Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia 1:7

משנה: מָצָא גִיטֵּי נָשִׁים וְשִׁיחֲרוּרֵי עֲבָדִים דִּייַתֵיקֵי מַתָּנָה וְשׁוֹבְרִין הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יַחֲזִיר שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר כְּתוּבִין הָיוּ וְנִמְלַךְ עֲלֵיהֶם שֶׁלֹּא לִתְּנָן. MISHNAH: One who found women’s bills of divorce⁸⁹The divorcee would need the bill to collect her ketubah. If the ketubah was paid, the bill should be torn up. Therefore, one could assume that the woman would take care to watch over the document and, in case it was lost, to publicly announce its loss and ask the public to return it to her. In the absence of such a public announcement, the finder has to assume that the bill was not delivered. Similar arguments apply to the other documents enumerated in the Mishnah. or slaves’ bills of manumission, dispositions⁹⁰Greek διαθήκη, usually referring to testamentary gifts. of gift or receipts⁹¹Documents which prove the liquidation of a mortgage. should not return them since I say that they were written but he changed his mind not to deliver them.

הלכה: מָצָא גִיטֵּי נָשִׁים כול׳. תַּנֵּי. מָצָא גִיטִּין וּכְתוּבּוֹת הֲרֵי זֶה יַחֲזִיר. וּכְתוּבָּה לֹא הִיא חֲזָקָה. HALAKHAH: “One who found women’s bills of divorce,” etc. It was stated: One whou found women’s bills of divorce with ketubot⁹²He found a bill of divorce and attached to it a ketubah which either had a receipt written on it or was torn where the witnesses had signed as proof of liquidation of the debt. Then the bill certainly had been delivered to the woman, the ketubah had been paid, and no monetary consequences would follow the return of the bill to the woman. The baraita does not contradict the Mishnah.
E has a different formulation of the last sentence:
.וּכְתוּבָּה לֹא הוּחְזְקָה בְיַד הָאִשָּׁה
Was the ketubah not prima facie evidence in the woman’s hand? should return them.” Is the ketubah not prime facie evidence?

שְׁטָר שֶׁלָּוָה בוֹ וּפְרָעוֹ לֹא יַחֲזוֹר וְיִגְבֶּה בוֹ מִפְּנֵי מֵירַע כּוֹחָן שֶׁל לְקוּחוֹת. רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וַאֲפִילוּ לְבוֹ בַיּוֹם. רִבִּי זֵירָא בְעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יָסָא. הָכָא אַתָּ מַר. אֲפִילוּ לְבוֹ בַיּוֹם. וְהָכָא אַתָּ מַר. אִם זְמַנּוֹ יוֹצֵא לְבוֹ בַיּוֹם יַחֲזִיר. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אָדָם מָצוּי לִלְוֹת וְלִפְרוֹעַ לְבוֹ בַיּוֹם. וְאֵין אָדָם עָשׂוּי לִפְרוֹעַ וְלִלְוֹות לְבוֹ בַיּוֹם. רִבִּי חַגַּיי בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יָסָא. הוּא הַזְּמָן וְהֵן הָעֵדִים וְהוּא הַמִּלְוָה מָהוּ מִפְּנֵי מֵירַע כּוֹחָן שֶׁל לְקוּחוֹת. אָמַר לֵיהּ. בְּשֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁתַּעְבְּדוּ נְכָסִים. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים. בְּשֶׁלֹּא חָֽתְמוּ הָעֵדִים עַל אוֹתָהּ הַמִּלְוָה. If a person took a documented loan and paid it back, he cannot use the document to take a second loan because it diminishes the power of the buyers. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even on the same day⁹³The same statement is in the Babli, 17a.. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yasa: Here you say, even on the same day. But there⁹⁴In the preceding Halakhah., you say, if its date was that very day, he should return it! He answered, a person is apt to take a loan and repay it the same day, but a person is not apt to repay a loan and take it the same day^95,It is a matter of prima facie evidence, as in the cases of the Mishnah.⁹³The same statement is in the Babli, 17a.. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yasa: It is the same day, the same witnesses, and the same amount. What is the meaning of “it diminishes the power of the buyers”⁹⁶The formulation implies that the creditor can unlawfully foreclose property from the innocent buyer in case of nonpayment of the debt.? He answered, if the property had not been mortgaged⁹⁷If the first loan was not given as a mortgage.. But some say, if the witnesses did not sign for this loan^98,All the statements of R. Ḥaggai are true; nevertheless the document is invalid since the witnesses did not certify the loan actually given but a predecessor loan.⁹³The same statement is in the Babli, 17a..