This article is about the text constitution of D. 19,2,15,6, a text which has been considered as corrupt by most, if not all, legal historians discussing it. It puts forward an emendation advanced by Haloander and considers whether that can stand up to close scrutiny. After a discussion among Dutch Romanists to whom the text was put up for debate, it turns out that it cannot. The text, especially ... [Show full abstract] the much debated opening line (‘cum quidam nave amissa vecturam, quam pro mutua acceperat, repeteretur’), makes perfectly acceptable Latin, as was already suggested by the Austrian philologist Ernst Kalinka in 1927. The only minor emendation suggested is to correct ‘promutuo’ for ‘pro mutua’, a reading supported by D. 40,7,40,5 (and its ‘kata podas’) and the Greek summae of D. 19,2,15,6.