him a kindness by paying on his behalf and dealing directly with the oppressors in his place. The person who deals with them directly suffers both personal and financial harm, whereas the other generally suffers financial harm alone. If he pays on the other’s behalf so that the latter need not appear in person, he has thereby done him a kindness. The latter must therefore reimburse him, just as one repays a lender who has done one a kindness; for a loan is recompensed with repayment and praise.

Anyone who remains absent and does not pay, until those present pay on his behalf, must reimburse them for the amount they paid for him. He is to be compelled to do so and punished if he refuses to pay. It is lawful for those who paid on his behalf to take an equivalent amount from his property, just as