Doubt I: Whether one is a true cause of loss without whom the loss would still have followed

MANY assert that only he who is the true Cause of the Damage is subject to restitution, without whom the damage would not have been. Innoc. cap. sicut dignum, extra de homic.; Hostiensis there; Altissiodorensis lib. IV. tract. de Poenit. cap. de Restit. quaest. 3; Rich. 4. dist. 15. art. 5. quaest. 4; Sylvest. V. Restit. 3. quaest. 6; Adrian. 4. quaest. 4. de Restit. §. De concurrentibus cum fure; Nau. man. cap. 7. num. 20; Caspensis disp. 1. sect. 9. §. 2; Bassaeus V. Restit. 3. num. 3. §. 2. Because otherwise the causes would be inefficacious.

THE OPPOSITE is held by Caietanus here, art. 7; Ioan. Medin. quaest. 7. de Restit.; Sotus lib. IV. de iustit. quaest. 7. art. 3; Valencia disp. 5. quaest. 6. puncto 3. The reason is, because they operate efficaciously. This was the view of D. Bonavent. in spec. animae, cap. 2, and Clatius cap. 1. §. Damnificatio. Therefore the Advocate who unjustly defends a Client is bound to Restitution — otherwise, one who would still unjustly covet the inheritance, which he would invade by others if he did not otherwise obtain it.

IT IS PROVED from the Holy Doctor. That is a true cause, posited, the effect is posited, as the Holy Doctor and others say. For if many wished to kill Peter, would not one who alone killed him be guilty of injustice, even if he would have to be killed by the others? See Valencia, and Caietan.