Reference for Bava Batra 87:6

ועוד קשיא ליה לאביי מפני שאחריותו עליו ואין אחריותו עליו מפני שהיא חוזרת לו ואינה חוזרת לו מיבעי ליה

— The rule requires to be stated to cover the case where the robber has died, as we have learnt: If a man robs [someone of food] and gives it to his children to eat or bequeaths it to them, they are not under obligation to repay it. But [if this explanation is correct], why should not the rule be stated in reference to the heir [of the thief]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., in the following form: 'If a man robs another of a house and bequeaths it to his son, the original owner cannot testify etc.&nbsp;… if he robs him of a cow and bequeaths it … etc.' ');">⁶</span>

Jastrow