Justinian•DIGESTA
Abbo Floriacensis1 work
Abelard3 works
Addison9 works
Adso Dervensis1 work
Aelredus Rievallensis1 work
Alanus de Insulis2 works
Albert of Aix1 work
HISTORIA HIEROSOLYMITANAE EXPEDITIONIS12 sections
Albertano of Brescia5 works
DE AMORE ET DILECTIONE DEI4 sections
SERMONES4 sections
Alcuin9 works
Alfonsi1 work
Ambrose4 works
Ambrosius4 works
Ammianus1 work
Ampelius1 work
Andrea da Bergamo1 work
Andreas Capellanus1 work
DE AMORE LIBRI TRES3 sections
Annales Regni Francorum1 work
Annales Vedastini1 work
Annales Xantenses1 work
Anonymus Neveleti1 work
Anonymus Valesianus2 works
Apicius1 work
DE RE COQUINARIA5 sections
Appendix Vergiliana1 work
Apuleius2 works
METAMORPHOSES12 sections
DE DOGMATE PLATONIS6 sections
Aquinas6 works
Archipoeta1 work
Arnobius1 work
ADVERSVS NATIONES LIBRI VII7 sections
Arnulf of Lisieux1 work
Asconius1 work
Asserius1 work
Augustine5 works
CONFESSIONES13 sections
DE CIVITATE DEI23 sections
DE TRINITATE15 sections
CONTRA SECUNDAM IULIANI RESPONSIONEM2 sections
Augustus1 work
RES GESTAE DIVI AVGVSTI2 sections
Aurelius Victor1 work
LIBER ET INCERTORVM LIBRI3 sections
Ausonius2 works
Avianus1 work
Avienus2 works
Bacon3 works
HISTORIA REGNI HENRICI SEPTIMI REGIS ANGLIAE11 sections
Balde2 works
Baldo1 work
Bebel1 work
Bede2 works
HISTORIAM ECCLESIASTICAM GENTIS ANGLORUM7 sections
Benedict1 work
Berengar1 work
Bernard of Clairvaux1 work
Bernard of Cluny1 work
DE CONTEMPTU MUNDI LIBRI DUO2 sections
Biblia Sacra3 works
VETUS TESTAMENTUM49 sections
NOVUM TESTAMENTUM27 sections
Bigges1 work
Boethius de Dacia2 works
Bonaventure1 work
Breve Chronicon Northmannicum1 work
Buchanan1 work
Bultelius2 works
Caecilius Balbus1 work
Caesar3 works
COMMENTARIORUM LIBRI VII DE BELLO GALLICO CUM A. HIRTI SUPPLEMENTO8 sections
COMMENTARIORUM LIBRI III DE BELLO CIVILI3 sections
LIBRI INCERTORUM AUCTORUM3 sections
Calpurnius Flaccus1 work
Calpurnius Siculus1 work
Campion8 works
Carmen Arvale1 work
Carmen de Martyrio1 work
Carmen in Victoriam1 work
Carmen Saliare1 work
Carmina Burana1 work
Cassiodorus5 works
Catullus1 work
Censorinus1 work
Christian Creeds1 work
Cicero3 works
ORATORIA33 sections
PHILOSOPHIA21 sections
EPISTULAE4 sections
Cinna Helvius1 work
Claudian4 works
Claudii Oratio1 work
Claudius Caesar1 work
Columbus1 work
Columella2 works
Commodianus3 works
Conradus Celtis2 works
Constitutum Constantini1 work
Contemporary9 works
Cotta1 work
Dante4 works
Dares the Phrygian1 work
de Ave Phoenice1 work
De Expugnatione Terrae Sanctae per Saladinum1 work
Declaratio Arbroathis1 work
Decretum Gelasianum1 work
Descartes1 work
Dies Irae1 work
Disticha Catonis1 work
Egeria1 work
ITINERARIUM PEREGRINATIO2 sections
Einhard1 work
Ennius1 work
Epistolae Austrasicae1 work
Epistulae de Priapismo1 work
Erasmus7 works
Erchempert1 work
Eucherius1 work
Eugippius1 work
Eutropius1 work
BREVIARIVM HISTORIAE ROMANAE10 sections
Exurperantius1 work
Fabricius Montanus1 work
Falcandus1 work
Falcone di Benevento1 work
Ficino1 work
Fletcher1 work
Florus1 work
EPITOME DE T. LIVIO BELLORUM OMNIUM ANNORUM DCC LIBRI DUO2 sections
Foedus Aeternum1 work
Forsett2 works
Fredegarius1 work
Frodebertus & Importunus1 work
Frontinus3 works
STRATEGEMATA4 sections
DE AQUAEDUCTU URBIS ROMAE2 sections
OPUSCULA RERUM RUSTICARUM4 sections
Fulgentius3 works
MITOLOGIARUM LIBRI TRES3 sections
Gaius4 works
Galileo1 work
Garcilaso de la Vega1 work
Gaudeamus Igitur1 work
Gellius1 work
Germanicus1 work
Gesta Francorum10 works
Gesta Romanorum1 work
Gioacchino da Fiore1 work
Godfrey of Winchester2 works
Grattius1 work
Gregorii Mirabilia Urbis Romae1 work
Gregorius Magnus1 work
Gregory IX5 works
Gregory of Tours1 work
LIBRI HISTORIARUM10 sections
Gregory the Great1 work
Gregory VII1 work
Gwinne8 works
Henry of Settimello1 work
Henry VII1 work
Historia Apolloni1 work
Historia Augusta30 works
Historia Brittonum1 work
Holberg1 work
Horace3 works
SERMONES2 sections
CARMINA4 sections
EPISTULAE5 sections
Hugo of St. Victor2 works
Hydatius2 works
Hyginus3 works
Hymni1 work
Hymni et cantica1 work
Iacobus de Voragine1 work
LEGENDA AUREA24 sections
Ilias Latina1 work
Iordanes2 works
Isidore of Seville3 works
ETYMOLOGIARVM SIVE ORIGINVM LIBRI XX20 sections
SENTENTIAE LIBRI III3 sections
Iulius Obsequens1 work
Iulius Paris1 work
Ius Romanum4 works
Janus Secundus2 works
Johann H. Withof1 work
Johann P. L. Withof1 work
Johannes de Alta Silva1 work
Johannes de Plano Carpini1 work
John of Garland1 work
Jordanes2 works
Julius Obsequens1 work
Junillus1 work
Justin1 work
HISTORIARVM PHILIPPICARVM T. POMPEII TROGI LIBRI XLIV IN EPITOMEN REDACTI46 sections
Justinian3 works
INSTITVTIONES5 sections
CODEX12 sections
DIGESTA50 sections
Juvenal1 work
Kepler1 work
Landor4 works
Laurentius Corvinus2 works
Legenda Regis Stephani1 work
Leo of Naples1 work
HISTORIA DE PRELIIS ALEXANDRI MAGNI3 sections
Leo the Great1 work
SERMONES DE QUADRAGESIMA2 sections
Liber Kalilae et Dimnae1 work
Liber Pontificalis1 work
Livius Andronicus1 work
Livy1 work
AB VRBE CONDITA LIBRI37 sections
Lotichius1 work
Lucan1 work
DE BELLO CIVILI SIVE PHARSALIA10 sections
Lucretius1 work
DE RERVM NATVRA LIBRI SEX6 sections
Lupus Protospatarius Barensis1 work
Macarius of Alexandria1 work
Macarius the Great1 work
Magna Carta1 work
Maidstone1 work
Malaterra1 work
DE REBUS GESTIS ROGERII CALABRIAE ET SICILIAE COMITIS ET ROBERTI GUISCARDI DUCIS FRATRIS EIUS4 sections
Manilius1 work
ASTRONOMICON5 sections
Marbodus Redonensis1 work
Marcellinus Comes2 works
Martial1 work
Martin of Braga13 works
Marullo1 work
Marx1 work
Maximianus1 work
May1 work
SUPPLEMENTUM PHARSALIAE8 sections
Melanchthon4 works
Milton1 work
Minucius Felix1 work
Mirabilia Urbis Romae1 work
Mirandola1 work
CARMINA9 sections
Miscellanea Carminum42 works
Montanus1 work
Naevius1 work
Navagero1 work
Nemesianus1 work
ECLOGAE4 sections
Nepos3 works
LIBER DE EXCELLENTIBUS DVCIBUS EXTERARVM GENTIVM24 sections
Newton1 work
PHILOSOPHIÆ NATURALIS PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA4 sections
Nithardus1 work
HISTORIARUM LIBRI QUATTUOR4 sections
Notitia Dignitatum2 works
Novatian1 work
Origo gentis Langobardorum1 work
Orosius1 work
HISTORIARUM ADVERSUM PAGANOS LIBRI VII7 sections
Otto of Freising1 work
GESTA FRIDERICI IMPERATORIS5 sections
Ovid7 works
METAMORPHOSES15 sections
AMORES3 sections
HEROIDES21 sections
ARS AMATORIA3 sections
TRISTIA5 sections
EX PONTO4 sections
Owen1 work
Papal Bulls4 works
Pascoli5 works
Passerat1 work
Passio Perpetuae1 work
Patricius1 work
Tome I: Panaugia2 sections
Paulinus Nolensis1 work
Paulus Diaconus4 works
Persius1 work
Pervigilium Veneris1 work
Petronius2 works
Petrus Blesensis1 work
Petrus de Ebulo1 work
Phaedrus2 works
FABVLARVM AESOPIARVM LIBRI QVINQVE5 sections
Phineas Fletcher1 work
Planctus destructionis1 work
Plautus21 works
Pliny the Younger2 works
EPISTVLARVM LIBRI DECEM10 sections
Poggio Bracciolini1 work
Pomponius Mela1 work
DE CHOROGRAPHIA3 sections
Pontano1 work
Poree1 work
Porphyrius1 work
Precatio Terrae1 work
Priapea1 work
Professio Contra Priscillianum1 work
Propertius1 work
ELEGIAE4 sections
Prosperus3 works
Prudentius2 works
Pseudoplatonica12 works
Publilius Syrus1 work
Quintilian2 works
INSTITUTIONES12 sections
Raoul of Caen1 work
Regula ad Monachos1 work
Reposianus1 work
Ricardi de Bury1 work
Richerus1 work
HISTORIARUM LIBRI QUATUOR4 sections
Rimbaud1 work
Ritchie's Fabulae Faciles1 work
Roman Epitaphs1 work
Roman Inscriptions1 work
Ruaeus1 work
Ruaeus' Aeneid1 work
Rutilius Lupus1 work
Rutilius Namatianus1 work
Sabinus1 work
EPISTULAE TRES AD OVIDIANAS EPISTULAS RESPONSORIAE3 sections
Sallust10 works
Sannazaro2 works
Scaliger1 work
Sedulius2 works
CARMEN PASCHALE5 sections
Seneca9 works
EPISTULAE MORALES AD LUCILIUM16 sections
QUAESTIONES NATURALES7 sections
DE CONSOLATIONE3 sections
DE IRA3 sections
DE BENEFICIIS3 sections
DIALOGI7 sections
FABULAE8 sections
Septem Sapientum1 work
Sidonius Apollinaris2 works
Sigebert of Gembloux3 works
Silius Italicus1 work
Solinus2 works
DE MIRABILIBUS MUNDI Mommsen 1st edition (1864)4 sections
DE MIRABILIBUS MUNDI C.L.F. Panckoucke edition (Paris 1847)4 sections
Spinoza1 work
Statius3 works
THEBAID12 sections
ACHILLEID2 sections
Stephanus de Varda1 work
Suetonius2 works
Sulpicia1 work
Sulpicius Severus2 works
CHRONICORUM LIBRI DUO2 sections
Syrus1 work
Tacitus5 works
Terence6 works
Tertullian32 works
Testamentum Porcelli1 work
Theodolus1 work
Theodosius16 works
Theophanes1 work
Thomas à Kempis1 work
DE IMITATIONE CHRISTI4 sections
Thomas of Edessa1 work
Tibullus1 work
TIBVLLI ALIORVMQUE CARMINVM LIBRI TRES3 sections
Tünger1 work
Valerius Flaccus1 work
Valerius Maximus1 work
FACTORVM ET DICTORVM MEMORABILIVM LIBRI NOVEM9 sections
Vallauri1 work
Varro2 works
RERVM RVSTICARVM DE AGRI CVLTURA3 sections
DE LINGVA LATINA7 sections
Vegetius1 work
EPITOMA REI MILITARIS LIBRI IIII4 sections
Velleius Paterculus1 work
HISTORIAE ROMANAE2 sections
Venantius Fortunatus1 work
Vico1 work
Vida1 work
Vincent of Lérins1 work
Virgil3 works
AENEID12 sections
ECLOGUES10 sections
GEORGICON4 sections
Vita Agnetis1 work
Vita Caroli IV1 work
Vita Sancti Columbae2 works
Vitruvius1 work
DE ARCHITECTVRA10 sections
Waardenburg1 work
Waltarius3 works
Walter Mapps2 works
Walter of Châtillon1 work
William of Apulia1 work
William of Conches2 works
William of Tyre1 work
HISTORIA RERUM IN PARTIBUS TRANSMARINIS GESTARUM24 sections
Xylander1 work
Zonaras1 work
Si quis in fundi vocabulo erravit et cornelianum pro semproniano nominavit, debebitur sempronianus: sed si in corpore erravit, non debebitur. quod si quis, cum vellet vestem legare, suppellectilem adscripsit, dum putat suppellectilis appellatione vestem contineri, pomponius scripsit vestem non deberi, quemadmodum si quis putet auri appellatione electrum vel aurichalcum contineri vel, quod est stultius, vestis appellatione etiam argentum contineri. rerum enim vocabula immutabilia sunt, hominum mutabilia.
If someone erred in the name of a landed estate and named the Cornelianus in place of the Sempronianus, the Sempronianus will be owed; but if he erred in the corpus (the object), it will not be owed. And if someone, when he wished to bequeath clothing, wrote down household furniture, on the supposition that under the appellation of household furniture clothing is contained, Pomponius wrote that clothing is not owed—just as if someone should think that under the appellation of gold electrum or orichalcum is contained, or, what is more foolish, that under the appellation of clothing even silver is contained. For the names of things are immutable, of men mutable.
"stichum, qui meus erit cum moriar, heres meus dato": magis condicionem legato iniecisse quam demonstrare voluisse patrem familias apparet eo quod, si demonstrandi causa haec oratio poneretur, ita concepta esset "stichus qui meus est", non "qui meus erit". sed condicio talis accipi debet "quatenus "meus erit", ut, si totum alienaverit, legatum exstinguatur, si partem, pro ea parte debeatur, quae testatoris mortis tempore fuerit
"Stichus, who will be mine when I die, let my heir give": it appears that the paterfamilias rather imposed a condition upon the legacy than wished to demonstrate, from the fact that, if this wording were put for the sake of demonstration, it would have been framed thus, "Stichus who is mine," not "who will be mine." But the condition ought to be taken thus, "insofar as "he will be mine"," so that, if he has alienated the whole, the legacy is extinguished; if a part, it is owed for that part which shall have been [his] at the time of the testator’s death.
Si ita scriptum sit: "lucius titius heres meus aut maevius heres meus decem seio dato", cum utro velit, seius aget, ut, si cum uno actum sit et solitum, alter liberetur, quasi si duo rei promittendi in solidum obligati fuissent. quid ergo si ab altero partem petierit? liberum cui erit ab alterutro reliquum petere.
if it is written thus: "lucius titius my heir or maevius my heir, give ten to seius," seius will sue whichever he wishes, so that, if action has been brought against one and payment made, the other is released, as if two promisors of the obligation had been bound in solidum. what then if he has sought a part from one? it will be open to him to seek the remainder from either.
Si ita legatum sit: "lecticarios octo aut pro his in homines singulos certam pecuniam, utrum legatarius volet", non potest legatarius partem servorum vindicare, pro parte nummos petere, quia unum in alterutra causa legatum sit, quemadmodum si olei pondo quinquaginta aut in singulas libras certum aes legatum sit: ne aliter observantibus etiam uno homine legato divisio concedatur. nec interest, divisa ea summa an iuncta ponatur: et certe octo servis aut pro omnibus certa pecunia legata non posse invitum heredem partem pecuniae, partem mancipiorum debere.
If a legacy is thus left: "eight litter-bearers, or in place of these, for each individual a fixed sum of money, whichever the legatee shall wish," the legatee cannot claim a part of the slaves and for a part demand cash, because the legacy is one in either alternative, just as if fifty pounds in weight of oil, or for each pound a fixed amount of bronze-money, had been bequeathed; lest, if we were to observe otherwise, division would be allowed even where one man has been bequeathed. Nor does it matter whether that sum is set forth divided or conjoined: and certainly, where eight slaves have been bequeathed, or for all of them a fixed sum of money, the heir cannot, against his will, be made to owe part money and part slaves.
Cum filio familias vel servo alieno legatum vel hereditas datur, fidei committi patris vel domini potest ac tunc demum ex persona ipsorum fideicommissum vires capit, cum ipsis, per quos commodum hereditatis vel legati patri dominove quaeritur, fideicommissum relinquitur. denique iulianus non insuptili ratione motus patrem, cuius filius heres institutus est, extero quidem habita ratione legis falcidiae restituere hereditatem respondit, quoniam ex persona filii teneretur, ipsi vero filio non admissa falcidia, quoniam ex persona sua sibi filius obligare non posset ac pater non ut heres, sed ut pater rogari videtur. et ideo si filio rogatus sit pater post mortem suam, quod ad se pervenit ex legato vel hereditate filio relictis, restituere isque vivo patre decedat, omnimodo patrem id retenturum, quoniam fideicommissum ex persona patris vires acceperit.
When a legacy or an inheritance is given to a son in paternal power or to another’s slave, it can be committed to the good faith of the father or the master; and then at last the fideicommissum takes force from their person, when the fideicommissum is left to those very persons through whom the benefit of the inheritance or the legacy is sought for the father or the master. Finally, Julian, moved by no unsubtle reasoning, replied that a father whose son has been instituted heir should restore the inheritance, the reckoning of the Lex Falcidia being had as for an outsider, since he would be bound from the person of the son; but to the son himself the Falcidia is not admitted, since the son could not obligate himself from his own person, and the father seems to be asked not as heir, but as father. And therefore, if the father is asked, for after his own death, to restore what has come to him from a legacy or inheritance left to the son, and the son dies while the father is alive, the father will in every way retain it, since the fideicommissum took its force from the person of the father.
Si mihi et tibi eadem res legata fuerit, deinde die legati cedente heres tibi exstitero, liberum mihi esse labeo ait, ex meo legato an ex eo, quod tibi heres sim, adquiram legatum: si voluero, eam rem ex meo legato ad me pertinere, ut tota mea sit, ex hereditario legato petere eam posse.
If the same thing shall have been bequeathed to me and to you, and then, when the day for the legacy vests, I have become your heir, Labeo says it is free for me whether I acquire the legacy by my own legacy or by that fact that I am your heir: if I shall wish that thing to pertain to me from my own legacy, so that it be wholly mine, I can demand it under the hereditary legacy.
In legatis novissimae scripturae valent, quia mutari causa praecedentis legati vel die vel condicione vel in totum ademptione potest. sed si sub alia et alia condicione legatum ademptum est, novissima ademptio spectanda est. interdum tamen in legatis non posterior, sed praecedens scriptura valet: nam si ita scripsero: "quod titio infra legavero, id neque do neque lego", quod infra legatum erit, non valebit.
In legacies the most recent writings prevail, because the ground of a preceding legacy can be changed either by date (day) or by condition or by total ademption. But if a legacy has been adempted under one condition and then another, the latest ademption is to be regarded. Sometimes, however, in legacies it is not the later, but the preceding writing that prevails: for if I shall have written thus: "whatever I shall have bequeathed to Titius below, that I neither give nor bequeath," that which is bequeathed below will not be valid.
Si ita sit adscriptum: "si cui legavero bis, semel heres ei dato" vel "ut semel debeatur", et eidem duas quantitates adscripserit vel duos fundos, an utrumque debeatur? et ait aristo unum videri legatum: nam quod ademptum est, nec datum videri secundum celsi et Marcelli sententiam, quae vera est.
If it has been written thus: "if I shall have bequeathed to someone twice, let the heir give to him once," or "that it be owed once," and he has written down for the same person two quantities or two estates, are both owed? And Aristo says that it is to be regarded as one legacy: for that which has been taken away is not regarded as having been given, according to the opinion of Celsus and Marcellus, which is true.
Sed papinianus libro nono decimo quaestionum ait etsi post legata saepius adscripta idem hoc subiecit semel praestari velle et hoc ante impletum testamentum fecerit, ipso iure videri cetera legata adempta. sed quo magis erit ademptum? non enim apparet.
But Papinian, in the nineteenth book of the Quaestiones, says that even if, after legacies had been more than once ascribed, he subjoined this same provision—that he wishes it to be performed once—and he did this before he brought the testament to completion, the other legacies are seen ipso iure to have been adeemed. But in what respect will it be the more adeemed? For it does not appear.
Heres adiecto ei nomine cuiusdam, qui heres non sit, dare damnatus totum legatum debet: nam et si duos ex heredibus suis nominatim quis damnasset et alter hereditatem non adisset, qui adisset totum deberet, si pars eius qui non adisset ad eum qui adisset pervenerit.
An heir, with the name of a certain person who is not an heir added to him, being charged to give, must give the whole legacy: for even if someone had specifically charged two of his heirs, and one had not entered upon the inheritance, the one who had entered would owe the whole, if the share of the one who had not entered had come to the one who had entered.
Si titio et postumis legatum sit, non nato postumo totum titius vindicabit. sed et si testator titio et postumis viriles partes dari voluisset vel etiam id expressisset, totum legatum titio debetur non nato postumo.
If a legacy has been left to Titius and to posthumous children, with the posthumous child not having been born, Titius will claim the whole. But also if the testator had wished that virile portions be given to Titius and to the posthumous children, or had even expressed this, the whole legacy is owed to Titius, the posthumous child not having been born.
Legata inutiliter data papinianus putat libro quaestionum confirmari per repetitionem, id est per hanc scripturam postea forte in codicillis factam: "hoc amplius ei heres meus dato", et diversum esse in illa scriptura: "quas pecunias legavi, quibus dies adpositus non est, annua bima trima die heres meus dare damnas esto": non enim hoc egisse testatorem, ut confirmaret quae inutilia sunt, sed ut diem utilibus prorogaret.
Papinian thinks that legacies given ineffectually are confirmed by repetition, that is, by this writing later perhaps made in codicils: "this further let my heir give to him"; and that it is different in that writing: "the moneys which I have bequeathed, to which no day has been appended, on the one-, two-, or three-year day let my heir be bound to give"; for the testator did not do this to confirm what is useless, but to prorogue the day for what is valid.
Si grege legato aliqua pecora vivo testatore mortua essent in eorumque locum aliqua essent substituta, eundem gregem videri: et si deminutum ex eo grege pecus esset et vel unus bos superesset, eum vindicari posse, quamvis grex desisset esse: quemadmodum insula legata, si combusta esset, area possit vindicari.
If, a herd having been bequeathed, some cattle died while the testator was alive and others were substituted in their place, the same herd is deemed to subsist: and if the stock from that herd had been diminished and even a single ox survived, it can be claimed by vindication, although the herd had ceased to be: just as, if an island were bequeathed, if it were burned, the site can be claimed.
Si quis post testamentum factum fundo titiano legato partem aliquam adiecerit, quam fundi titiani destinaret, id quod adiectum est exigi a legatario potest (et similis est causa alluvionis) et maxime si ex alio agro, qui fuit eius cum testamentum faceret, eam partem adiecit.
If someone, after the testament has been made and the Titian estate bequeathed, has added some part which he intended for the Titian estate, that which has been added can be demanded by the legatee (and the case is similar to alluvion), and especially if he added that part from another field which was his when he made the testament.
Quod si post testamentum factum ex fundo titiano aliquid detraxit et alii fundo adiecit, videndum est, utrumne eam quoque partem legatarius petiturus sit an hoc minus, quasi fundi titiani esse desierit, cum nostra destinatione fundorum nomina et domus, non natura constituerentur.
But if, after the testament was made, he subtracted something from the Titian estate and added it to another estate, it must be considered whether the legatee will be going to claim that part also, or so much the less, as though it had ceased to belong to the Titian estate, since the names of estates and of houses are constituted by our designation, not by nature.
A filio herede etiam pure patri legari potest nec interest, an die cedente legati in patris potestate sit: igitur et si iussu patris adita sit hereditas, imputabitur ei in falcidiam.
A legacy can be left by a son who is heir to his father even purely (unconditionally), nor does it matter whether, when the day for the legacy accrues, he is under the father’s power: therefore, even if the inheritance has been entered upon at the father’s order, it will be imputed to him under the Falcidian.
Cum bonorum parte legata dubium sit, utrum rerum partes an aestimatio debeatur, sabinus quidem et cassius aestimationem, proculus et nerva rerum partes esse legatas existimaverunt. sed oportet heredi succurri, ut ipse eligat, sive rerum partes sive aestimationem dare maluerit. in his tamen rebus partem dare heres conceditur, quae sine damno dividi possunt: sin autem vel naturaliter indivisae sint vel sine damno divisio earum fieri non potest, aestimatio ab herede omnimodo praestanda est.
When, a part of the estate having been bequeathed, it is doubtful whether portions of the things or an estimation (valuation) is owed, Sabinus indeed and Cassius judged that an estimation was owed, Proculus and Nerva that portions of the things were bequeathed. But the heir ought to be afforded relief, so that he himself may choose whether he prefers to give portions of the things or an estimation. Yet the heir is permitted to give a part in those things which can be divided without damage; but if either they are naturally indivisible or their division cannot be made without damage, an estimation must in every way be furnished by the heir.
Si creditori meo, tutus adversus eum exceptione, id quod ei debeo legem, utile legatum est, quia remissa exceptio videtur, sicut aristo ait id quod honoraria actione mihi debetur si legetur mihi, legatum valere, quia civilis mihi datur actio pro honoraria.
If, being secure against my creditor by an exception, I bequeath to him what I owe him, the legacy is utile (operative), because the exception is considered remitted; just as Aristo says that, if what is owed to me by an honorary action is bequeathed to me, the legacy is valid, because a civil action is given to me in place of the honorary one.
Quid si forte centum mihi legata sunt praesentia, utrum annua die dabuntur an vero praesentia? et ait servius et labeo praesens deberi. quamvis igitur supervacua sit haec adiectio, quantum ad vim et effectum legati pertinet, tamen ad hoc proficiet, ut praesenti die legatum debeatur.
What if by chance a hundred have been bequeathed to me “as present”: are they to be given on the yearly day, or indeed as present? And Servius and Labeo say that “as present” is owed. Although therefore this addition is superfluous, so far as the force and effect of the legacy are concerned, nevertheless it will profit for this, that the legacy be owed on the present day.
Si quis a filio pupillo herede instituto, cum is in tutelam suam venisset, pecuniam legaverit et a substituto herede legata repetierat, impubere filio mortuo secundus heres legatum non debebit. quod ita verum esse tam sextus quam pomponius putant, si repetitio legatorum ad eum modum concepta sit veluti: "quae a filio meo legavi quaeque eum dare iussi, si mihi heres esset, id heres meus isdem diebus dato": sed si ita repetita fuerint: "quae a filio meo legavi, heres meus dato", pure repetita videbuntur legata et dumtaxat demonstratio eorum facta: igitur et hoc ipsum legatum de quo quaeritur praesens debebitur.
If someone, with a son who is a ward appointed as heir, when he had come into his tutelage, has bequeathed money and had repeated the legacies from the substitute heir, with the underage son having died the second heir will not owe the legacy. Both Sextus and Pomponius think this is true if the repetition of the legacies has been conceived in this manner, for example: "the things which I have bequeathed from my son and which I have ordered him to give, if he were my heir, that let my heir give on the same days": but if they have been repeated thus: "the things which I have bequeathed from my son, let my heir give," the legacies will be seen to have been repeated purely and only a demonstration of them made: therefore this very legacy about which inquiry is made will be presently due.
Si pluribus eadem res legata fuerit, si quidem coniunctim, etiamsi alter vindicet, alter ex testamento agat, non plus quam partem habebit is qui ex testamento aget: quod si separatim, si quidem evidentissime apparuerit ademptione a priore legatario facta ad secundum legatum testatorem convolasse, solum posteriorem ad legatum pervenire placet: sin autem hoc minime apparere potest, pro virili portione ad legatum omnes venire: scilicet nisi ipse testator ex scriptura manifestissimus est utrumque eorum solidum accipere voluisse: tunc enim uni pretium, alii ipsa res adsignatur electione rei vel pretii servanda ei, qui prior de legato sive fideicommisso litem contestatus est, ita tamen, ut non habeat licentiam altero electo ad alterum transire.
If the same thing has been bequeathed to several persons, then, if jointly, even if one vindicates and another sues under the testament, he who sues under the testament will have not more than a share. But if separately, if indeed it has most evidently appeared that, by an ademption made from the earlier legatee, the testator has shifted to the second legacy, it is deemed that only the later attains the legacy; but if this cannot at all appear, all come to the legacy pro virili portione; namely, unless the testator himself from the writing is most manifest to have wished each of them to receive the whole: for then to one the price, to the other the thing itself is assigned, with the choice of the thing or of the price to be reserved to him who first has entered suit regarding the legacy or fideicommissum, yet in such a way that, once the one is chosen, he does not have license to pass over to the other.
Plane ubi transferre voluit legatum in novissimum, priori non debebitur, tametsi novissimus talis sit, in cuius persona legatum non constitit. at si coniuncti disiunctive commixti sint, coniuncti unius personae potestate funguntur.
Clearly, when he wished to transfer the legacy to the latest, it will not be owed to the earlier, even though the latest be such a one in whose person the legacy did not take effect. But if those conjoined are mingled with those disjunctively named, the conjoined function with the power of a single person.
Sed si non corpus sit legatum, sed quantitas eadem in eodem testamento saepius, divus pius rescripsit tunc saepius praestandam summam, si evidentissimis probationibus ostendatur testatorem multiplicasse legatum voluisse: idemque et in fideicommisso constituit. eiusque rei ratio evidens est, quod eadem res saepius praestari non potest, eadem summa volente testatore multiplicari potest.
But if not a specific thing (corpus) be bequeathed, but the same quantity in the same testament repeatedly, the Deified Pius wrote in a rescript that then the sum is to be furnished repeatedly, if by most evident proofs it is shown that the testator wished to multiply the legacy; and he established the same also in the fideicommissum. And the rationale of this matter is evident, because the same thing cannot be furnished repeatedly, but the same sum, the testator willing, can be multiplied.
Et multo magis hoc dicendum est, si duobus testamentis mihi eadem res legata sit, sed alter me restituere rogaverit vel ipsam rem vel aliud pro ea, aut si sub condicione legasset dandi quid pro ea: nam hactenus mihi abesse res videtur, quatenus sum praestaturus.
And much more must this be said, if by two testaments the same thing has been bequeathed to me, but in one I have been asked to restore either the thing itself or something else in its stead, or if it had been bequeathed under the condition of giving something for it: for the thing seems to be absent from me only to the extent that I am to make it good.
Si coniunctim res legetur, constat partes ab initio fieri. nec solum hi partem faciunt, in quorum persona constitit legatum, verum hi quoque, in quorum persona non constitit legatum, ut puta si titio et servo proprio sine libertate.
If a thing is bequeathed jointly, it is agreed that the shares arise from the beginning. And not only do those count as forming a share in whose person the legacy has taken effect, but also those in whose person the legacy has not taken effect—for example, if [it is left] to Titius and to one’s own slave without freedom.
Sed et si quis ita leget titio: "fundum do lego, ut eum pro parte habeat ", mihi videtur posse dici partem habiturum: videri enim fundi appellatione non totum fundum, sed partem appellasse: nam et pars fundi fundus recte appellatur.
But also, if someone should thus bequeath to titio: "I give and bequeath the fundus, so that he may have it as to a part ", it seems to me it can be said that he will have a part: for it seems that by the appellation of fundus he designated not the whole fundus, but a part; for even a part of a fundus is rightly called a fundus.
" titiae textores meos omnes, praeterquam quos hoc testamento alii legavi, lego. plotiae vernas meos omnes, praeterquam quos alii legavi, lego". cum essent quidam et vernae idem et textores, labeo ait, quoniam nec quos titiae textores non legaverit, aliter apparere possit, quam si cognitum fuerit, quos eorum plotiae legaverit, nec quos plotiae vernas non legaverit, possit, neutrius legato exceptos esse eos de quibus quaeritur et ideo communes ambobus esse: hoc enim iuris est et si neutrius legati nomine quicquam esset exceptum.
" I bequeath to Titia all my weavers, except those whom by this testament I have bequeathed to others. I bequeath to Plotia all my homeborn slaves (vernae), except those whom I have bequeathed to others." Since there were some who were both vernae and likewise weavers, Labeo says that, since neither which of Titia’s weavers he did not bequeath can appear otherwise than if it be known which of them he bequeathed to Plotia, nor can it be determined which of Plotia’s vernae he did not bequeath, those about whom the question is raised are to be held as excepted by neither legacy and therefore to be common to both: for this is the law even if nothing had been excepted under the title of either legacy.
Legato generaliter relicto, veluti hominis, gaius cassius scribit id esse observandum, ne optimus vel pessimus accipiatur: quae sententia rescripto imperatoris nostri et divi severi iuvatur, qui rescripserunt homine legato actorem non posse eligi.
With a legacy left in general terms, as, for example, “of a man,” Gaius Cassius writes that this is to be observed: that neither the best nor the worst be taken; which opinion is aided by a rescript of our emperor and the deified Severus, who rescripted that, when “a man” has been bequeathed, an actor (estate-manager) cannot be selected.
Si de certo fundo sensit testator nec appareat de quo cogitavit, electio heredis erit, quem velit dare: aut si appareat, ipse fundus vindicabitur. sed et si lancem legaverit nec appareat quam, aeque electio est heredis, quam velit dare.
If the testator intended a certain estate and it does not appear which one he had in mind, the choice will belong to the heir, which one he wishes to give; but if it does appear, the estate itself will be vindicated. But also if he has bequeathed a scale-pan and it does not appear which, likewise the choice is the heir’s, which he wishes to give.
Si legatum nobis relictum constituerimus nolle ad nos pertinere, pro eo erit, quasi nec legatum quidem sit: et ideo dicimus nec confusas servitutes, si forte praedium mihi legatum praedio meo debuerit servitutes, et integra furti actio manebit, si servus legatus sit ei, cuius nomine furti agere poterit legatarius.
If we have determined that a legacy left to us is not to pertain to us, it will be as if there were not even a legacy; and therefore we say that the servitudes are not confounded (merged), if perchance a praedium bequeathed to me had owed servitudes to my own praedium; and the action for theft will remain intact, if a slave has been bequeathed to him in whose name the legatee will be able to bring an action for theft.
Cum servus legatus in fuga esset vel longinquo absens exigatur, operam praestare heres debet, ut eam rem requirat et praestet, et ita iulianus scribit. nam et sumptum an in hanc rem facere heres deberet, africanus libro vicesimo epistularum apud iulianum quaerit putatque sumptum praestandum, quod et ego arbitror sequendum.
When a slave bequeathed as a legacy is in flight or is demanded while absent at a distance, the heir ought to render effort, so that he may seek out and deliver that thing; and thus iulianus writes. For also whether the heir ought to incur expense in this matter, africanus in the twentieth book of the Epistles, as cited by iulianus, inquires, and he thinks that the expense must be furnished—which likewise I judge should be followed.
Fructus autem hi deducuntur in petitionem, non quos heres percepit, sed quos legatarius percipere potuit: et id in operis servorum vel vecturis iumentorum vel naulis navium dicendum. quod in fructibus dicitur, hoc et in pensionibus urbanorum aedificiorum intellegendum erit. in usurarum autem quantitate mos regionis erit sequendus: iudex igitur usurarum modum aestimabit et statuet.
Moreover, as to fruits, these are brought into the claim, not those which the heir received, but those which the legatee could have received: and this is to be said with respect to the labor of slaves, the hire of beasts of burden, or the freightage of ships. What is said about fruits is to be understood likewise in the rents of urban buildings. As to the quantity of usury, the custom of the region is to be followed: therefore the judge will assess and fix the rate of usury.
He likewise owes the destruction of the thing itself after delay (mora), just as, in a stipulation, if after delay the thing should have perished, its valuation is rendered. Likewise, the offspring of female slaves; and, if a slave has been bequeathed, the heir must make good the inheritance or the legacy, or whatever has been acquired through him.
Si titius a me rem emisset et eandem mihi legasset antequam ei traderem, mox ei tradidero et pretium recepero, videtur quidem is prima facie rem mihi meam legasse et ideo legatum non consistere. sed ex empto actione liberatus utique per legatum rem vindicare potero quam tradidi. sed si nondum erat solutum mihi pretium, iulianus scribit ex vendito quidem me acturum, ut pretium exsequar, ex testamento vero, ut rem quam vendidi et tradidi recipiam.
If Titius bought a thing from me and bequeathed that same thing to me before I delivered it to him, and afterwards I delivered it to him and received the price, it seems indeed, prima facie, that he bequeathed to me my own thing, and therefore the legacy does not stand. But, being released from the action ex empto, I will certainly be able, by virtue of the legacy, to vindicate the thing that I delivered. But if the price had not yet been paid to me, Julian writes that I will proceed on the action ex vendito, to exact the price, and on the testament, to recover the thing which I sold and delivered.
Scio ex facto tractatum, cum quidam duos fundos eiusdem nominis habens legasset fundum cornelianum et esset alter pretii maioris, alter minoris et heres diceret minorem legatum, legatarius maiorem: volgo fatebitur utique minorem eum legasse, si maiorem non potuerit docere legatarius.
I know from a factual case that it has been treated thus: when a certain person, having two estates of the same name, had bequeathed the Cornelian estate, and one was of greater price and the other of lesser, and the heir said the lesser had been bequeathed, the legatee the greater, it will commonly be admitted in any case that he bequeathed the lesser, if the legatee cannot show the greater.
Sed et ea praedia caesaris, quae in formam patrimonii redacta sub procuratore patrimonii sunt, si legentur, nec aestimatio eorum debet praestari, quoniam commercium eorum nisi iussu principis non sit, cum distrahi non soleant.
But likewise those estates of Caesar, which have been reduced into the form of the patrimony and are under the procurator of the patrimony, if they are bequeathed, even their appraisal ought not to be provided, since commerce in them does not exist unless by the order of the Princeps, inasmuch as they are not wont to be sold off.
Tractari tamen poterit, si quando marmora vel columnae fuerint separatae ab aedibus, an legatum convalescat. et si quidem ab initio non constitit legatum, ex post facto non convalescet, quemadmodum nec res mea legata mihi, si post testamentum factum fuerit alienata, quia vires ab initio legatum non habuit. sed si sub condicione legetur, poterit legatum valere, si exsistentis condicionis tempore mea non sit vel aedibus iuncta non sit, secundum eos, qui et emi rem meam sub condicione et promitti mihi stipulanti et legari aiunt.
It may nevertheless be discussed, if ever marbles or columns have been separated from the house, whether the legacy becomes valid. And if indeed the legacy did not stand from the beginning, it will not be validated ex post facto, just as neither does a thing of mine bequeathed to me, if after the will has been made it has been alienated, because the legacy did not have force from the beginning. But if it is bequeathed under a condition, the legacy can be valid if, at the time when the condition comes to exist, it is not mine or is not joined to the house, according to those who say that even my own thing may be bought under a condition, and be promised to me when I am stipulating, and be bequeathed.
Item quaeri potest, si quis binas aedes habens alteras legaverit et ex alteris aliquid iunctum ei cui aedes legavit, an legatum valebit? movet quaestionem, quod ex senatus consulto et constitutionibus licet nobis ab aedibus nostris in alias aedes transferre possessoribus earum futuris, id est non distracturis: et ita imperator noster et divus severus rescripserunt. numquid ergo et legari possit ei, cui aliam domum legem?
Likewise it can be asked, if someone, having two houses, should bequeath one house and, from the other, something joined to it to the person to whom he has bequeathed the house, will the legacy be valid? the question is prompted by the fact that, by a senatus consultum and by constitutions, it is permitted to us to transfer from our houses into other houses for their future possessors, that is, those not going to alienate them; and to this effect our emperor and the deified Severus issued rescripts. might it therefore also be able to be bequeathed to him to whom I bequeath another house?
Si duobus domum legaverit sempronianam et ex ea alteri eorum marmora ad exstructionem domus seianae quam ei legaverat, non male agitabitur, an valeat, quia dominus est utriusque legatarius. et quid si quis domum deductis marmoribus legaverit, quae voluit heredem habere ad exstruendam domum, quam retinebat in hereditate? sed melius dicetur in utroque detractionem non valere: legatum tamen valebit, ut aestimatio eorum praestetur.
If he has bequeathed the Sempronian house to two, and from it to one of them the marbles for the construction of the Seian house which he had bequeathed to him, it will not be ill debated whether this should be valid, since the legatee is the owner of both. And what if someone has bequeathed the house with the marbles deducted, which marbles he wished the heir to have for constructing a house which he was retaining in the inheritance? But it will be better said that in both cases the detraction is not valid; nevertheless the legacy will be valid, so that the valuation of them be rendered.
Sed si quis ad opus rei publicae faciendum legavit, puto valere legatum: nam et papinianus libro undecimo responsorum refert imperatorem nostrum et divum severum constituisse eos, qui rei publicae ad opus promiserint, posse detrahere ex aedibus suis urbanis atque rusticis et id ad opus uti, quia hi quoque non promercii causa id haberent. sed videamus, utrum ei soli civitati legari possit, in cuius territorio est, an et de alia civitate in aliam transferre possit. et puto non esse permittendum, quamquam constitutum sit, ut de domu, quam aliquis habet, ei permittatur in domum alterius civitatis transferre.
But if someone has bequeathed for the doing of a work of the commonwealth, I think the legacy is valid: for Papinian too, in the eleventh book of the Responses, reports that our emperor and the deified Severus established that those who have promised for a public work can remove from their urban and rustic buildings and use that for the work, because they too did not have it for the sake of commerce. But let us see whether it can be legated only to the community in whose territory it is, or whether it can also be transferred from one community to another. And I think it ought not to be permitted, although it has been established that from a house which someone has, it is permitted to him to transfer into a house of another community.
Item hoc prohibetur haec legari, quod non alias praestari potest, quam ut aedibus detrahatur subducatur, id est marmora, vel columnae. idem et in tegulis et in tignis et ostiis senatus censuit: sed et in bibliothecis parietibus inhaerentibus.
Likewise this is prohibited: that such things be bequeathed as cannot otherwise be furnished except by being taken off or removed from the house, that is, marbles or columns. The same, too, the senate decreed regarding tiles, and regarding beams and doors; and likewise regarding libraries adhering to the walls.
Quid ergo in statuis dicendum? si quidem inhaerent parietibus, non licebit, si vero alias exsistant, dubitari potest: verum mens senatus plenius accipienda est, ut si qua ibi fuerunt perpetua, quasi portio aedium distrahi non possint.
What, then, is to be said about statues? If indeed they adhere to the walls, it will not be permitted; but if they exist otherwise, there may be room for doubt: yet the intention of the Senate is to be taken more fully, namely that, if any there were perpetual, they cannot be detached as though a portion of the building.
Proinde dicendum est nec tabulas adfixas et parietibus adiunctas vel singula sigilla adaequata legari posse. sed si paravit quaedam testator quasi translaturus in aliam domum et haec legavit, dubitari poterit, an valeat: et puto valere.
Accordingly it must be said that neither tablets affixed and adjoined to the walls, nor individual statuettes fitted in place, can be bequeathed. But if the testator procured certain things as though about to move into another house and bequeathed these, it could be doubted whether it is valid; and I think it is valid.
Senatus enim ea, quae non sunt aedium, legari permisit, haec autem mortis tempore aedium non fuerunt: heres ergo aestimationem praestabit. sed si detraxerit ut praestiterit, poenis erit locus, quamvis ut non vendat, detraxit, sed ut exsolvat.
For the Senate permitted those things which are not of the house to be bequeathed; but these, at the time of death, were not of the house: therefore the heir will furnish the valuation. But if he has removed them in order to furnish it, there will be room for penalties, although he removed them not so as to sell, but so as to discharge.
Marcellus etiam scribit, si maritus diaetam in uxoris hortis, quos in dotem acceperat, fecerit, posse eum haec detrahere, quae usui eius futura sint, sine mulieris tamen damno, nec ad hoc senatus consultum futurum impedimento. ergo si non est ei obfuturum, quo minus detrahat, dici oportebit posse eum haec legare, quae detrahere potest.
Marcellus also writes that, if a husband has made a suite (diaeta) in his wife’s gardens, which she had received in dowry, he can remove those things which will be for his use, yet without damage to the woman; nor will a senatus‑consultum be an impediment to this. Therefore, if nothing is going to be adverse to him so as to hinder him from removing them, it ought to be said that he can bequeath those things which he can remove.
Servum filii sui castrensis peculii legare pater potest et, si vivo patre mortuus sit filius et apud patrem peculium remansit, constitit legatum: cum enim filius iure suo non utitur, retro creditur pater dominium in servo peculiari habuisse.
A father can bequeath by legacy the slave of his son’s castrense peculium; and if the son dies while the father is alive and the peculium has remained with the father, the legacy is established: for since the son is not exercising his own right, it is considered retroactively that the father had ownership in the peculium-slave.
Si quis rem, sibi legatam ignorans adhuc, legaverit, postea cognoverit et voluerit ad se pertinere, legatum valebit, quia, ubi legatarius non repudiavit, retro ipsius fuisse videtur, ex quo hereditas adita est: si vero repudiaverit, retro videtur res repudiata fuisse heredis.
If someone, still ignorant that a thing had been bequeathed to himself, has himself bequeathed it, and afterward learned of it and wished it to pertain to himself, the legacy will be valid, because, where the legatee has not repudiated, it is considered to have been his retroactively from the time the inheritance was entered upon: but if he has repudiated, the thing is deemed retroactively to have been the heir’s.
Si pocula quis legavit et massa facta est vel contra, item si lana legetur et vestimentum ex ea fiat, iulianus libro trigesimo secundo scripsit legatum in omnibus supra scriptis consistere et deberi quod exstat: quam sententiam puto veram, si modo non mutaverit testator voluntatem.
If someone has bequeathed cups and an ingot has been made, or the reverse; likewise, if wool is bequeathed and a garment is made from it, Julian, in book 32, wrote that the legacy in all the aforesaid cases stands and that what exists is owed: which opinion I think true, provided only that the testator has not changed his intention.
Si idem servus et legatus et liber esse iussus sit, interdum procedere solum legatum poterit, ut puta si in fraudem creditoris data erit libertas: vel si is sit servus, qui in perpetuam servitutem venierit, idem erit: vel si servus sit forte pignori datus.
If the same slave has been both bequeathed and ordered to be free, sometimes only the legacy will be able to proceed, for instance if liberty has been given in fraud of a creditor; or if it is a slave who has been sold into perpetual servitude, it will be the same; or if by chance the slave has been given in pledge.
Si statuliberum heres legaverit, expediet heredi ipsum statuliberum praestare magis quam aestimationem. etenim aestimationem veram praestabit: ipsum vero si dederit, exsistente condicione nullum sentiet damnum: iam enim aestimatio postea non petitur ab eo hominis liberi.
If an heir has bequeathed a statuliber, it will be more expedient for the heir to furnish the statuliber himself rather than the valuation. For he will furnish the true valuation: but if he gives the person himself, with the condition existing he will feel no loss: for indeed thereafter a valuation of a free man is not sought from him.
Heres generaliter dare damnatus sanum eum esse promittere non debet, sed furtis et noxiis solutum esse promittere debebit, quia ita dare debet, ut eum habere liceat: sanitas autem servi ad proprietatem eius nihil pertinet: sed ob id, quod furtum fecit servus aut noxam nocuit, evenit, quo minus eum habere domino liceat, sicuti ob id, quod obligatus est fundus, accidere possit, ut eum habere domino non liceat.
An heir condemned generally to give ought not to promise that he is sound, but ought to promise that he is free from thefts and noxal liabilities, because he must give in such a way that it is lawful to have him: the health of the slave pertains nothing to his proprietorship; but on account of the slave’s having committed theft or incurred noxal liability, it results that it is not lawful for the owner to have him—just as, on account of a farm being encumbered, it can happen that it is not lawful for the owner to have it.
Cum res legata est, si quidem propria fuit testatoris et copiam eius habet, heres moram facere non debet, sed eam praestare. sed si res alibi sit quam ubi petitur, primum quidem constat ibi esse praestandam, ubi relicta est, nisi alibi testator voluit: nam si alibi voluit, ibi praestanda est, ubi testator voluit vel ubi verisimile est eum voluisse: et ita iulianus scripsit tam in propriis quam in alienis legatis. sed si alibi relicta est, alibi autem ab herede translata est dolo malo eius: nisi ibi praestetur ubi petitur, heres condemnabitur doli sui nomine: ceterum si sine dolo, ibi praestabitur, quo transtulit.
When a thing is bequeathed, if indeed it was the testator’s own and the heir has it at his disposal, the heir ought not to make delay, but should furnish it. But if the thing is in a different place than that in which it is demanded, first it is agreed that it is to be furnished where it was left, unless the testator wished otherwise: for if he wished it elsewhere, it is to be furnished where the testator wished, or where it is plausible that he wished: and thus Julian wrote both in legacies of one’s own property and in those of another’s. But if it was left in one place, and was transferred by the heir to another place by his malice, then unless it is furnished where it is demanded, the heir will be condemned under the head of his fraud: otherwise, if without fraud, it will be furnished where he transferred it.
Sed si id petatur quod pondere numero mensura continetur, si quidem certum corpus legatum est, veluti frumentum ex illo horreo vel vinum ex apotheca illa, ibi praestabitur ubi relictum est, nisi alia mens fuit testantis: sin vero non fuit certa species, ibi erit praestandum ubi petitur.
But if that is sought which is contained by weight, number, or measure, if indeed a determinate corpus has been bequeathed, for example grain from that granary or wine from that cellar, it shall be furnished where it was left, unless the testator’s mind was otherwise; but if there was no determinate kind, it must be furnished where it is demanded.
Itaque si stichus sit legatus et culpa heredis non pareat, debebit aestimationem eius praestare: sed si culpa nulla intervenit, cavere heres debet de restitutione servi, non aestimationem praestare. sed et si alienus servus in fuga sit sine culpa heredis, idem dici potest: nam et in alieno culpa admitti potest: cavebit autem sic, ut, si fuerit adprehensus, aut ipse aut aestimatio praestetur: quod et in servo ab hostibus capto constat.
Accordingly, if Stichus has been bequeathed and does not appear by the heir’s fault, he will be bound to furnish his valuation: but if no fault has intervened, the heir ought to give security for the restitution of the slave, not to furnish the valuation. But also if another’s slave is in flight without the heir’s fault, the same can be said: for even in the case of another’s [slave] fault can be incurred. He will, however, give security thus, that, if he shall have been apprehended, either he himself or the valuation be provided: which likewise is established in the case of a slave captured by enemies.
Sed si stichus aut pamphilus legetur et alter ex his vel in fuga sit vel apud hostes, dicendum erit praesentem praestari aut absentis aestimationem: totiens enim electio est heredi committenda, quotiens moram non est facturus legatario. qua ratione placuit et, si alter decesserit, alterum omnimodo praestandum, fortassis vel mortui pretium. sed si ambo sint in fuga, non ita cavendum, ut, "si in potestate ambo redirent", sed "si vel alter", et "vel ipsum vel absentis aestimationem praestandam".
But if Stichus or Pamphilus shall be bequeathed, and one of these is either in flight or among the enemy, it must be said that the one present is to be furnished, or the estimation of the absent: for the election is to be committed to the heir as often as he will not be going to cause delay to the legatee. By which reasoning it has also been approved that, if one has died, the other must by all means be furnished, perhaps even the price of the deceased. But if both are in flight, it is not to be provided thus, namely, “if both should return under power,” but “if even one,” and “either himself or the estimation of the absent is to be furnished.”
Ergo cum esset sic relictum: "cum ad quartum decimum annum pervenisset, annua bima trima die", et decem et septem annorum mortis tempore inveniatur, praesens legatum erit. proinde si quindecim annorum, consequetur dicemus post biennium deberi: si sedecim, post annum debebitur: si menses desint ad septimum decimum annum, residuis mensibus debetur. haec ita, si putans minorem esse quattuordecim annorum, cum iam excessisset, sic legavit: si vero scit, triennium ad legati praestationem ex die testamenti facti numerabimus.
Therefore, since it was left thus: "when he had reached the fourteenth year, on the annual, biennial, triennial day," and he is found to be seventeen years of age at the time of death, the legacy will be presently due. Accordingly, if he is fifteen years old, he will obtain it—we shall say it is owed after two years (a biennium); if sixteen, it will be owed after one year; if months are lacking to the seventeenth year, it is owed for the remaining months. This holds thus, if the testator, supposing him to be under fourteen years when he had already passed it, so bequeathed; but if he knows, we shall reckon a three-year period (a triennium) for the performance of the legacy from the day the testament was made.
Et ideo si quidem ante quartum decimum annum decesserit, ad heredem nihil transit: certe postea ad heredem transfert. quod si testamenti facti tempore minor quattuordecim annis filius inveniatur, puto tempus annua bima trima die praestationis ex die completi quarti decimi anni statim cedere, nisi evidens alia mens probaretur testatoris aliud sentientis.
And therefore, if indeed he has died before the 14th year, nothing passes to the heir; certainly afterward it is transferred to the heir. But if at the time of the making of the testament the son is found to be under 14 years, I think the time for the annual, biennial, [and] triennial day of prestation begins to run at once from the day of the completed 14th year, unless an evident different intention of the testator, thinking otherwise, were proven.
Si titio decem quae ego debeo legavero et rogavero eadem creditori praestare, fideicommissum quidem in creditoris persona non valet, quia nihil eius interest, heres vero potest cum legatario agere, quia ipsius interest creditori solvi, ne eum conveniat: ergo propter hoc valebit legatum.
If I have bequeathed to Titius ten which I owe, and have requested him to render the same to the creditor, the fideicommiss does not, indeed, avail in the person of the creditor, because nothing is of his interest; but the heir can proceed against the legatee, because it is of his interest that the creditor be paid, lest he be sued: therefore on this account the legacy will be valid.
Sed si testator decem mihi sub fideiiussore debuit, fideicommissi petitio non solum heredi, sed et fideiussori competit: interest enim eius solvi mihi, quam ipsum conventum mandati actionem intendere: nec interest, solvendo sit nec ne.
But if the testator owed me ten under a guarantor, the petition of the fideicommissum is available not only to the heir but also to the guarantor: for it is to his interest that payment be made to me, rather than that, once he himself has been sued, he should have to bring an action of mandate; nor does it matter whether he is solvent or not.
Iulianus libro trigesimo nono digestorum scribit, si fideiussor creditori legasset quod ei deberet, an legatum valeret. et ait creditoris quidem nihil interesse, verum debitorem habere ex testamento actionem: interest enim ipsius liberari, quippe conveniri a fideiussoris herede non poterit.
Julianus, in the thirty-ninth book of the Digest, writes, if a surety had bequeathed to the creditor what was owed to him, whether the legacy would be valid. And he says that it is indeed of no concern to the creditor, but that the debtor has an action from the testament: for it is in his own interest to be released, since he will not be able to be sued by the heir of the surety.
Si hereditatis iudex contra heredem pronuntiaverit non agentem causam vel lusorie agentem, nihil hoc nocebit legatariis. quid ergo, si per iniuriam fuerit pronuntiatum, non tamen provocavit? iniuria ei facta non nocebit legatariis, ut et sabinus significat.
If the judge of the inheritance has pronounced against the heir as not conducting the case or as conducting it collusively, this will not harm the legatees at all. What then if it was pronounced wrongfully, yet he did not appeal? The injury done to him will not harm the legatees, as Sabinus also signifies.
if, however, judgment is pronounced in favor of the substitute, let us see whether he is held to the legatees; and since this pronouncement makes right as it pertains to his own person, is he by any chance bound to the legatees? for he cannot so shamelessly plead that judgment was rendered for him through favor. therefore he will answer to the legatees as well, as to the creditors.
Si quis ante quaestionem de familia habitam adierit hereditatem vel necem testatoris non defenderit, legatorum persecutio adversus fiscum locum habet. quid tamen, si fiscus bona non adgnoscat? ex necessitate redundabit onus legatorum ad heredem.
If someone, before a quaestio concerning the family has been held, has entered upon the inheritance, or has not defended the slaying of the testator, the pursuit of the legacies has place against the fisc. What, however, if the fisc does not acknowledge the goods? Of necessity the burden of the legacies will flow back upon the heir.
Si numerus nummorum legatus sit neque apparet quales sunt legati, ante omnia ipsius patris familias consuetudo, deinde regionis, in qua versatus est, exquirenda est: sed et mens patris familiae et legatarii dignitas vel caritas et necessitudo, item earum quae praecedunt vel quae sequuntur summarum scripta sunt spectanda.
If a number of coins has been bequeathed and it does not appear what kind have been bequeathed, before all the custom of the paterfamilias himself, then of the region in which he lived, is to be inquired into; but also the mind of the paterfamilias and the legatee’s dignity or affection and relationship, likewise the entries of the sums which precede or which follow, are to be looked at.
Sed si certos nummos (veluti quos in arca habet) aut certam lancem legavit, non numerata pecunia, sed ipsa corpora nummorum vel rei legatae continentur neque permutationem recipiunt et exemplo cuiuslibet corporis aestimanda sunt.
But if he has bequeathed specific coins (as, for instance, those he has in the chest) or a specific platter, it is not counted money that is comprised, but the very corpora of the coins or of the thing bequeathed; nor do they admit commutation, and they are to be appraised by the standard of any corporeal thing.
Si a filio impubere sub condicione legatum sit et filius heres exstitit, deinde mortuus est, potest dici patrem familias, qui a filio sub condicione legavit, a substituto pure repetit, statim voluisse a substituto dari, si filius pendente condicione decessisset.
If a legacy has been left by a son under age under a condition and the son has become heir, then died, it can be said that the paterfamilias, who made a bequest by the son under condition, claims it unconditionally from the substitute: he wished it to be given at once by the substitute, if the son had died while the condition was pending.
Si quis duos heredes scripserit et damnaverit unumquemque solidam rem legatario praestare, idem est atque si duobus testamentis legatum esset: nam et si mihi et filio vel servo meo esset eodem testamento legatum, sine dubio valeret legatum utriusque, ut et Marcellus apud iulianum adicit.
If someone has instituted two heirs and has charged each to furnish the entire thing to the legatee, it is the same as if the legacy had been made by two testaments: for even if to me and to my son or my slave a legacy had been made in the same testament, without doubt the legacy of each would be valid, as Marcellus also adds in Julian.
Sed si mortuum intulit fecitque religiosum locum legatum, si quidem patrem familias intulit, cum alio inferre non posset vel tam oportune non haberet, ex testamento non tenebitur: an vero teneatur, ut pretium loci praestet? et si quidem ipse pater familias illo inferri voluit, ex testamento non tenebitur: quod si heres intulit suo arbitrio, debebit praestare, si sit in hereditate, unde pretium praestetur: testator enim qui legavit vel alio inferri voluit vel pretium loci legatario offerri.
But if the heir brought in a corpse and made the bequeathed place religious (for burial), if indeed he brought in the paterfamilias, when he could not inter him elsewhere or did not have so opportune a place, he will not be bound under the testament: but is he, rather, to be held to furnish the price of the place? And if indeed the paterfamilias himself wished to be interred there, he will not be bound under the testament; but if the heir interred him by his own decision, he will have to provide it, if there is in the inheritance whence the price may be furnished: for the testator who made the legacy either wished to be interred elsewhere or to have the price of the place offered to the legatee.
Si res obligata per fideicommissum fuerit relicta, si quidem scit eam testator obligatam, ab herede luenda est, nisi si animo alio fuerit: si nesciat, a fideicommissario (nisi si vel hanc vel aliam rem relicturus fuisset, si scisset obligatam), vel potest aliquid esse superfluum exsoluto aere alieno. quod si testator eo animo fuit, ut, quamquam liberandorum praediorum onus ad heredes suos pertinere noluerit, non tamen aperte utique de his liberandis senserit, poterit fideicommissarius per doli exceptionem a creditoribus, qui hypothecaria secum agerent, consequi, ut actiones sibi exhiberentur: quod quamquam suo tempore non fecerit, tamen per iurisdictionem praesidis provinciae id ei praestabitur.
If an encumbered thing has been left by fideicommissum, then, if indeed the testator knows it to be encumbered, it is to be redeemed by the heir, unless he had a different intention; if he does not know, by the fideicommissary (unless he would have been going to leave either this thing or another, if he had known it was encumbered), or there may be something surplus once the alien debt has been paid. But if the testator was of such a mind that, although he did not wish the burden of freeing the estates to pertain to his heirs, nevertheless he had not, to be sure, expressly had a view about freeing them, the fideicommissary will be able, by the exception of fraud, to obtain from creditors who would proceed against him by hypothecary actions that the actions be exhibited to him; and although he did not do this at the proper time, nevertheless through the jurisdiction of the provincial governor this will be afforded to him.
Si ancillas omnes et quod ex his natum erit testator legaverit, una mortua servius partum eius negat deberi, quia accessionis loco legatus sit: quod falsum puto et nec verbis nec voluntati defuncti accommodata haec sententia est.
If a testator has bequeathed all the maidservants and whatever shall be born from them, and one has died, Servius denies that her offspring is owed, because it was bequeathed as an accession: which I think is false, and this opinion is accommodated neither to the words nor to the intention of the deceased.
Si ita legatum sit: "seio servos decem do praeter eos decem, quos titio legavi", si quidem decem tantum inveniantur in hereditate, inutile est legatum, si vero ampliores, post eos, quos titius elegit, in ceteris valet legatum, sed non in ampliores quam decem qui legati sunt: quod si minus sunt, in tantos, quanti inveniantur.
If a legacy be thus made: “I give to Seius ten slaves, except those ten whom I have bequeathed to Titius,” if indeed only ten are found in the inheritance, the legacy is ineffectual; but if more, then after those whom Titius has chosen, the legacy is valid in the remainder, yet not for more than the ten that have been bequeathed; but if they are fewer, for as many as are found.
" illi, si volet, stichum do": condicionale est legatum et non aliter ad heredem transit, quam si legatarius voluerit, quamvis alias quod sine adiectione "si volet" legatum sit, ad heredem legatarii transmittitur: aliud est enim iuris, si quid tacite contineatur, aliud, si verbis exprimatur.
" to him, if he wishes, I give Stichus": it is a conditional legacy, and it does not otherwise pass to the heir than if the legatee has willed, although otherwise that which has been bequeathed without the addition "if he wishes" is transmitted to the heir of the legatee: for one thing in law is, if something is contained tacitly, another, if it is expressed in words.
Si domus fuerit legata, licet particulatim ita refecta sit, ut nihil ex pristina materia supersit, tamen dicemus utile manere legatum: at si ea domu destructa aliam eodem loco testator aedificaverit, dicemus interire legatum, nisi aliud testatorem sensisse fuerit adprobatum.
If a house has been bequeathed, although it has been refitted piecemeal in such a way that nothing of the pristine material remains, nevertheless we will say the legacy remains operative; but if, the house having been destroyed, the testator has built another in the same place, we will say the legacy perishes, unless it has been proved that the testator intended otherwise.
Etsi aequo pretio emere vel vendere iusserit heredem suum testator, adhuc utile legatum est. quid enim si legatarius, a quo emere fundum heres iussus est, cum ex necessitate eum fundum venderet, nullum inveniret emptorem ? vel ex diverso quid si legatarii magni interesset eum fundum emere nec aliter heres venditurus esset, quam si testator iussisset ?.
Even if the testator has ordered his heir to buy or to sell at an equal price, the legacy is still useful. For what, for instance, if the legatee, from whom the heir has been ordered to buy the farm, when he was selling that farm out of necessity, found no buyer ? Or, conversely, what if it greatly concerned the legatee to buy that farm, and the heir would not be going to sell it otherwise than if the testator had ordered it ?.
Servus uni ex heredibus legatus si quid in hereditate malitiose fecisse dicatur (forte rationes interlevisse), non aliter adiudicandus est, quam ex eo volentibus coheredibus quaestio habeatur. idem est et si extraneo fuerit legatus.
A slave bequeathed to one of the heirs, if it is said to have done anything malicious in the estate (for instance, to have tampered with the accounts), is not to be adjudicated except that, on that account, an inquiry be held at the wish of the coheirs. The same holds if it has been bequeathed to an outsider.
Sed si servo post mortem domini relictum legatum est, si quidem in ea causa durabit, ad heredem domini pertineat: usque adeo, ut idem iuris est et si testamento domini liber esse iussus fuerit: ante enim cedit dies legati, quam aliquis heres domino exsistat, quo fit, ut hereditati adquisitum legatum postea herede aliquo exsistente ad eum pertineat: praeterquam si suus heres aliquis aut necessarius domino ex eo testamento factus erit: tunc enim quia in unum concurrit, ut et heres exsistat et dies legati cedat, probabilius dicitur ad ipsum potius cui relictum est pertinere legatum quam ad heredem eius, a quo libertatem consequitur.
But if a legacy has been left to a slave after the death of his master, if indeed he remains in that condition, it pertains to the master’s heir: so much so that the same law holds even if by the master’s testament he has been ordered to be free; for the day of the legacy accrues before any heir comes into existence for the master, whereby it comes about that a legacy acquired to the inheritance (estate), afterwards, when some heir exists, pertains to him—except if some own heir (suus heres) or necessary heir (necessarius) for the master has been instituted from that testament: then indeed, since it coincides at one and the same moment that both an heir exists and the day of the legacy accrues, it is more plausible to say that the legacy pertains rather to the very person to whom it was left than to the heir of him from whom he obtains liberty.
Si pure legatus servus sub condicione liber esse iussus fuerit, sub contraria condicione valet legatum: et ideo exsistente condicione legatum peremitur, deficiente ad legatarium pertinebit. et ideo si pendente condicione libertatis legatarius decesserit posteaque defecerit condicio libertatis, ad heredem legatarii non pertinet legatum.
If a slave, bequeathed purely, has been ordered to be free under a condition, the legacy is valid under the contrary condition; and therefore, if the condition exists, the legacy is extinguished, but if it fails it will pertain to the legatee. And therefore, if while the condition of liberty is pending the legatee has died, and afterwards the condition of liberty has failed, the legacy does not pertain to the heir of the legatee.
Quod si idem pure legatus sit et ex die liber esse iussus erit, omnimodo inutile legatum est, quia diem venturam certum est. ita iulianus quoque sensit, unde ait: si servus titio legatus sit et idem post mortem titii liber esse iussus fuerit, inutile legatum est, quia moriturum titium certum est.
But if the same has been bequeathed purely (unconditionally) and is ordered to be free as of a day, in every way the legacy is ineffective, because it is certain that the day will come. Thus Julian likewise felt, whence he says: if a slave has been bequeathed to Titius and the same has been ordered to be free after the death of Titius, the legacy is ineffective, because it is certain that Titius will die.
Si testator quosdam ex heredibus iusserit aes alienum solvere, non creditores habebunt adversus eos actionem, sed coheredes, quorum interest hoc fieri. nec solum hoc casu alius habet actionem, quam cui testator dari iussit, sed alio quoque, veluti si filiae nomine genero aut sponso dotem dari iusserit: non enim gener aut sponsus, sed filia habet actionem, cuius maxime interest indotatam non esse.
If the testator has ordered certain of the heirs to pay an alien debt (aes alienum), the creditors will not have an action against them, but the coheirs, whose interest it is that this be done. Nor is it only in this case that someone other than the one to whom the testator ordered it to be given has an action; but in another as well, for instance if he ordered a dowry to be given, in his daughter’s name, to a son-in-law or a betrothed: for it is not the son-in-law or the fiancé, but the daughter who has the action, since it is especially in her interest not to be dowryless.
Si res quae legata est an in rerum natura sit dubitetur, forte si dubium sit, an homo legatus vivat, placuit agi quidem ex testamento posse, sed officio iudicis contineri, ut cautio interponeretur, qua heres caveret eam rem persecuturum et, si nactus sit, legatario restituturum ^ restiturum^.
If it is in doubt whether the thing that has been bequeathed exists in the nature of things—for instance, if it is doubtful whether the person bequeathed is alive—it has been settled that an action may indeed be brought on the testament, but that it falls within the judge’s duty that security be furnished, whereby the heir shall give surety that he will pursue that thing and, if he obtains it, will restore it to the legatee.
Si servus titii furtum mihi fecerit, deinde titius herede me instituto servum tibi legaverit, non est iniquum talem servum tibi tradi, qualis apud titium fuit, id est ut me indemnem praestes furti nomine, quod is fecerit apud titium.
If Titius’s slave has committed theft against me, and then Titius, having instituted me as heir, has bequeathed the slave to you, it is not inequitable that such a slave be delivered to you as he was with Titius; that is, that you indemnify me under the head of theft for what he committed while with Titius.
De evictione an cavere debeat is, qui servum praestat ex causa legati, videamus. et regulariter dicendum est, quotiens sine iudicio praestita res legata evincitur, posse eam ex testamento peti: ceterum si iudicio petita est, officio iudicis cautio necessaria est, ut sit ex stipulatu actio.
Let us consider whether he who furnishes a slave by reason of a legacy ought to give security for eviction. And, as a rule, it must be said that whenever a legated thing that has been provided without litigation is evicted, it can be sought under the testament; but if it has been sought by action, by the judge’s office security is necessary, so that there may be an action ex stipulatu.
Qui confitetur se quidem debere, iustam autem causam adfert, cur utique praestare non possit, audiendus est: ut puta si aliena res legata sit negetque dominum eam vendere vel immensum pretium eius rei petere adfirmet, aut si servum hereditarium neget se debere praestare, forte patrem suum vel matrem vel fratres naturales: aequissimum est enim concedi ei ex hac causa aestimationem officio iudicis praestare.
He who confesses that he indeed owes, but brings forward a just cause why he cannot in any wise render performance, must be heard: for instance, if another’s thing has been bequeathed and he denies that the owner will sell it or affirms that he is demanding an immense price for that thing, or if he denies that he ought to furnish a hereditary slave—perhaps his own father or mother or natural brothers: for it is most equitable that, on this ground, it be conceded to him to pay a valuation, to be provided by the office of the judge.
Cum alicui poculum legatum esset velletque heres aestimationem praestare, quia iniquum esse aiebat id separari a se, non impetravit id a praetore: alia enim condicio est hominum, alia ceterarum rerum: in hominibus enim benigna ratione receptum est, quod supra probavimus.
When a cup had been bequeathed to someone and the heir wished to furnish the valuation, since he was saying it was unjust that it be separated from himself, he did not obtain this from the praetor: for the condition of human beings is one thing, that of the other things another; for in the case of human beings it has been received on a benign rationale, as we have proved above.
Si fundus municipum vectigalis ipsis municipibus sit legatus, an legatum consistat petique possit, videamus. et iulianus libro trigensimo octavo digestorum scribit, quamvis fundus vectigalis municipum sit, attamen quia aliquod ius in eo is qui legavit habet, valere legatum.
If a fundus subject to ground-rent (vectigal) of the municipality is bequeathed to the municipality itself, let us see whether the legacy stands and can be claimed. And Julian writes in book 38 of the Digest that, although the estate is a vectigalian property of the municipality, nevertheless, because the one who made the bequest has some right in it, the legacy is valid.
Licet imperator noster cum patre rescripserit videri voluntate testatoris repetita a substituto, quae ab instituto fuerant relicta, tamen hoc ita erit accipiendum, si non fuit evidens diversa voluntas: quae ex multis colligetur, an quis ab herede legatum vel fideicommissum relictum noluerit a substituto deberi. quid enim si aliam rem reliquit a substituto ei fideicommissario vel legatario, quam ab instituto non reliquerat? vel quid si certa causa fuit, cur ab instituto relinqueret, quae in substituto cessaret?
Although our emperor, together with his father, has rescripted that the things which had been left by the instituted heir are to be regarded, by the testator’s will, as claimed anew from the substitute, nevertheless this is to be understood thus, if a different intention was not evident: which will be gathered from many indications, whether someone did not wish a legacy or fideicommissum left by the heir to be owed by the substitute. For what if he left, by way of the substitute, another thing to that fideicommissary or legatee, which he had not left by the instituted heir? Or what if there was a specific cause why he left it through the instituted heir, which would cease in the case of the substitute?
Si sic legatum vel fidei commissum ^ fideicommissum^ sit relictum "si aestimaverit heres" "si comprobaverit" "si iustum putaverit", et legatum et fideicommissum debebitur, quoniam quasi viro potius bono ei commissum est, non in meram voluntatem heredis collatum.
If a legacy or fideicommissum ^fideicommissum^ has been left in this way—"if the heir shall have assessed," "if he shall have approved," "if he shall have thought it just"—both the legacy and the fideicommissum will be due, since it has been entrusted to him as to a good man, not consigned to the mere will of the heir.
Si mihi quod titius debet fuerit legatum neque titius debeat, sciendum est nullum esse legatum. et quidem si quantitas non sit adiecta, evidenti ratione nihil debebitur, quia non apparet, quantum fuerit legatum: nam et si quid ^ quod^ ego titio debeo ei legavero quantitate non adiecta, constat nullum esse legatum, cum, si decem quae titio debeo legavero nec quicquam titio debeam, falsa demonstratio non peremit legatum, ut in legato dotis iulianus respondit.
If what titius owes has been bequeathed to me, and titius does not owe it, it must be understood that the legacy is null. And indeed, if no quantity is added, by evident reasoning nothing will be owed, because it does not appear how much has been bequeathed: for even if I bequeath to him what ^ which^ I owe to titius, with no quantity added, it is agreed that the legacy is null, since, if I have bequeathed the ten which I owe to titius, and I owe titius nothing, a false description does not extinguish the legacy, as Julian answered in the case of a dowry-legacy.
Quod si addiderit: "decem quae mihi titius debet lego", sine dubio nihil erit in legato: nam inter falsam demonstrationem et falsam condicionem sive causam multum interest. proinde et si titio decem, quae mihi seius debet, legavero, nullum erit legatum: esse enim debitor debet: nam et si vivus exegissem, exstingueretur legatum et, si debitor maneret, actiones adversus eum heres meus dumtaxat praestare cogeretur.
But if he has added: "I bequeath the ten which Titius owes me," without doubt there will be nothing in the legacy: for between a false demonstration and a false condition or cause there is much difference. Accordingly, even if I shall have bequeathed to Titius the ten which Seius owes me, there will be no legacy: for he must be a debtor. For even if I had exacted it while alive, the legacy would be extinguished; and if he remained a debtor, my heir would be compelled only to furnish the actions against him.
Proinde si stichum legaverit, cum ille ei stichum aut decem deberet, incerti actio legatario adversus heredem competit, ut scripsit iulianus libro trigesimo tertio digestorum, per quam actionem compellat heredem experiri: et, si stichum consecutus fuerit, praestabit ei, si decem, nihil consequetur. secundum quod erit in arbitrio debitoris, an sit legatarius is cui stichus legatus est.
Accordingly, if he has bequeathed Stichus, when that person owed him Stichus or ten, an actio incerti is available to the legatee against the heir, as Julian wrote in the thirty-third book of the Digest, by which action he compels the heir to litigate; and, if he has obtained Stichus, he will deliver him to the legatee; if he has obtained ten, the legatee will obtain nothing. Since it will be in the debtor’s discretion whether the legatee is the one to whom Stichus has been bequeathed.
Si pecunia fuit deposita apud aliquem eiusque fidei commissum, ut eam pecuniam praestet, fideicommissum ex rescripto divi pii debebitur, quasi videatur heres rogatus remittere id debitori: nam si conveniatur debitor ab herede, doli exceptione uti potest: quae res utile fideicommissum facit. quod cum ita se habet, ab omni debitore fideicommissum relinqui potest.
If money has been deposited with someone and committed to his good faith, that he should render that money, a fideicommissum will be owed by rescript of the deified Pius, as if the heir is seen to have been asked to remit it to the debtor: for if the debtor is sued by the heir, he can use the exception of fraud (exceptio doli); which thing makes a useful fideicommissum. Since this is so, a fideicommissum can be left to any debtor.
Si fundum sub condicione legatum heres pendente condicione sub alia condicione alii legasset et post existentem condicionem, quae priore testamento praeposita fuisset, tunc ea condicio, sub qua heres legaverat, exstitisset, dominium a priore legatario non discedit.
If a farm had been bequeathed under a condition, and the heir, while the condition was pending, had legated it to another under a different condition; and after the condition which had been preposed in the prior testament had come to exist, then the condition under which the heir had legated had come to exist, ownership does not depart from the prior legatee.
" stichum sempronio do lego: si sempronius stichum intra annum non manumiserit, eundem stichum titio do lego". quaesitum est, quid iuris esset. respondi sempronium interim totum habiturum et, si quidem intra annum manumisisset, liberum eum effecturum: sin autem hoc non fecisset, totum ad titium pertinere.
" I give and bequeath stichus to sempronius: if sempronius has not manumitted stichus within a year, I give and bequeath that same stichus to titus." it was asked what the law would be. I answered that sempronius would in the meantime have the whole, and that, if indeed he had manumitted within the year, he would make him free; but if he had not done this, the whole would pertain to titus.
Qui fundum excepto aedificio legat, appellatione aedificii aut superficiem significat aut solum quoque, cui aedificium superpositum est. si de sola superficie exceperit, nihilo minus iure legati totus fundus vindicabitur, sed exceptione doli mali posita consequetur heres id, ut sibi habitare in villa liceat: in quo inerit, ut iter quoque et actum in ea habeat. si vero solum quoque exceptum fuerit, fundus excepta villa vindicari debebit et servitus ipso iure villae debebitur, non secus ac si duorum fundorum dominus alterum legaverit ita, ut alteri serviret.
One who bequeaths an estate (fundus) with the building excepted, by the appellation “building” denotes either the superstructure or also the soil upon which the building is superposed. If he has excepted only the superstructure, nonetheless by the right of the legacy the whole estate will be vindicated; but, by setting up the defense of dolus malus (fraud), the heir will obtain this, that it be permitted to him to dwell in the villa—in which it will be included that he also have a right of way and of driving (iter and actus) in it. But if the soil as well has been excepted, the estate must be vindicated with the villa excepted, and a servitude will by the law itself be owed to the villa, just as if the owner of two estates had bequeathed one in such a way that it serve the other.
Si libertus patronum ex septunce heredem scripserit, alios ex ceteris et ita legaverit: "quisquis mihi alius ex supra scriptis cum patrono meo heres erit, servos illum et illum titio lego, quos aestimo singulos vicenis aureis", intellegendum erit a coherede patroni dumtaxat legatum datum et ideo titium non amplius quincuncem in servis vindicare posse. adiectio autem illa "quos aestimo singulos vicenis aureis" non mutat legati condicionem, si legis falcidiae rationem habere oporteat: nihilo minus enim verum pretium servorum in aestimationem deducetur.
If a freedman shall have written his patron as heir for a septunx (seven-twelfths), and others from among the rest, and shall have thus bequeathed: “whoever else among the above-written shall be heir with my patron, to Titius I bequeath those slaves such-and-such, whom I value at twenty aurei each,” it must be understood that the legacy is given only from the coheir of the patron, and therefore Titius can vindicate no more than a quincunx (five-twelfths) in the slaves. Moreover, that addition, “whom I value at twenty aurei each,” does not change the condition of the legacy, if account must be taken of the Lex Falcidia: nonetheless the true price of the slaves will be brought into the valuation.
Si pater familias ab impubere filio titio fundum legaverit et a substituto eundem eidem titio et pupillus patri heres exstiterit: sive vindicaverit titius legatum sive repudiaverit, quamvis filius impubes decesserit, a substituto vindicare non poterit. hoc enim, quod rursus a substituto legatur, perinde habendum est ac si repetita legata essent. quare et si pure a filio, sub condicione a substituto legatum fuerit, perinde omnia servabuntur ac si tantum a filio legatum fuisset: contra autem si a filio sub condicione, a substituto pure legatum fuerit et pupillus pendente condicione decesserit, ex substitutione sola legatum valebit.
If a paterfamilias has bequeathed to Titius a landed estate from his underage son, and from the substitute the same to the same Titius, and the pupil has become heir to his father: whether Titius has claimed the legacy or has repudiated it, although the underage son has died, he will not be able to claim it from the substitute. For that which is again bequeathed by the substitute is to be regarded just as if the legacies were repeated. Wherefore, even if it has been bequeathed purely by the son and under a condition by the substitute, everything will be observed just as if it had been bequeathed only by the son: but conversely, if it has been bequeathed by the son under a condition and by the substitute purely, and the pupil has died while the condition is pending, the legacy will be valid by the substitution alone.
Cum statuliber sub condicione legatus est et pendente condicione legati condicio statutae libertatis deficit, legatum utile fit: nam sicut statuta libertas tunc peremit legatum, cum vires accipit, ita legatum quoque non ante peremi potest, quam dies cesserit eius.
When a statuliber (a slave to be free on a condition) is bequeathed under a condition, and while the condition of the legacy is pending the condition of the appointed liberty fails, the legacy becomes effective (utile): for just as the appointed liberty then destroys the legacy when it gains force, so too the legacy cannot be destroyed before its day has come.
A filio impubere legatus et a substituto liber esse iussus, si quidem pupillus ad pubertatem pervenerit, ab eo cui legatus fuerat vindicabitur: mortuo vero pupillo libertas competit. longe magis hoc servari conveniet, si idem servus sub condicione ab impubere legatus fuerit et pendente condicione filius intra pubertatem decesserit.
A slave bequeathed by a son under age and ordered by the substitute to be free—if indeed the ward reaches puberty, he will be vindicated by the one to whom he had been bequeathed; but if the ward dies, freedom accrues. Far more is it fitting that this be observed, if the same slave has been bequeathed under a condition by the underage son, and, while the condition is pending, the son dies before puberty.
Non quocumque modo si legatarii res facta fuerit die cedente, obligatio legati exstinguitur, sed ita, si eo modo fuerit eius, quo avelli non possit. ponamus rem, quae mihi pure legata sit, accipere me per traditionem die legati cedente ab eo herede, a quo eadem sub condicione alii legata fuerit: nempe agam ex testamento, quia is status est eius, ut existente condicione discessurum sit a me dominium. nam et si ex stipulatione mihi stichus debeatur et is, cum sub condicione alii legatus esset, factus fuerit meus ex causa lucrativa, nihilo minus exsistente condicione ex stipulatu agere potero.
Not in just any manner, if the thing has become the legatee’s on the day the legacy vests, is the obligation of the legacy extinguished, but only if it is his in such a way that it cannot be divested. Let us suppose a thing that has been bequeathed to me outright, and that I receive it by traditio (delivery) on the day the legacy vests from the heir by whom the same thing has been bequeathed under a condition to another: clearly I will sue under the will, because its status is such that, upon the condition’s fulfillment, ownership will depart from me. For even if Stichus is owed to me by stipulation, and he, while he had been bequeathed under a condition to another, has become mine from a lucrative cause (gratuitously), nevertheless, upon the condition’s fulfillment I will be able to sue on the stipulation.
Fundus mihi legatus est: proprietatem eius fundi redemi detracto usu fructu: postea venditor capite minutus est et usus fructus ad me pertinere coepit. si ex testamento egero, iudex tanti litem aestimare debebit, quantum mihi aberit.
An estate has been bequeathed to me: I bought back the ownership (proprietorship) of that estate with the usufruct deducted; thereafter the seller was reduced in legal status (capitis deminutio) and the usufruct began to pertain to me. If I proceed under the testament, the judge ought to assess the action at as much as will be lacking to me.
Qui gaium et lucium eiusdem pecuniae reos habebat si ita legaverit: "quod mihi gaius debet, id heres meus sempronio damnas esto dare: quod mihi lucius debet, id heres meus maevio damnas esto dare", eam condicionem heredis sui constituit, ut is necesse habeat alteri actiones suas, alteri litis aestimationem praestare. si tamen vivus testator gaio acceptum fecit, necesse est, ut sempronii et maevii legatum inutile sit.
He who had Gaius and Lucius as debtors for the same money, if he has thus bequeathed: "what Gaius owes me, let my heir be condemned to give to Sempronius: what Lucius owes me, let my heir be condemned to give to Maevius," has established this condition upon his heir, that he must furnish to the one his actions at law, to the other the assessment of the suit. If, however, while alive the testator entered a receipt for Gaius, it is necessary that the legacy of Sempronius and of Maevius be of no effect.
Cum mihi stichus aut pamphilus legati fuissent duorum testamentis et stichum ex altero testamento consecutus fuissem, ex altero pamphilum petere possum, quia et si uno testamento stichus aut pamphilus legati fuissent et stichus ex causa lucrativa meus factus fuisset, nihilo minus pamphilum petere possem.
When stichus or pamphilus had been bequeathed to me as legacies by the testaments of two (persons), and I had obtained stichus from one testament, I can demand pamphilus from the other; because even if by one testament stichus or pamphilus had been bequeathed and stichus had become mine from a lucrative cause, nonetheless I could demand pamphilus.
Si sempronius titium heredem instituerit et ab eo post biennium fundum dari iusserit maevio, titius deinde ab herede suo eundem fundum maevio praesenti die legaverit et maevius pretium fundi ab herede titii acceperit: si ex testamento sempronii fundum petere velit, exceptione repelli poterit si pretio fundi contentus non erit.
If Sempronius has instituted Titius as heir and has ordered that by him, after two years, the estate be given to Maevius; then Titius has bequeathed the same estate to Maevius, to be delivered by his own heir, on the present day, and Maevius has received the price of the estate from Titius’s heir: if he should wish to claim the estate under the testament of Sempronius, he can be repelled by an exception if he is not content with the price of the estate.
Aedes, quibus heredis aedes serviebant, legatae sunt traditae legatario non imposita servitute. dixi posse legatarium ex testamento agere, quia non plenum legatum accepisset: nam et eum, qui debilitatum ab herede servum acceperit, recte ex testamento agere.
Houses, to which the heir’s houses were servient by a servitude, were bequeathed and delivered to the legatee without the servitude being imposed. I said that the legatee could sue on the testament, because he had not received the legacy in full: for even one who has received a slave debilitated by the heir rightly brings an action on the testament.
Qui servum testamento sibi legatum, ignorans eum sibi legatum, ab herede emit, si cognito legato ex testamento egerit et servum acceperit, actione ex vendito absolvi debet, quia hoc iudicium fidei bonae est et continet in se doli mali exceptionem. quod si pretio soluto ex testamento agere instituerit, hominem consequi debebit, actione ex empto pretium reciperabit, quemadmodum reciperaret, si homo evictus fuisset. quod si iudicio ex empto actum fuerit et tunc actor compererit legatum sibi hominem esse et agat ex testamento, non aliter absolvi heredem oportebit, quam si pretium restituerit et hominem actoris fecerit.
He who, being ignorant that a slave has been bequeathed to himself by testament, buys him from the heir—if, once the legacy is learned, he proceeds under the testament and receives the slave—must be absolved in the action ex vendito, because that judgment is of good faith and contains within itself the exceptio doli mali. But if, the price having been paid, he has set about to sue under the testament, he ought to obtain the man; by an action ex empto he will recover the price, just as he would recover it if the man had been evicted. But if it has been proceeded with by the iudicium ex empto and then the plaintiff has discovered that the man is bequeathed to him and sues under the testament, the heir ought not otherwise to be absolved than if he has restored the price and made the man the plaintiff’s.
Cum pater pro filia sua dotis nomine centum promisisset, deinde eidem centum eadem legasset, doli mali exceptione heres tutus erit, si et gener ex promissione et puella ex testamento agere instituerit: convenire enim inter eos oportet, ut alterutra actione contenti sint.
When a father had promised one hundred in the name of a dowry on behalf of his daughter, and then had bequeathed to the same [girl] the same one hundred by legacy, the heir will be safe by the exception of dolus malus, if both the son-in-law should institute an action from the promise and the girl from the testament: for it is proper that they agree among themselves to be content with either action.
Si ita cui legatum esset: "si tabulas chirographi mei heredi meo reddiderit, heres meus ei decem dato", huiusmodi condicio hanc vim habet "si heredem meum debito liberaverit". quare et, si tabulae exstabunt, non intellegetur condicioni satisfecisse creditor, nisi acceptum heredi fecerit, et, si tabulae in rerum natura non fuerint, existimabitur implesse condicionem, si heredem liberaverit, nec ad rem pertinebit, iam tunc cum testamentum fiebat tabulae interciderint an postea vel mortuo testatore.
If a legacy were thus left to someone: "if he shall have returned to my heir the tablets of my chirograph, let my heir give him ten," a condition of this kind has this force: "if he shall have freed my heir from the debt." Therefore also, if the tablets exist, the creditor will not be understood to have satisfied the condition unless he has entered it as received to the heir (i.e., given him a discharge); and, if the tablets are not in rerum natura, he will be deemed to have fulfilled the condition if he has freed the heir, and it will be irrelevant whether the tablets had perished already when the testament was being made or afterwards, even after the testator’s death.
Legatum est ita: "fundum cornelianum et mancipia, quae in eo fundo cum moriar mea erunt, heres meus titio dato". ancilla, quae in eo fundo esse consueverat, mortis tempore cum in fuga esset, enixa est: quaero, an vel ipsa vel partus eius legato cedat. respondi: ancilla quamvis in fuga sit, legata videtur et, licet fugitiva erat, perinde habetur ac si in eo fundo fuisset moriente patre familias: huic consequens est, ut partus quoque matrem sequatur et perinde legato cedat, ac si in fundo editus fuisset.
It has been bequeathed thus: "the Cornelian estate and the slaves, which on that estate at the time when I die will be mine, let my heir give to Titius." A maidservant, who had been accustomed to be on that estate, at the time of death, while she was in flight, gave birth: I ask whether either she herself or her offspring accrues to the legacy. I responded: the maidservant, although in flight, is deemed to be bequeathed, and, although she was a fugitive, she is held just as if she had been on that estate when the paterfamilias was dying: consequent to this is that the offspring also follows the mother and in like manner accrues to the legacy, as if he had been born on the estate.
Quibus ita legatum fuerit: "titio et maevio singulos servos do lego", constat eos non concursuros in eundem servum, sicuti non concurrunt, cum ita legatur: "titio servum do lego: maevio alterum servum do lego".
In cases where a legacy has been made in this way: "to titio and to maevio I give and bequeath a single slave apiece", it is agreed that they will not compete for the same slave, just as they do not compete when it is thus bequeathed: "to titio I give and bequeath a slave: to maevio I give and bequeath another slave".
Si is cui legatum fuerat antequam constitueret, qua actione uti vellet, decessit duobus heredibus relictis, legatum accipere simul venientes, nisi consenserint, non possunt: quare quamdiu alter rem vindicare vult, alter in personam agere non potest. sed si consenserint, rem communiter habebunt: consentire autem vel sua sponte debent vel iudice imminente.
If the person to whom a legacy had been left died before he determined which action he wished to employ, leaving two heirs, they, coming together to accept the legacy, cannot do so unless they have consented: wherefore, so long as one wishes to vindicate the thing, the other cannot proceed in personam. But if they have consented, they will have the thing in common: moreover, they ought to consent either of their own accord or with the judge pressing.
Si testamento stichus ab uno herede legatus fuerit maevio et eidem codicillis idem stichus ab omnibus heredibus et antequam codicilli aperirentur maevius litis aestimationem consecutus fuerit, ipso iure vindicari ex codicillis non potest, quia testator semel legatum ad eum pervenire voluit.
If by testament stichus has been bequeathed by one heir to maevius, and in codicils the same stichus by all the heirs to the same person, and before the codicils were opened maevius obtained the estimation of the suit (litis aestimatio), it cannot, by the law itself, be vindicated from the codicils, because the testator wished the legacy to reach him only once.
Cum servus legatur, et ipsius servi status et omnium, quae personam eius attingunt, in suspenso est. nam si legatarius reppulerit a se legatum, numquam eius fuisse videbitur: si non reppulerit, ex die aditae hereditatis eius intellegetur. secundum hanc regulam et de iure eorum, quae per traditionem servus acceperit aut stipulatus fuerit, deque his, quae legata ei vel donata fuerunt, statuetur, ut vel heredis vel legatarii servus singula gessisse existimetur.
When a slave is bequeathed, both the status of the slave himself and everything that touches his persona are in suspense. For if the legatee repudiates the legacy, he will be deemed never to have been his; if he does not repudiate it, he will be understood to be his from the day the inheritance is entered upon. According to this rule, the right as to those things which the slave has received by tradition (delivery) or has stipulated for, and as to those which have been bequeathed or donated to him, will likewise be determined, so that each item is deemed to have been transacted by him as the heir’s slave or as the legatee’s slave.
Filio pater, quem in potestate retinuit, heredi pro parte instituto legatum quoque relinquit. durissima sententia est existimantium denegandam ei legati petitionem, si patris abstinuerit hereditate: non enim impugnatur iudicium ab eo, qui iustis rationibus noluit negotiis hereditariis implicari.
A father, to a son whom he retained in his power, having been instituted heir as to a share, also leaves a legacy. The opinion is very harsh of those who think that his petition for the legacy should be denied if he has abstained from the father’s inheritance: for the judgment is not impugned by him who, for just reasons, did not wish to be entangled in hereditary business.
Sed si non alias voluit pater habere eum legatum, nisi hereditatem retineat, tunc neque adversus coheredem dandam ei legati petitionem secundum aristonis sententiam constat, cum ipsi filio non videretur esse solvendo hereditas: et hoc ita est, licet non condicionaliter expressisset, intellexisse tamen manifestissime adprobetur.
But if the father did not wish him to have the legacy in any other way, unless he retain the inheritance, then, according to Aristo’s opinion, it is established that a petition for the legacy is not to be given to him even against a coheir, since the inheritance did not seem to be solvent for the son himself: and this is so, although he did not express it conditionally, nevertheless it is most clearly approved that he so understood.
Nam nec emancipatus hereditate omissa legatum ab herede petere prohibetur. praetor enim permittendo his, qui in potestate fuerint, abstinere se hereditate paterna manifestum facit ius se in persona eorum tribuere, quod futurum esset, si liberum arbitrium adeundae hereditatis habuissent.
For neither is an emancipated son, with the inheritance omitted, prohibited from seeking a legacy from the heir. For the praetor, by permitting those who have been in potestas to abstain from the paternal inheritance, makes it manifest that he is conferring upon their person the right which would exist if they had free discretion to enter upon the inheritance.
Quaesitum est, si filius familias, qui filium habebat, heres institutus fuisset, cum esset uterque in potestate aliena, an ab eo filio eius legari possit. respondi, cum possit a filio patri legari, consequens est, ut vel fratri ipsius vel filio vel etiam servo patris sui legetur.
It was asked, if a son-in-power, who had a son, had been instituted heir, when both were under alien power, whether a legacy could be bequeathed by him to his son. I responded: since a legacy can be bequeathed by a son to his father, it follows that it may likewise be legated to his brother, or to his son, or even to his father’s slave.
Praesenti quidem die data libertate servo legari vel pure vel sub condicione poterit: cum vero libertas sub condicione data fuerit, alias utiliter, alias inutiliter pure legabitur. nam si ea condicio libertatis fuerit, ut patre familias statim mortuo possit ante aditam hereditatem exsistere condicio, veluti: "stichus si decem titio dederit" (vel "capitolium ascenderit"), "liber esto", utile legatum est: huiusmodi autem condiciones: "si heredi decem dederit", "si post aditam hereditatem capitolium ascenderit", inutile legatum efficient. necessario autem ex asse herede scripto etiam hae condiciones, quae ante aditam hereditatem impleri possunt, inutile legatum efficient.
On the present day, with liberty given to a slave, liberty may be bequeathed either purely or under a condition: but when liberty has been given under a condition, at times it will be bequeathed purely to good effect, at times to no effect. For if the condition of liberty is such that, immediately on the death of the paterfamilias, the condition can occur before the inheritance is accepted, for example: “Stichus, if he gives ten to Titius” (or “if he climbs the Capitol”), “let him be free,” the legacy is effective; but conditions of this kind: “if he gives ten to the heir,” “if after the inheritance has been accepted he climbs the Capitol,” will render the legacy ineffective. Moreover, if a sole heir has been appointed for the whole share, then even those conditions which can be fulfilled before the inheritance is accepted will render the legacy ineffective.
Duobus heredibus institutis alteri stichum legaverat et eidem sticho decem. cum stichus vivo testatore ad libertatem pervenisset, totum legatum ei debebitur: nam in solidum constitisse causam legati in eius persona hoc quoque argumento est, quod, si heres, cui legatus fuerat, hereditatem non adisset, solidum ab altero herede consequi possit.
With two heirs instituted, he had bequeathed Stichus to one of them, and to that same Stichus ten. When Stichus, while the testator was alive, had come to liberty, the whole legacy will be owed to him: for that the cause of the legacy was constituted in solidum in his person is shown also by this argument, that, if the heir to whom he had been bequeathed had not entered upon the inheritance, he could recover the whole from the other heir.
Cum servus titio et eidem servo aliquid legatur, fideicommitti potest, ut aut servum alicui restituat vel ea quae servo legata sunt: hoc amplius etiam ipsi servo, cum liber erit, fideicommissum a titio dari potest.
When a slave is left by legacy to Titius and something is likewise left to that same slave, a fideicommissum can be imposed, that he either restore the slave to someone or the things that have been left to the slave; furthermore, even to the slave himself, when he will be free, a fideicommissum can be given by Titius.
Si mihi servus a te herede legatus fuerit et eidem servo aliquis legaverit et vivo eo qui mihi servum legaverat dies legati servo dati cesserit, confestim id legatum hereditati adquiritur: et ideo, quamvis postea moritur is qui servum mihi legaverat, ad me id quod servo legatum est non pertinebit.
If a slave has been bequeathed to me by you the heir, and someone has likewise bequeathed to the same slave, and while he who had bequeathed the slave to me is alive the day of the legacy given to the slave arrives, forthwith that legacy is acquired by the inheritance; and therefore, although afterwards the one who had bequeathed the slave to me dies, that which was bequeathed to the slave will not pertain to me.
Cum homo ex testamento petitus est, causa eius temporis, quo lis contestabatur, repraesentari debet actori et, sicut partus ancillarum, sicut fructus fundorum interim percepti in hoc iudicium deducuntur, ita quod servo legatorum vel hereditatis nomine interim obvenerit praestandum est petitori.
When a slave is claimed under a testament, the condition as of the time when the suit was joined ought to be represented to the actor; and, just as the offspring of maidservants and the fruits of estates meanwhile received are brought into this action, so too whatever has meanwhile accrued to the slave in the name of legacies or inheritance must be rendered to the petitioner.
Si fundum per fideicommissum relictum unus ex heredibus, excusso pretio secundum reditum eius fundi, mercatus sit propter aes alienum hereditarium praesente et adsignante eo, cui fideicommissum debebatur, placet non fundum, sed pretium eius restitui deberi. Marcellus notat: si fundum restituere malit heres, audiendum existimo.
If a fundus left by fideicommissum has been purchased by one of the heirs, the price having been struck according to the revenue of that fundus, on account of hereditary debt, with the person to whom the fideicommissum was owed being present and signing off, it is held that what must be restored is not the land, but its price. Marcellus notes: if the heir prefers to restore the fundus, I think he should be heard.
Iulianus. si titio pecunia legata fuerit et eius fidei commissum, ut alienum servum manumitteret, nec dominus eum vendere velit, nihilo minus legatum capiet, quia per eum non stat, quominus fideicommissum praestet: nam et si mortuus fuisset servus, a legato non summoveretur.
Julianus. If money has been bequeathed to Titius and a fideicommissum entrusted to him, that he should manumit another’s slave, and the owner is unwilling to sell him, nonetheless he will take the legacy, because it is not within his power to prevent the fideicommissum from being performed: for even if the slave had died, he would not be removed from the legacy.
Sicuti conceditur unicuique ab eo, ad quem legitima eius hereditas vel bonorum possessio perventura est, fideicommissum dare, ita et ab eo, ad quem impuberis filii legitima hereditas vel bonorum possessio perventura est, fideicommissa recte dabuntur.
Just as it is conceded to each person to impose a fideicommissum upon the one to whom his legitimate inheritance or the possession of the goods (bonorum possessio) is about to come, so too by the one to whom the legitimate inheritance or bonorum possessio of an underage son is about to come, fideicommissa will rightly be given.
Qui rogatus erat hereditatem, ex qua servus eius heres institutus erat, restituere, cum alii servum vendidisset, quaesitum est, an hereditatem restituere cogendus est is, ad quem hereditas ex emptione servi heredis scripti pervenerit. dixi compellendum esse ad fideicommissum restituendum eum, qui servum suum heredem scriptum vendidit, cum pretium hereditatis, quam restituere rogatus est, habeat. is autem, ad quem hereditas ex emptione servi heredis scripti pervenerit, ex causa cogendus erit fideicommissum praestare, id est si dominus servi heredis scripti solvendo non erit.
When a man had been asked to restore an inheritance, from which his slave had been instituted heir, and he had sold the slave to another, the question was raised whether the man to whom the inheritance has come by the purchase of the slave written as heir must be compelled to restore the inheritance. I said that the one who sold his slave written as heir must be compelled to restore the fideicommissum, since he holds the price of the inheritance which he was asked to restore. But the person to whom the inheritance has come by the purchase of the slave written as heir will be compelled for cause to perform the fideicommissum—that is, if the owner of the slave written as heir is not solvent.
Si cui stichus aut dama legatus esset electione legatario data et fidei eius commissum esset, ut stichum alteri praestaret: si damam vindicare maluerit, nihilo minus stichum ex causa fideicommissi praestare debebit. sive enim pluris est dama, compellendus est stichum redimere, sive minoris, aeque stichum iuste dare cogetur, cum per eum steterit, quo minus ex testamento haberet quod fideicommissum fuerit.
If to someone Stichus or a doe had been bequeathed with election given to the legatee, and it had been committed to his trust (fideicommissum) that he should furnish Stichus to another: if he prefers to claim the doe, nonetheless he must furnish Stichus by reason of the fideicommissum. For whether the doe is of greater value, he is to be compelled to redeem Stichus; or if it is of lesser value, he will likewise be justly forced to give Stichus, since it was through him that he failed to have from the testament that which had been the object of the fideicommissum.
Qui testamento manumittitur et neque legatum neque hereditatem capit, fideicommissum praestare cogendus non est, ac ne is quidem, qui servum legatum rogatus fuerit manumittere: is enim demum pecuniam ex causa fideicommissi praestare cogendus est, qui aliquid eiusdem generis vel similis ex testamento consequitur.
He who is manumitted by a testament and takes neither a legacy nor the inheritance is not to be compelled to perform the fideicommissum, nor even he who has been asked to manumit a slave bequeathed as a legacy: for only that person is to be compelled to provide money on account of the fideicommissum who obtains from the testament something of the same genus or similar.
Videndum tamen est, numquid, si vice operarum rogaverit eum aliquid, debeat hoc fideicommissum valere: quod nequaquam dicendum est, quia nec operae imponi huiusmodi liberto possunt nec impositae exiguntur, quamvis testator ita caverit.
Nevertheless, it must be seen whether, if he has asked him for something in lieu of services, this fideicommissum ought to be valid: which is by no means to be said, because neither can services be imposed upon a freedman of this kind nor, if imposed, are they exacted, although the testator has so provided.
Quidam testamento vel codicillis ita legavit: "aureos quadringentos pamphilae dari volo ita ut infra scriptum est: ab iulio actore aureos tot et in castris quos habeo tot et in numerato quos habeo tot": post multos annos eadem voluntate manente decessit, cum omnes summae in alios usus translatae essent: quaero, an debeatur fideicommissum. respondi: vero similius est patrem familias demonstrare potius heredibus voluisse, unde aureos quadringentos sine incommodo rei familiaris contrahere possint, quam condicionem fideicommisso iniecisse, quod initio pure datum esset, et ideo quadringenti pamphilae debebuntur.
A certain man by testament or codicils thus bequeathed: "I wish 400 gold pieces to be given to Pamphila, in the manner written below: from Julius the agent, so many gold pieces; and in the camp, as many as I have; and in cash, as many as I have." After many years, with the same intention remaining, he died, when all the sums had been transferred to other uses. I ask whether the fideicommissum is owed. I answered: it is more plausible that the paterfamilias wished rather to show the heirs whence they could obtain 400 gold pieces without inconvenience to the family estate, than that he imposed a condition upon the fideicommissum, which at the beginning had been given purely; and therefore the 400 will be owed to Pamphila.
Si scriptus ex parte heres rogatus sit praecipere pecuniam et eis quibus testamento legatum erat distribuere, id quod sub condicione legatum est tunc praecipere debebit, cum condicio exstiterit: interim aut ei aut his quibus legatum est satisdari oportet.
If an heir appointed for a share has been asked to take the money in advance and distribute it to those to whom by the testament a legacy had been left, he ought then to take in advance that which has been bequeathed under a condition when the condition has come to pass; in the meantime, surety must be furnished either to him or to those to whom the legacy has been left.
Cui statuliber pecuniam dare iussus est, is rogari potest, ut eandem pecuniam alicui restituat: nam cum possit testator codicillis pure libertatem dare et hoc modo condicionem exstinguere, cur non etiam per fideicommissum eandem pecuniam adimendi potestatem habeat?
He to whom a statuliber has been ordered to give money can be asked to restore the same money to someone: for since the testator can by codicils grant liberty unconditionally and in this way extinguish the condition, why should he not also have the power, through a fideicommissum, of taking away that same money?
Si mihi stichus legatus esset fideique meae commissum, ut aut stichum aut pamphilum meum servum redderem, et in sticho aliquid ex legato propter legem falcidiam perdidissem, necesse habebo aut pamphilum servum meum totum titio dare aut eam partem stichi, quam legatorum nomine accepero.
If stichus had been left to me as a legacy and entrusted to my good faith, so that I should deliver either stichus or my slave pamphilus, and if in stichus I had lost something of the legacy on account of the Lex Falcidia, I shall be obliged either to give my slave pamphilus whole to titio, or that part of stichus which I shall have received in the name of legacies.
Ab omnibus heredibus legatum ita erat: "quisquis mihi heres erit, damnas esto titio dare centum": deinde infra comprehensum erat, ne unus ex heredibus ei daret: quaeritur, reliqui heredes utrum tota centum dare deberent an deducta unius illius hereditaria portione. respondit verius esse reliquos heredes tota centum debere, cum et significatio verborum non repugnet huic sententiae et voluntas testatoris congruat.
The legacy, as against all the heirs, was thus: "whoever shall be my heir, let him be bound to give Titius one hundred": then it was set out further below that one of the heirs should not give to him. The question is, whether the remaining heirs ought to give the whole one hundred, or with the hereditary portion of that one deducted. He answered that it is more correct that the remaining heirs owe the whole one hundred, since both the signification of the words does not conflict with this opinion and the will of the testator accords.
In testamento sic erat scriptum: "lucio titio, si is heredi meo tabellas, quibus ei pecuniam expromiseram, dederit, centum dato": titius deinde antequam tabellas heredi redderet, decesserat: quaesitum est, an heredi eius legatum deberetur. cassius respondit, si tabulae fuissent, non deberi, quia non redditis his dies legati non cessit. iulianus notat: si testamenti faciendi tempore tabulae nullae fuerunt, una ratione dici potest legatum titio deberi, quod adunatos condicio pro non scripta habetur.
In the testament it was written thus: "to Lucius Titius, if he shall have given to my heir the tablets, by which I had expromised him money, give one hundred": then Titius, before he returned the tablets to the heir, died: it was asked whether the legacy was owed to his heir. Cassius responded that, if the tablets had existed, it is not owed, because, these not having been returned, the day of the legacy did not vest. Julian notes: if at the time of making the testament there were no tablets, by one line of reasoning it can be said that the legacy is owed to Titius, because an impossible condition is held as not written.
Denique constitit, cum ita legatum fuisset: "quisquis mihi heres erit, damnas esto heredi meo decem dare", exaequari omnium heredum partes eo, quod unusquisque et sibi et coheredi suo dari damnatus videtur.
Finally it has been established that, when a legacy had been thus bequeathed: "whoever shall be my heir, let him be under obligation to give ten to my heir," the shares of all the heirs are equalized, on the ground that each is considered to be condemned that it be given both to himself and to his coheir.
Cum quidam heredem instituit, quandoque mater eius decessisset, deinde secundus heres scriptus fuisset et ab eo legata ei, qui sub condicione heres institutus fuisset, relicta essent isque viva matre decessisset, postquam dies legati cesserit, quaesitum est, an heredi eius legata deberentur. verius est legatum heredi deberi, sive pure a substituto legatum datum est primo heredi sive sub hac condicione "si heres non fuerit", quia moriente eo condicio impletur.
When someone instituted an heir, whenever his mother should have died, and then a second heir had been written, and by him legacies had been left to the one who had been instituted heir under a condition, and he had died with his mother still living, after the day of the legacy has accrued, the question was raised whether the legacies were owed to his heir. The truer view is that the legacy is owed to his heir, whether the legacy was given purely by the substitute to the first heir or under this condition, “if he shall not be heir,” because by his dying the condition is fulfilled.
Si socero a genero suo herede instituto pars hereditatis alii legata fuisset, deducta dote eum debiturum esse partem hereditatis legatam sabinus respondit, quemadmodum, si pecunia ex crediti causa socero debita fuisset, ea deducta partem hereditatis daturus fuisset.
If, with his son-in-law appointed as heir, a part of the inheritance had been bequeathed to another by the father-in-law, Sabinus answered that, the dowry having been deducted, he would owe the legated part of the inheritance; just as, if money had been owed to the father-in-law on a credit-claim, with that deducted he would have given the part of the inheritance.
Si a pluribus heredibus legata sint eaque unus ex his praecipere iubeatur et praestare, in potestate eorum, quibus sit legatum, debere esse ait, utrumne a singulis heredibus petere velint an ab eo, qui praecipere sit iussus: itaque eum qui praecipere iussus est cavere debere coheredibus indemnes eos praestari.
If legacies have been left by several heirs and one of them is ordered to pre‑take (praecipere) them and to render performance, he says it ought to be in the power of those to whom the legacy has been made whether they prefer to seek it from each heir individually or from him who has been ordered to pre‑take; accordingly, the one who is ordered to pre‑take must give security to the coheirs that they be kept harmless (be indemnified).
Si quis servum, cui aliquid sine libertate legaverit, cum morietur ipse servus, leget, minime dubitandum, quin utile legatum futurum sit, propterea scilicet, quod moriente servo id quod ipsi legatum erit ad eum cui ipse legatus fuerit perventurum sit.
If someone bequeaths a slave, to whom he has bequeathed something without freedom, then, when the slave himself dies, he will take under the legacy; there is no doubt at all that it will be a valid legacy, namely because, with the slave dying, that which has been bequeathed to him will come to the one to whom the slave himself shall have been bequeathed.
Si id quod ex testamento mihi debes quilibet alius servo meo donaverit, manebit adhuc mihi ex testamento actio et maxime, si ignorem meam factam esse: alioquin consequens erit, ut etiam, si tu ipse servo meo eam donaveris, invito me libereris: quod nullo modo recipiendum est, quando ne solutione quidem invito me facta libereris.
If that which you owe me from a testament anyone else has donated to my slave, the action from the testament will still remain to me, and especially if I am ignorant that it has been done; otherwise it would follow that even if you yourself had donated it to my slave, you would be released with me unwilling—which is in no way to be admitted, since not even by a payment made with me unwilling would you be released.
Cum homo titio legatus esset, quaesitum est, utrum arbitrium heredis est quem velit dandi an potius legatarii. respondi verius dici electionem eius esse, cui potestas sit qua actione uti velit, id est legatarii.
When a slave had been bequeathed to Titius, the question was raised whether it is the heir’s arbitration to give him to whom he wishes, or rather the legatee’s. i answered that it is more truly said that the election belongs to him who has the power to use whichever action he wishes, that is, to the legatee.
Huiusmodi legatum "illi aut illi, uter eorum prior capitolium ascenderit" utile esse evidenti argumento probari ait, quod constet usum fructum libertis legatum et qui eorum supervixerit proprietatem utiliter legari. idque et de herede instituendo dicendum existimavit.
He says that a legacy of this sort—“to this man or to that man, whichever of them shall first have ascended the Capitol”—is proved by an evident argument to be valid, because it is established that a usufruct is bequeathed to the freedmen and that the ownership is validly bequeathed to whichever of them has survived. And he thought that the same should be said about instituting an heir.
Stichum, quem de te stipulatus eram, titius a te herede mihi legavit: si quidem non ex lucrativa causa stipulatio intercessit, utile legatum esse placebat, sin e duabus, tunc magis placet inutile esse legatum, quia nec absit quicquam nec bis eadem res praestari possit.
Stichus, whom I had stipulated from you, Titius, as your heir, bequeathed to me: if indeed the stipulation did not intervene from a lucrative cause, it was held that the legacy is valid; but if from both, then it is rather held that the legacy is invalid, because neither should anything be lacking nor can the same thing be rendered twice.
Sed si, cum mihi ex testamento titii stichum deberes, eundem a te herede sempronius mihi legaverit fideique meae commiserit, ut eum alicui restituam, legatum utile erit, quia non sum habiturus: idem iuris erit et si pecuniam a me legaverit: multo magis, si in priore testamento fideicommissum sit. item si in priore testamento falcidiae locus sit, quod inde abscidit ratione falcidiae, ex sequenti testamento consequar.
But if, when you owed me Stichus under the testament of Titius, Sempronius, as your heir, should have legated to me that same person and committed him to my good faith, that I restore him to someone, the legacy will be effective, because I am not going to have him; the same law will obtain also if he should have legated money at my charge; much more so, if in the prior testament there is a fideicommissum. Likewise, if in the prior testament there is room for the Falcidian portion, what he cut off thence by reason of the Falcidian, I shall obtain from the subsequent testament.
Si ita scriptum erit: "amplius quam titio legavi heres meus seio decem dato", dubitandum non erit, quin et titio suum legatum maneat et seio nihil ultra decem debeatur: nam et usitatum fere est sic legare: "lucio titio tot et hoc amplius uxori et liberis eius tot".
If it is written thus: "more than to Titius I have bequeathed, let my heir give to Seius ten," there will be no doubt that both Titius’s own legacy remains and that to Seius nothing beyond ten is owed: for it is well-nigh usual to bequeath thus: "to Lucius Titius so much, and in addition to this to his wife and children so much."
Si ei cui nihil legatum est cum hac adiectione "hoc amplius" aliquid legetur, minime dubitandum est, quin id quod ita legaverit debeatur: multoque minus dubitandum, si ab eo qui nihil mihi debet ita stipulatus fuero: "amplius quam mihi debes decem dare spondes?" quin decem debeantur.
If to one to whom nothing has been bequeathed, with this addition "this further," something is bequeathed, there is no doubt at all that what he has thus bequeathed is owed: and much less is there doubt, if I have thus stipulated from one who owes me nothing: "do you promise to give ten more than you owe me?" that ten are owed.
Qui quinque in arca habebat ita legavit vel stipulanti promisit "decem quae in arca habeo": et legatum et stipulatio valebit, ita tamen, ut sola quinque vel ex stipulatione vel ex testamento debeantur. ut vero quinque quae deerunt ex testamento peti possint, vix ratio patietur: nam quodammodo certum corpus, quod in rerum natura non sit, legatum videtur. quod si mortis tempore plena summa fuerat et postea aliquod ex ea deperierit, sine dubio soli heredi deperit.
He who had five in a chest thus bequeathed or promised to the stipulating party, "ten which I have in the chest": both the legacy and the stipulation will be valid, yet only five will be owed, either under the stipulation or under the testament. But that the five which are lacking can be claimed from the testament, reason will scarcely allow: for it seems that, in a certain way, a specific corpus, which is not in the nature of things, has been bequeathed. But if at the time of death the full sum was present and afterward some of it has perished, without doubt the loss falls upon the heir alone.
Cum quid tibi legatum fideive tuae commissum sit, ut mihi restituas, si quidem nihil praeterea ex testamento capias, dolum malum dumtaxat in exigendo eo legato, alioquin etiam culpam te mihi praestare debere existimavit: sicut in contractibus fidei bonae servatur, ut, si quidem utriusque contrahentis commodum versetur, etiam culpa, sin unius solius, dolus malus tantummodo praestetur.
When something has been left to you by legacy or committed to your good faith, to restore to me, if indeed you take nothing else under the testament, he judged that only malicious deceit (dolus malus) need be answered for in exacting that legacy; otherwise, that you must answer even for fault (culpa): just as is observed in contracts of good faith, that, if the advantage of both contracting parties is involved, even fault is to be answered for, but if of one alone, only malicious deceit is to be answered for.
Qui margarita titio pignori dederat, filium heredem instituit et filiam exheredavit, deinde ita cavit: "te, titi, rogo fideique tuae committo, uti margarita, quae tibi pignori dedi, vendas et deducto omni debito tuo quod amplius erit id omne filiae meae restituas". ex ea scriptura filiam a fratre fidei commissum petere posse, ut is actiones suas adversus debitorem ei praestaret: hoc enim casu eum, qui creditor fuisset, debitorem intellegendum eius scilicet, quod pretium pignoris summam debiti excedat.
He who had given a pearl to Titius as a pledge instituted his son as heir and disinherited his daughter, then thus provided: “you, Titius, I ask and commit to your good faith, that you sell the pearl which I gave you in pledge, and, all that is owed to you having been deducted, whatever will be in excess, restore all of it to my daughter.” From that writing the daughter can demand a fideicommissum from her brother, to the effect that he furnish to her his legal actions against the debtor: for in this case he who had been the creditor is to be understood as the debtor—namely, of that by which the price of the pledge exceeds the sum of the debt.
Non autem mirandum, si, cum alius rogatus sit, alius fidei commisso obstringatur: nam et cum in testamento ita scribatur: "te, titi, rogo, ut acceptis centum illum servum manumittas" vel "sempronio quid praestes", parum quidem apte scribi, verum aeque intellegendum heredis fidei commissum, ut pecuniam titio praestet: ideoque et ipsum titium cum herede acturum et libertatem servo vel sempronio quod rogatus sit praestare cogendum.
Nor, however, is it a matter for wonder if, when one person is asked, another is bound by a fideicommissum: for even when in the testament it is written thus, “you, Titius, I ask that, upon receiving one hundred, you manumit that slave,” or “that you furnish something to Sempronius,” it is indeed not very aptly written, but it must nonetheless be understood equally as a fideicommissum binding the heir, namely that he provide the money to Titius; and therefore both that Titius himself will have an action against the heir, and that the heir be compelled to grant liberty to the slave or to furnish to Sempronius what he was asked to provide.
Si quando quis uxori suae ea, quae vivus donaverat volgari modo, leget, non de aliis donationibus videri eum sentire ait, quam de his quae iure valiturae non sunt: alioquin et frustra legaturus sit atque si ita exprimat: "quae uxori iure donavero" vel ita: "quae uxori manumissionis causa donavero, ea ei lego": nam inutile legatum futurum est.
If ever someone bequeaths to his wife those things which, while alive, he had donated in the common way, he says that he seems to be speaking not of other donations than those which will not be valid in law; otherwise he would be going to bequeath in vain, and if he should express it thus: “the things which I shall have donated to my wife by law,” or thus: “the things which I shall have donated to my wife for the sake of manumission, those I bequeath to her,” for the legacy will be ineffectual.
Heres, cuius fidei commissum erat, ut mihi fundum aut centum daret, fundum titio vendidit: cum electio ei relinquitur utrum malit dandi, ut tamen alterum solidum praestet, praetoris officio convenire existimo, ut, si pecuniam titius offerat, inhibeat fundi persecutionem. ita enim eadem causa constitueretur, quae futura esset si alienatus fundus non fuisset, quando etiam adversus ipsum heredem officium praetoris sive arbitri tale esse deberet, ut, si fundus non praestaretur, neque pluris neque minoris quam centum aestimaretur.
The heir, to whose faith a fideicommissum had been committed to give me either a landed estate or 100, sold the estate to titio: since the choice is left to him which he prefers to give, yet so that he must furnish one alternative in solidum, I think it accords with the praetor’s office that, if titius offers the money, he should inhibit the pursuit of the estate. For thus the same position would be established as would be if the estate had not been alienated, since even against the heir himself the office of the praetor or of an arbiter ought to be such that, if the estate were not provided, it would be appraised neither at more nor at less than 100.
Si heres generaliter servum quem ipse voluerit dare iussus sciens furem dederit isque furtum legatario fecerit, de dolo malo agi posse ait. sed quoniam illud verum est heredem in hoc teneri, ut non pessimum det, ad hoc tenetur, ut et alium hominem praestet et hunc pro noxae dedito relinquat.
If an heir, ordered in general to give whatever slave he himself should wish, knowingly has given a thief, and that man has committed theft against the legatee, he says that it is possible to bring an action for dolus malus. But since it is true that the heir is bound in this respect, that he not give the worst, he is further bound to this: both to furnish another man and to leave this one to be surrendered by way of noxal surrender.
Cum servum suum heres damnatus dare eum manumiserit, tenetur in eius aestimationem, nec interest, scierit an ignoraverit legatum. sed et si donaverit servum heres et eum is cui donatus est manumiserit, tenetur heres, quamvis ignoraverit a se eum legatum esse.
When an heir who has been condemned to give his slave manumits him, he is held to his valuation, and it makes no difference whether he knew or was ignorant of the legacy. But even if the heir has donated the slave and the one to whom he was donated manumits him, the heir is liable, although he was unaware that he was bound under a legacy in respect of him.
Apud Marcellum libro duodecimo digestorum talis quaestio agitatur. quidam ab eo cui fundum legaverat fideicommiserat, ut eum fundum post mortem suam restitueret sempronio: eiusdem legatarii fidei commiserat, ut titio daret centum: quaeritur quid iuris sit. et ait Marcellus, si titio testator centum ex fructibus, quos vivus legatarius perceperit, reliquerit et legatarius post tantum temporis decessisset, ut ex fructibus centum fierent, titium centum accepturum: si post acceptum legatum confestim decessisset legatarius, titii fideicommissum extingui, quia placet non plus posse rogari quem restituere quam quantum ei relictum est.
In Marcellus, book 12 of the Digest, such a question is discussed. A certain man had committed to the good faith of him to whom he had bequeathed an estate, that he should, after his own death, restore that estate to Sempronius; he had likewise committed to the faith of the same legatee that he should give Titius a hundred. The question is what the law is. And Marcellus says that, if the testator has left to Titius a hundred out of the fruits which the legatee, while alive, has collected, and the legatee has died after so much time that from the fruits a hundred would be made, Titius will receive a hundred; but if, after the legacy has been accepted, the legatee has immediately died, Titius’s fideicommissum is extinguished, because it is the settled view that one cannot be asked to restore more than has been left to him.
Sed si titii fideicommissum non est in tempus mortis legatarii collatum, ait Marcellus confestim fideicommissum titio dandum, sed cautione exacta quanto amplius ceperit reddi: quam cautionem ita committi, si prius legatarius decesserit, quam ex fructibus centum perciperet. sed vix est, ut legatarium ex reditibus voluit ante dare, quam fructus legatarius percepisset: certe erit legatarius audiendus, si velit totum fundum praestare, si de restituendo cavetur: absurdum enim est de suo eum praestare centum, maxime si fundus centum vel non multo pluris est: quo iure utimur.
But if Titius’s fideicommissum has not been deferred to the time of the legatee’s death, Marcellus says the fideicommissum must be given to Titius immediately, but with security exacted that whatever he shall have taken in excess be returned; and that this security is to be forfeited thus: if the legatee should die before he had received one hundred from the fruits. But it is hardly right to require the legatee to pay out of the revenues before the legatee has taken the fruits: certainly the legatee must be heard, if he is willing to furnish the whole farm, provided that security is given for restitution; for it is absurd that he should supply the hundred out of his own, especially if the farm is worth a hundred or not much more: this is the rule we use.
Si quid alicui licite fuerit relictum vel ius aliud, quod ipse quidem propter corporis sui vitium vel propter qualitatem relicti vel aliam quamcumque probabilem causam habere non potuit, alius tamen hoc habere potuit: quanti solet comparari, tantam aestimationem accipiet.
If anything shall have been licitly left to someone, or some other right, which he himself indeed could not have on account of a defect of his body, or because of the quality of the thing left, or any other probable cause, yet another could have had this: he will receive as much valuation as it is usually purchased for.
Quid ergo, si heres post mortem suam rogatus fuerit hereditatis suae partem quartam restituere? verius esse existimo, quod et scaevola notat et papirius fronto scribit, valere fideicommissum, atque si de hereditate sua restituenda rogatus esset: et eatenus restituenda est, quatenus hereditas testatoris patitur, secundum volgarem formam iuris.
What then, if the heir has been asked, after his own death, to restore the fourth part of his estate? I consider it more correct—which Scaevola also notes and Papirius Fronto writes—that the fideicommissum is valid, as if he had been asked to restore from his own inheritance; and it is to be restored to the extent that the testator’s estate allows, according to the common form of law.
Divi severus et antoninus rescripserunt eum, qui rogatus est sub condicione fratris sui filiis restituere, ante diem fideicommissi cedentem ne quidem ex voluntate eorum posse restituere his in potestate patris agentibus, cum possit die fideicommissi cedente sui iuris constitutis ipsis debere restitui vel, si aliquis ex his ante decesserit, non omnibus.
The deified Severus and Antoninus issued a rescript that he who has been asked under the condition to restore to his brother’s sons cannot, before the day when the fideicommissum vests, even by their will, make restoration to them while they are under their father’s power, since, when the day of the fideicommissum vests, upon they themselves being constituted sui iuris, it can and should be restored to them; or, if any one of them has died beforehand, then not to all.
Idem principes rescripserunt filiis ante diem fideicommissi venientem restitui hereditatem maternam necesse non esse, sed praestare heredem posse volgarem cautionem aut, si praestare eam non poterit, mitti liberos in possessionem fideicommissi servandi causa, ut pro pignore, non ut pro dominis possideant vel alienandi ius, sed ut pignus habeant, ut filius per patrem fructus consequatur et servus per dominum.
The same emperors rescripted that it is not necessary for the maternal inheritance to be restored to the sons before the day of the fideicommissum arrives, but that the heir can furnish the ordinary security; or, if he cannot furnish it, that the children be sent into possession for the sake of preserving the fideicommissum, so that they possess as for a pledge, not as for owners nor with a right of alienating, but that they have it as a pledge, as a son obtains the fruits through the father and a slave through the master.
Divi severus et antoninus rescripserunt eos, qui testamento vetant quid alienari nec causam exprimunt, propter quam id fieri velint, nisi invenitur persona, cuius respectu hoc a testatore dispositum est, nullius esse momenti scripturam, quasi nudum praeceptum reliquerint, quia talem legem testamento non possunt dicere: quod si liberis aut posteris aut libertis aut heredibus aut aliis quibusdam personis consulentes eiusmodi voluntatem significarent, eam servandam esse, sed haec neque creditoribus neque fisco fraudi esse: nam si heredis propter testatoris creditores bona venierunt, fortunam communem fideicommissarii quoque sequuntur.
The deified Severus and Antoninus rescripted that those who by a testament forbid that something be alienated and do not express the cause for which they would wish this to be done—unless there is found a person in whose regard this was disposed by the testator—the writing is of no moment, as if they had left a bare precept, because they cannot lay down such a law by a testament. But if, having in view their children or descendants or freedmen or heirs or certain other persons, they should signify such a will, that is to be observed; yet these things are to be no fraud upon creditors nor upon the Fisc. For if the goods of the heir have been sold on account of the testator’s creditors, they follow the common fortune of the fideicommissary as well.
Cum pater filio herede instituto, ex quo tres habuerat nepotes, fideicommisit, ne fundum alienaret et ut in familia relinqueret, et filius decedens duos heredes instituit, tertium exheredavit, eum fundum extraneo legavit, divi severus et antoninus rescripserunt verum esse non paruisse voluntati defuncti filium.
When a father, with his son instituted as heir, from whom he had had three grandsons, imposed a fideicommissum that he not alienate the estate and that he leave it within the family, and the son, upon dying, instituted two heirs, disinherited the third, and bequeathed that estate to a stranger, the deified Severus and Antoninus wrote back by rescript that it was true the son had not obeyed the wish of the deceased.
Heredi a semet ipso legatum dari non potest, a coherede potest. itaque si fundus legatus sit ei qui ex parte dimidia heres institutus est et duobus extraneis, ad heredem cui legatus est sexta pars fundi pertinet, quia a se vindicare non potest, a coherede vero semissario duobus extraneis concurrentibus non amplius tertia parte: extranei autem et ab ipso herede cui legatum est semissem et ab alio herede trientem vindicabunt.
An heir cannot be given a legacy by himself, but he can be by a coheir. and so if a farm is bequeathed to him who has been instituted heir for a half share and to two outsiders, to the heir to whom it is bequeathed there pertains one-sixth of the farm, because he cannot vindicate it from himself; from the coheir, indeed, who is a half-sharer, with the two outsiders concurring, not more than a third part: the outsiders, moreover, will vindicate a half from the very heir to whom the legacy is made, and a third from the other heir.
Fundus legatus talis dari debet, qualis relictus est. itaque sive ipse fundo heredis servitutem debuit sive ei fundus heredis, licet confusione dominii servitus exstincta sit, pristinum ius restituendum est. et nisi legatarius imponi servitutem patiatur, petenti ei legatum exceptio doli mali opponetur: si vero fundo legato servitus non restituetur, actio ex testamento superest.
A bequeathed estate must be delivered such as it was left. And so whether it itself owed a servitude to the heir’s estate or the heir’s estate owed a servitude to it, although by confusion of ownership the servitude has been extinguished, the former right must be restored. And unless the legatee permits the servitude to be imposed, when he demands the legacy the exception of dolus malus will be opposed to him: but if, when the estate is given under the legacy, the servitude is not restored, an action on the testament remains.
Si servus vetitus est a testatore rationes reddere, non hoc consequitur, ut ne quod apud eum sit reddat et lucri faciat, sed ne scrupulosa inquisitio fiat, hoc est ut neglegentiae ratio non habeatur, sed tantum fraudium. ideo et manumisso non videtur peculium legari per hoc, quod vetitus est rationes reddere.
If a slave has been forbidden by the testator to render accounts, it does not follow from this that he need not hand over what is in his possession and may make gain; rather, that no scrupulous inquiry be made—that is, that account be taken not of negligence, but only of frauds. Therefore, also, the peculium does not seem to be bequeathed to the manumitted by the fact that he has been forbidden to render accounts.
Civitatibus legari potest etiam quod ad honorem ornatumque civitatis pertinet: ad ornatum puta quod ad instruendum forum theatrum stadium legatum fuerit: ad honorem puta quod ad munus edendum venationemve ludos scenicos ludos circenses relictum fuerit aut quod ad divisionem singulorum civium vel epulum relictum fuerit. hoc amplius quod in alimenta infirmae aetatis, puta senioribus vel pueris puellisque, relictum fuerit ad honorem civitatis pertinere respondetur.
It is possible to bequeath to cities even that which pertains to the honor and adornment of the city: for adornment, suppose what has been bequeathed for constructing/equipping a forum, theater, or stadium: for honor, suppose what has been left for putting on a munus or a venatio, scenic plays, circus games, or what has been left for a distribution to individual citizens or for a banquet. Furthermore, it is answered that what has been left for the alimenta of feeble age, namely for the elderly or for boys and girls, pertains to the honor of the city.
Eum cui sub hac condicione fundus legatus est, si centum heredi dedisset, si tantum sit in pretio fundi, quantum heredi dare iussus est, non est legatarius cogendus fideicommissum a se relictum praestare, quoniam nihil ex testamento videtur capere, qui tantum erogat, quantum accipit.
The one to whom a farm has been bequeathed under this condition—if he should have given one hundred to the heir—if there is in the price of the farm as much as he was ordered to give to the heir, the legatee is not to be compelled to perform the fideicommissum left by himself, since he seems to take nothing from the testament, who disburses as much as he receives.
Lucius titius cum duos filios heredes relinqueret, testamento ita cavit: "quisquis mihi liberorum meorum heres erit, eius fidei committo, ut si quis ex is sine liberis decedat, hereditatis meae bessem cum morietur fratribus suis restituat": frater decedens fratrem suum ex dodrante fecit heredem: quaero, an fideicommisso satisfecerit. Marcellus respondit id, quod ex testamento lucii titii fratri testator debuisset, pro ea parte, qua alius heres exstitisset, peti posse, nisi diversum sensisse eum probaretur: nam parvum inter hanc speciem interest et cum alias creditor debitori suo exstitit heres. sed plane audiendus erit coheres, si probare possit ea mente testatorem heredem instituisse fratrem suum, ut contentus institutione fideicommisso abstinere deberet.
Lucius Titius, when he was leaving his two sons as heirs, thus provided in his testament: "whoever of my children shall be heir to me, I commit to his good faith that, if any of them dies without children, he shall restore, when he dies, two-thirds (a bessis) of my inheritance to his brothers": the brother who died made his brother heir for three-quarters (a dodrans): I ask whether he has satisfied the fideicommissum. Marcellus replied that that which, under the testament of Lucius Titius, the testator would have owed to his brother can be claimed for that share in which another had become heir, unless it were proved that he had thought otherwise: for there is little difference between this case and the one in which elsewhere a creditor has become heir to his debtor. But clearly the coheir must be heard, if he can prove that the testator instituted his brother as heir with this intention, that, content with the institution, he ought to abstain from the fideicommissum.
In testamento ita scriptum est: "gaio seio illud et illud heres meus dato. et te rogo, sei, fideique tuae mando, uti ea omnia quae supra scripta sunt reddas sine ulla mora ei redderes ipse". quaero, an tacitum fideicommissum sit, cum personam testator, cui restitui vellet, testamento non significaverit. Marcellus respondit: si in fraudem legum tacitam fidem seius accommodasset, nihil ei prodesse potest, si his verbis pater familias cum eo locutus esset: non enim ideo circumvenisse minus leges existimandus est, cum perinde incertum sit cui prospectum voluerit.
in the testament it is written thus: "to gaius seius this and that let my heir give. and i ask you, seius, and commit it to your good faith, that you restore all the things which are written above without any delay—you yourself would hand them over to him." i ask whether there is a tacit fideicommissum, since the testator did not signify in the testament the person to whom he wished them to be restored. marcellus responded: if seius had accommodated his tacit good faith in fraud of the laws, it can profit him nothing, even if the paterfamilias had spoken with him in these words: for he is not on that account to be thought to have circumvented the laws less, since it is just as uncertain for whom he wished to provide.
Ab exheredati substituto inutiliter legatum datur. ergo nec a legitimo exheredati fideicommissum dari poterit, quod et legitimi eo iure praestare coguntur, quo si scripti fuissent. sed si committente aliquo ex liberis edictum praetoris, quo contra tabulas bonorum possessionem pollicetur, scriptus quoque filius contra tabulas bonorum possessionem petierit, substitutus eius legata pro modo patrimonii, quod ad filium pervenit, praestabit, perinde ac si id, quod per bonorum possessionem filius habuit, a patre accepisset.
A legacy is ineffectually given by the substitute of a disinherited person. therefore, neither can a fideicommissum be given by the heir-at-law of the disinherited, since heirs-at-law too are compelled to perform under the same law as if they had been instituted. but if, upon some one of the children setting in motion the praetor’s edict, by which he promises possession of the estate against the will, a son who was also instituted seeks possession of the estate against the will, his substitute will discharge the legacies in proportion to the patrimony that came to the son, just as if that which the son had by possession of the estate he had received from his father.
Si tutor pupillam suam contra senatus consultum uxorem duxit, illa quidem ex testamento eius capere potest, ipse autem non potest, et merito: delinquunt enim hi, qui prohibitas nuptias contrahunt et merito puniendi sunt: quod imputari non potest mulieri, quae a tutore decepta est.
If a guardian has taken his own pupil as a wife contrary to the senatus‑consultum, she indeed can take under his testament, but he himself cannot, and deservedly: for those who contract prohibited nuptials are delinquent and deservedly are to be punished; which cannot be imputed to the woman, who was deceived by the guardian.