Article II. To Whom Restitution is to be Made

I say. If the owner is certain and known, restitution must be made to him, as is clear, except the case in which the thing taken away had been deposited, leased, or loaned for use; for then it must be restored not to the owner but to him with whom it was found by title of deposit, lease, or loan for use. The reason is that the actual possessor cannot without injury be deprived of the right of keeping, use, or possession, unless he himself consents. But if the owner is doubtful or unknown, or if, although known, he cannot be reached, it must be established as follows:

1st. If after diligent inquiry the owner is still doubtful, either the doubt turns between few or between many. If the former, restitution must be made to them pro rata, or the presumed owners are to be induced to composition. If the latter, for example, because someone selling in some city defrauded many in weight or price, restitution is to be made by increasing in the same manner the weight or measure, or by diminishing the price toward ordinary buyers, who are presumed to have been damaged, if this can easily be done; otherwise restitution is to be made to the poor.

2nd. If the owner is plainly unknown, or if, although known, nevertheless he can be reached neither immediately nor mediately in a moral manner, one must distinguish: for either another's thing acquired in good faith is possessed, or in bad faith. If in good faith, then one must act as in things recently lost, whose owner cannot be found, and therefore either it is to be disbursed to pious causes or even can be retained by the possessor. But if in bad faith, the possessor must altogether despoil himself of such a thing and expend it upon pious works or works useful to the common good. And the same must be said of him who must restore by force of unjust damaging. The reason is both because, from common sense, the unknown owner is judged to be represented by the poor or by pious causes, and because custom so provides, which is the best interpreter of laws. And although some say that the debtor can expend those things upon any public utility, even a profane one, nevertheless ordinarily one must stand by the general custom in practice. But never can the possessor of bad faith or the unjust damager retain the debt under any pretext whatever, even of poverty, because no one ought to derive advantage from his own malice. - Cf. St. Thomas, 2-2, q. 62, art. 5. - St. Alphonsus, Hom. Ap., nn. 64, 67, and 69.

Question. Whether, when your creditor was forced to make cession of goods, you must restore to him or to his creditors?

Resp. Since in the case of cession of goods, according to civil laws, some administrator is ordinarily assigned, restitution must certainly be made to him, at least for avoiding the danger of restoring again. But if for whatever cause there is no one present who manages the administration of the goods, restitution can be made to the creditor, if the debt is small, if he is upright, and if you believe that he is going to restore to the creditors; likewise if he is in grave necessity and greatly needs that debt for sustaining life, because, as theologians commonly teach, one ceding goods can withdraw those things which are altogether necessary for living. Indeed, even in any case whatever, it can and must be made to the creditor by reason of justice, and only by reason of charity can the obligation of warning his creditors press. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 699. - Gousset, n. 772. - Ballerini, note (a), p. 588.