Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/372

Paragraph 1- If one robbed a field and it ruined while under his control or he consumed the fruits, when the owner comes to collect the value of the loss the robber caused or the fruits he consumed, he would collect from unencumbered properties because it is like an oral loan. If the robber litigated and was found liable to pay and then sold properties, the victim may collect from properties sold to third parties. If he only litigated on one of them, it would not help the second to be able to collect from properties sold to third parties.

Paragraph 2- The same is true in a case where one robbed a robber because of the robber, in which case the original robber is required to provide the owner with a field, and if he sold after he litigated, the victim can collect that which was sold.

Paragraph 3- If one robbed a field and caused it to appreciate and the victim comes to seize it, we appraise the field and the robber has the lower hand. If the appreciation was more than the expenses, the robber would only collect the expenses from the victim. If the expenses were more than the appreciation, the robber would only receive the amount the field appreciated as reimbursement for the expenses.