De iure deliberandi
(Concerning the right of deliberating.)
1 Ulpianus 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:
1 Ulpianus, 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.
2 Paulus libro quinquagesimo septimo ad edictum. itaque pauciores centum dierum non sunt dandi.
2 Paulus, On the Edict, Book LVII. And no less than a hundred days should be granted.
3 Ulpianus 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:
3 Ulpianus, 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.
4 Idem libro sexagesimo primo ad edictum. sed hoc impetrari non debet nisi ex magna causa.
4 The Same, On the Edict, Book LXI. This indulgence should not be granted, unless where a very good reason exists.
5 Idem 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.
5 The 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.
6 Gaius 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.
6 Gaius, 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.
7 Ulpianus 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.
7 Ulpianus, 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.”
8 Idem 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.
8 The 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.
9 Paulus libro quinquagesimo octavo ad edictum. Filius dum deliberat, alimenta habere debet ex hereditate.
9 Paulus, On the Edict, Book LVIII. While the son is deliberating, he should be supported at the expense of the estate.
10 Marcellus 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.
10 Marcellus, 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.
11 Iavolenus 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.
11 Javolenus, 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.