Si mulier ventris nomine in possessione calumniae causa esse dicetur
(Where a Woman is Said to Have Obtained Possession of the Estate of Her Husband in the Name of Her Unborn Child, by Having Made a False Statement.)
1 Ulpianus libro trigesimo quarto ad edictum. Si de possessione ventris nomine quaeratur et deferente herede mulier iuraverit praegnatem se esse, servandum est iusiurandum nec tenebitur mulier, quasi calumniae causa fuerit in possessionem missa, nec vis ei facienda est post iusiurandum. si tamen peperit, quaeretur veritas, an ex eo praegnas fuerit: alteri enim nec prodest nec nocet iusiurandum inter alios factum, nec partui igitur nocebit. 1Et hoc edictum ex eadem causa proficiscitur, qua superius: debet enim praetor, quemadmodum facilis est circa bonorum possessionem dandam mulieri ventris nomine, ita calumniam eius impunitam non relinquere. 2Per calumniam autem in possessione fuisse videtur, quae sciens prudensque se praegnatem non esse voluit in possessionem venire. 3Hanc autem actionem praetor intra annum utilem pollicetur, ultra non, videlicet quasi poenalem. 4Simili autem modo et hic quanti agentis interfuit praetor actionem pollicetur. 5In parentem etiam praetor actionem pollicetur, si modo per eum factum sit, ut in possessionem per calumniam veniret. 6Competit autem haec actio ei, cuius interfuit in possessionem missam non esse: ut puta vel coheredi speranti partum, vel si qui substitutus fuit, vel qui ab intestato, si partus non fuisset, succedere potuit. 7Interesse autem videtur primum de alimentis, quae in ventrem sunt erogata: nec enim alias haec repetuntur, nisi per calumniam in possessionem venit: ceterum si res calumnia caret, nihil praestabit mulier, quae sine causa alta est sub praetextu ventris. 8Nonnumquam augebitur quod interest, si quis forte dubitans, an praegnas sit, exclusus sit hereditate: nam heredi eius qui exclusus est dandam hanc actionem Iulianus ait, siquidem eius quoque interfuit non fuisse calumniae causa in possessione mulierem, quia hoc si non fuisset, adeundo hereditatem institutus heredi suo locupletiorem hereditatem suam relinqueret. sed et hoc imputatur mulieri, quod deminuta sunt multa in hereditate, dum hic contemplatione ventris non attigit hereditatem. 9Idem Iulianus libro decimo nono digestorum sic ait: si substitutus manente muliere in possessione decesserit, heres eius eadem actione pretium hereditatis a muliere exiget. 10Sed an decedant legata ceteraque onera hereditatis, videndum. et mihi videtur posse dici legatarios potius cum muliere usuros hac actione, quia et ipsorum interfuit adiri hereditatem. 11Libertati plane subveniendum erit adversus eum, qui propter hereditatem hac actione egit, scilicet ut fideicommissarias cogatur is praestare, qui pretium utique etiam eorum consequitur: sed et directis credo praetorem succurrere oportere, ut interventu suo tueatur eorum libertatem. 12Si dolus filiae familias intervenerit et particeps doli fuerit pater, suo nomine tenebitur.
1 Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXXIV. Where possession is demanded by a woman in the name of her unborn child, and the oath having been tendered by the heir she swears that she is pregnant, the oath must be upheld, and she will not be liable on the ground that she has obtained possession through a false statement, nor shall any compulsion be applied to her after she has been sworn. If, however, she should bring forth a child, an inquiry can be made as to whether it is true that she was pregnant by her husband; for where an oath is taken between two persons, it cannot profit a third party, nor prejudice the rights of the others. Nor, under such circumstances, will the rights of the child be prejudiced. 1This Edict is based upon the same principle as the former one, for the Prætor, as it is easy to grant the woman possession of the estate in the name of her unborn child, should not fail to punish her false statement. 2A woman is held to have obtained possession fraudulently, who attempts to obtain possession being well aware that she is not pregnant. 3The Prætor promises this action within the available year, but not beyond it, because it is of the nature of a penal one. 4In like manner, in this instance the Prætor promises an action for the recovery of the amount of the interest of the plaintiff. 5The Prætor also promises this action against the father of the woman, provided it was by his act that she fraudulently obtained possession. 6This action can be brought by anyone whose interest it is that a woman should not be placed in possession of the estate; as, for example, either by a co-heir, who is waiting for a child to be born, or a person who has been substituted, or one who would inherit ab intestato if the woman should die. 7The interest of the plaintiff is, first of all, held to have reference to the maintenance which is claimed by the woman on the ground of her pregnancy; for nothing can be recovered on this account, unless the woman obtained possession of the estate through fraudulent representation. If, however, there was no fraudulent representation, she will not be compelled to pay anything, because she obtained support, without any reason, under the pretext of her pregnancy. 8Sometimes, the amount of the interest is increased, where, for instance, the heir being in doubt as to the woman’s pregnancy, is excluded from the estate. For Julianus says that this action should be granted to the heir who is excluded, if it was to his interest that the woman should not fraudulently obtain possession; because if this were not the case, the appointed heir, by entering upon the estate, would leave a more valuable inheritance to his own heir. The woman could also be blamed for the diminution of the value of the estate, as the heir did not accept it on account of the prospect of the birth of a child. 9Julianus also says in the Nineteenth Book of the Digest, that if an heir, who has been substituted, should die while the woman is in possession of the estate, his heir can collect its value from the woman by means of the same action. 10But it should be considered whether the legacies and other charges of the estate should be relinquished by the woman; and it seems to me that it can be held that the legatees have a right to avail themselves of this action against her, because it is to their interest that the estate should be entered upon. 11It is clear that relief must be given to slaves who have been liberated, as against the party who has brought this action in behalf of the estate; that is to say, that he shall be compelled to discharge the trust, as he has received their value. I think, however, that the Prætor should come to the relief of those who have been directly manumitted, and by his intervention should maintain their freedom. 12Where fraud exists on the part of a woman under paternal control, and her father has participated in it, he will be liable in his own name.