Corpus iurisprudentiae Romanae

Repertorium zu den Quellen des römischen Rechts

Digesta Iustiniani Augusti

Recognovit Mommsen (1870) et retractavit Krüger (1928)
Convertit in Anglica lingua Scott (1932)
Dig. XXVIII8,
De iure deliberandi
Liber vicesimus octavus
VIII.

De iure deliberandi

(Concerning the Right of Deliberating.)

1Ul­pia­nus li­bro se­xa­ge­si­mo ad edic­tum. Si ser­vus fue­rit he­res in­sti­tu­tus, uti­que non ip­si prae­sti­tui­mus tem­pus ad de­li­be­ran­dum, sed ei cu­ius ser­vus est, quia pro nul­lo is­ti ha­ben­tur apud prae­to­rem. item­que si plu­rium ser­vus sit, uti­que om­ni­bus do­mi­nis prae­sti­tue­mus. 1Ait prae­tor: ‘si tem­pus ad de­li­be­ran­dum pe­tet, da­bo’. 2Cum di­cit tem­pus nec ad­icit diem, si­ne du­bio os­ten­dit es­se in ius di­cen­tis po­tes­ta­te, quem diem prae­sti­tuat:

1Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LX. If a slave should be appointed an heir, we cannot grant him time for deliberation, but it is granted to him to whom the slave belongs; for the reason that slaves are considered by the Prætor as of no importance. Moreover, if the slave belongs to several masters, we grant time for deliberation to all of them. 1The Prætor says, “If anyone asks time for deliberation I will grant it”. 2When the Prætor says that he will grant time, but does not say how much, he undoubtedly means that it is in the power of the court having jurisdiction to fix the term to be allowed.

2Pau­lus li­bro quin­qua­ge­si­mo sep­ti­mo ad edic­tum. ita­que pau­cio­res cen­tum die­rum non sunt dan­di.

2Paulus, On the Edict, Book LVII. And no less than a hundred days should be granted.

3Ul­pia­nus li­bro se­xa­ge­si­mo ad edic­tum. Nec non il­lud scien­dum non­num­quam se­mel, non­num­quam sae­pius diem ad de­li­be­ran­dum da­tum es­se, dum prae­to­ri sua­de­tur tem­pus, quod pri­mum ad­itus prae­sti­tue­rat, non suf­fe­cis­se:

3Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LX. It must be noted that sometimes one term, and sometimes several, are granted for deliberation, when the Prætor is convinced that the time that he allowed when first applied to was not sufficient.

4Idem li­bro se­xa­ge­si­mo pri­mo ad edic­tum. sed hoc im­pe­tra­ri non de­bet ni­si ex mag­na cau­sa.

4The Same, On the Edict, Book LXI. This indulgence should not be granted, unless where a very good reason exists.

5Idem li­bro sep­tua­ge­si­mo ad edic­tum. Aris­to scri­bit non so­lum cre­di­to­ri­bus, sed et he­redi in­sti­tu­to prae­to­rem sub­ve­ni­re de­be­re his­que co­piam in­stru­men­to­rum in­spi­cien­do­rum fa­ce­re, ut per­in­de in­strue­re se pos­sint, ex­pe­diet nec ne agnos­ce­re he­redi­ta­tem. 1Si ma­ior sit he­redi­tas et de­li­be­rat he­res et res sunt in he­redi­ta­te, quae ex trac­tu tem­po­ris de­te­rio­res fiunt, ad­ito prae­to­re pot­est is qui de­li­be­rat si­ne prae­iu­di­cio eas ius­tis pre­tiis ven­de­re: qui pos­sit et­iam ea, quae ni­mium sump­tuo­sa sint, vel­uti iu­men­ta aut ve­na­li­cia, item ea quae mo­ra de­te­rio­ra fiant, ven­de­re, qui­que prae­ter­ea cu­ra­tu­rus sit, ut aes alie­num quod sub poe­na vel sub pre­tio­sis pig­no­ri­bus de­bea­tur, sol­va­tur.

5The Same, On the Edict, Book LXX. Aristo says that the Prætor should come to the relief not only of creditors, but also of the heir who has been appointed, and that they should furnish the latter with a copy of their claims, in order that he may ascertain whether it is to his interest to accept the estate or not. 1If the estate is quite valuable, and while the heir is deliberating there is property forming part of it which will be spoiled by lapse of time, upon application to the Prætor, the person who is deliberating can sell the said property for a fair price, without being prejudiced thereby; and he can also sell any property which is too expensive to keep, as, for instance, beasts of burden, or slaves which were for sale; as well as such articles as become deteriorated by delay. He also should take care that any debt which is due, or which is subject to a penalty, or which is secured by valuable pledges, is paid.

6Gaius li­bro vi­ce­si­mo ter­tio ad edic­tum pro­vin­cia­le. Igi­tur si qui­dem in he­redi­ta­te sit vi­num oleum fru­men­tum nu­me­ra­ta pe­cu­nia, in­de fie­ri de­be­bunt im­pen­dia: si mi­nus, a de­bi­to­ri­bus he­redi­ta­riis ex­igen­da pe­cu­nia. quod si nul­li sunt de­bi­to­res aut iu­di­cem pro­vo­cent, venire de­bent res su­per­va­cuae.

6Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book XXIII. Hence, where wine, oil, wheat, or money constitutes part of the estate, it should be used to pay the debts. If there are none of these articles, money must be collected from the debtors of the estate, and if there are no debtors, or they contest the claims against them, any superfluous property should be sold.

7Ul­pia­nus li­bro se­xa­ge­si­mo ad edic­tum. Ait prae­tor: ‘Si pu­pil­li pu­pil­lae no­mi­ne pos­tu­la­bi­tur tem­pus ad de­li­be­ran­dum, an ex­pe­diat eum he­redi­ta­tem re­ti­ne­re, et hoc da­tum sit: si ius­ta cau­sa es­se vi­de­bi­tur, bo­na in­ter­ea de­mi­nui ni­si si cau­sa co­gni­ta bo­ni vi­ri ar­bi­tra­tu ve­ta­bo’. 1Me­ri­to prae­tor im­pe­dit in­ter­im de­mi­nutio­nem, quam­diu no­mi­ne pu­pil­li pe­ti­tur tem­pus ad de­li­be­ran­dum. 2Quid sit au­tem ‘de­mi­nui ve­ta­bo’ vi­dea­mus. his ver­bis prae­tor non tan­tum alie­na­tio­nem im­pe­dit, ve­rum et­iam ac­tio­nes ex­er­ce­ri non pa­ti­tur: est enim ab­sur­dum ei, cui alie­na­tio in­ter­di­ci­tur, per­mit­ti ac­tio­nes ex­er­ce­re, et ita La­beo scri­bit. 3In cau­sae au­tem co­gni­tio­ne hoc ver­te­tur, an ius­ta cau­sa sit, ut de­mi­nue­re prae­tor per­mit­tat. er­go et fu­ne­ris cau­sa de­mi­nui per­mit­tet, item eo­rum quae si­ne pia­cu­lo non pos­sunt prae­ter­iri. ves­cen­di gra­tia ae­que de­mi­nui per­mit­tet. sed et ubi ur­guet, ex aliis quo­que cau­sis per­mit­te­re eum opor­tet, ut ae­di­fi­cia sar­cian­tur, ne agri in­cul­ti sint, si qua pe­cu­nia sub poe­na de­be­tur ut re­sti­tua­tur, ne pi­g­no­ra dis­tra­han­tur. ex aliis quo­que ius­tis cau­sis prae­tor ad­itus de­mi­nutio­nem per­mit­tet: ne­que enim si­ne per­mis­su eius de­bet de­mi­nutio fie­ri.

7Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LX. The Prætor says: “If time is requested in the name of a male or female minor, for the purpose of deliberation as to whether it will profit him or her to retain the estate, and this is granted, if there seems to be good reason to diminish the assets of the estate in the meantime, I shall forbid this to be done, unless the report of a reputable citizen recommends it after thorough investigation.”

8Idem li­bro se­xa­ge­si­mo pri­mo ad edic­tum. Si quis suus he­res, post­ea­quam se abs­ti­nue­rit, tunc pe­tat tem­pus ad de­li­be­ran­dum, vi­dea­mus, an im­pe­tra­re de­beat: ma­gis­que est, ut ex cau­sa de­beat im­pe­tra­re, cum non­dum bo­na ven­ie­rint.

8The Same, On the Edict, Book LXI. Where a proper heir, after having rejected the estate, requests time for deliberation, let us see whether he ought to obtain it. The better opinion is that he should obtain it, where proper cause is shown, and the property of the estate has not yet been sold.

9Pau­lus li­bro quin­qua­ge­si­mo oc­ta­vo ad edic­tum. Fi­lius dum de­li­be­rat, ali­men­ta ha­be­re de­bet ex he­redi­ta­te.

9Paulus, On the Edict, Book LVIII. While the son is deliberating, he should be supported at the expense of the estate.

10Mar­cel­lus li­bro vi­ce­si­mo oc­ta­vo di­ges­to­rum. Si plu­res gra­dus sint he­redum in­sti­tu­to­rum, per sin­gu­los ob­ser­va­tu­rum se ait prae­tor id quod prae­fi­nien­do tem­po­re de­li­be­ra­tio­nis edi­cit, vi­de­li­cet ut a pri­mo quo­que ad se­quen­tem trans­la­ta he­redi­ta­te quam pri­mum in­ve­niat suc­ces­so­rem, qui pos­sit de­func­ti cre­di­to­ri­bus re­spon­de­re.

10Marcellus, Digest, Book XXVIII. When there are several degrees of appointed heirs, the Prætor says that he will examine them one by one in regular succession, in accordance with the time granted each for deliberation; in order that, while the estate is passing from the first to the following degrees, he may as soon as possible find the heir who can satisfy the creditors of the deceased.

11Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro quar­to ex pos­te­rio­ri­bus La­beo­nis. Qui fi­lium li­ber­ti­num ha­be­bat, he­redem eum in­sti­tue­rat, de­in­de ita scrip­se­rat: ‘si mi­hi fi­lius nul­lus erit, qui in suam tu­te­lam ve­niat, tum Da­ma ser­vus li­ber es­to’: is fi­lius pu­pil­lus li­ber­ti­nus erat: quae­re­ba­tur, si Da­ma li­ber es­set. Tre­ba­tius ne­gat, quia fi­lii ap­pel­la­tio­ne li­ber­ti­nus quo­que con­ti­ne­re­tur: La­beo con­tra, quia eo lo­co ve­rum fi­lium ac­ci­pi opor­tet. Tre­ba­tii sen­ten­tiam pro­bo, si ta­men tes­ta­to­rem de hoc fi­lio lo­cu­tum es­se ap­pa­ret.

11Javolenus, On the Last Works of Labeo, Book IV. A former slave had a son who was a freedman, and whom he appointed his heir, and he then inserted into his will: “If I should have no son who will become his own master, then let Damas the slave be free”. The minor son of the testator had been emancipated. The question arose whether Damas should be free. Trebatius declares that he should not, because the term freedman is also included in the appellation of son. Labeo holds the contrary opinion, because in this instance a true son must be understood. I adopt the view of Trebatius, in case it should become evident that the testator had reference to the said son.