Responsa for Bava Batra 308:3
הכי נמי מסתברא מדקאמר להו אי אתם רשאים לנוולו ואישתיקו אי אמרת בשלמא בני משפחה קא מערערי משום הכי אישתיקו אלא אי אמרת לקוחות קא מערערי אמאי שתקי לימרו ליה אנן זוזי יהבינן ליה לינוול ולינוול
— If [only] because of this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If this argument had been the only proof that it was the relatives who protested. ');"><sup>9</sup></span> [there would be] no argument. [for R. Akiba may] have said to them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The buyers. ');"><sup>10</sup></span> thus: In the first place,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'one'. ');"><sup>11</sup></span> [a post mortem must not be held] because you are not permitted to dishonour him; and, furthermore, in case you might say. 'He took [our] money. let him be dishonoured', the signs [of maturity] usually undergo a change after death.
Teshuvot Maharam
A. A trustee appointed by both parties is not required to take an oath regarding the terms of his trusteeship. But, Leah was not appointed trustee by both parties. She was only appointed by the husband, and, therefore, is required to take an oath. Leah's husband cannot object to imposing an oath on her. If the law requires that a woman take an oath, the husband has no right to protest against her being degraded in court. But, since Leah, as long as she is married, has no money of her own, and were she to claim that she had already returned the deposit, no oath would be imposed on her, we now lend credence to her words and require no oath. However, the court should give A a writ stating that after Leah will be divorced or widowed she will have to return the money to A or take an oath to the effect that A deposited the money with her on condition that she return it upon his wife's consent only.
SOURCES: L. 306–7; Mord. B. K. 89. Cf. Pr. 739; Tesh. Maim. to Mishpatim, 44.