a lender takes from the borrower the equivalent of what he lent him. If someone collects this amount from the person on whose behalf payment was made and delivers it to the payer, it is lawful to accept it, whether payment was enforced by the original oppressor or someone else. Accordingly, the payer may bring a claim for what he paid on the other’s behalf before just judges. They must order that person to reimburse him, just as they would order him to repay a loan. There is nothing dubious about accepting reimbursement for one’s money.

It should not be said, “He has taken people’s money,” for he has merely recovered from them what he paid on their behalf, repayment of the money he lent them, and reimbursement for what they were obliged to pay. As explained above, no partner may refuse to pay his share when he knows that it will be taken from the other partners. Since he has no right to refuse, payment is obligatory upon him. Whoever voluntarily pays on his behalf, intending to recover the amount, is entitled to recover it, because he has done him a kindness by paying for him. How much more so if he was compelled to pay on his behalf!

Even if payment were not obligatory upon the person concerned, but another man were compelled to pay on his behalf, that man would be entitled to recover it from him, for it was because of him that the other was coerced and his money taken. This is like someone subjected to a monetary exaction whose relatives, neighbours, friends, or partners are compelled to pay on his behalf and seek reimbursement from him. They are entitled to reimbursement, for their money was taken only because of him and to avert the demand from him.

For the person taking money from him either does so because he believes him to have acted unjustly—as when rulers exact money from some of their deputies, saying: “They have taken more money than