Responsa for Bekhorot 104:6

Q. The bishop imprisoned B in order to extort money from him. B said to A: "You owe me eight marks, give five marks to the bishop". Meanwhile a rich Jew promised to speak to the bishop on B's behalf and assured B that he would thus effect his release. A, however, gave five marks to the bishop and B was released. Now B demands that A repay him the full eight marks.
A. A is under no obligation to repay the five marks to B since he carried out a direct order to pay this amount to the bishop. Moreover, had A acted on his own initiative and ransomed B without being requested to do so, he would still have been entitled to reimbursement, for a Jew should be ransomed even against his express will, and may be charged with the expenses thus incurred. The promise of the rich man to speak to the bishop was of no consequence, since he did not offer to spend money on B's behalf. We know that mere words are of no avail. The Gentiles are not moved by words, only money affects them. Those who fall into their hands have no hope for deliverance save through the payment of ransom.
This Responsum is addressed to Rabbi Haim Paltiel b. Jacob.
SOURCES: Cr. 32–3; Tesh. Maim. to Nezikin, 17. Cf. Maharil, Responsa 78.

Q. A, a levir, married the widow of his brother B and had children with her. B had died while his father was still alive, but subsequently the father also died. Before his death, however, the latter divided his property equally among his sons. While A was away his remaining three brothers divided the father's landed property into four equal parts, one for each brother. When A returned he did not object to the division; and after his death, when the brothers sold their parts, his widow and orphans did not protest against the sale for over three years. Now, however, the latter claim that the division was unjust and the sale, therefore, invalid since A was entitled to a double portion of the estate, his own and that of his brother B.
A. Both, the division of the property by the brothers, and its subsequent sale, would be void, according to Rashi, since A was entitled to a double portion out of his father's estate. The fact that both transactions were not protested for over three years, is of no consequence since the brothers, or their successors, do not claim that A officially forewent or sold his rights. Moreover, A died before the three years of undisturbed possession were over, and one cannot claim undisturbed possession as evidence of title to property belonging to young orphans even after they grow up. However, since A's father divided his property among his sons, A is not entitled to any more than what his father gave him; for he received his portion as a gift and not as an inheritance.
This Responsum is addressed to R. Eliezer haLevi.
SOURCES: L. 384; Tesh. Maim. to Mishpatim, 51.