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. XXXVI4,
Ut in possessionem legatorum vel fideicommissorum servandorum causa esse liceat
Liber trigesimus sextus
IV.

Ut in possessionem legatorum vel fideicommissorum servandorum causa esse liceat

(When the Legatees of the Beneficiaries of a Trust can be Placed in Possession of the Property of the Estate for the Purpose of Preserving the Same.)

1Ul­pia­nus li­bro quin­qua­gen­si­mo se­cun­do ad edic­tum. Si quis, cum ve­ti­tus es­set sa­tis ac­ci­pe­re, ac­ce­pe­rit, an re­pe­ti sa­tis­da­tio is­ta pos­sit, ut he­res con­di­cat li­be­ra­tio­nem? et qui­dem si sciens he­res in­de­bi­tum ca­vit, re­pe­te­re non pot­est. quid de­in­de, si igno­ra­vit re­mis­sam si­bi sa­tis­da­tio­nem? pot­est con­di­ce­re. si ve­ro hoc non po­tuis­se re­mit­ti cre­di­de­rit, num­quid con­di­ce­re pos­sit qui ius igno­ra­vit? ad­huc ta­men be­ni­gne quis di­xe­rit sa­tis­da­tio­nem con­di­ci pos­se. quid de­in­de, si com­mis­sa sit sti­pu­la­tio, fi­de­ius­so­res pu­ta­mus ex­cep­tio­ne uti pos­se an non? et ma­gis est, ut utan­tur ex­cep­tio­ne, quia ex ea cau­sa in­ter­ces­sit sa­tis­da­tio, ex qua non de­buit. 1Non ex­igit prae­tor, ut per he­redem stet, quo mi­nus ca­veat, sed con­ten­tus fuit per le­ga­ta­rium vel fi­dei­com­mis­sa­rium non sta­re, quo mi­nus ei ca­vea­tur. qua­re si non fue­rit, qui in­ter­pel­le­tur cau­tio­nis no­mi­ne, hoc est is a quo le­ga­tum fi­dei­ve com­mis­sum re­lic­tum est, om­ni­mo­do pot­erit le­ga­ta­rius et fi­dei­com­mis­sa­rius in pos­ses­sio­nem ex hoc edic­to mit­ti, quia ve­rum est per eum, cui ca­ve­ri opor­te­bit, non fie­ri, quo mi­nus ca­vea­tur. non ta­men et sa­tis­da­tio de­bet of­fer­ri le­ga­ta­rio, sed suf­fi­cit, si­ve de­si­de­ra­vit et non ca­ve­tur, si­ve non ha­beat, a quo sa­tis de­si­de­ret. 2Si de­bi­to­ri li­be­ra­tio sit re­lic­ta, non est ex­igen­da cau­tio, quia ha­bet pe­nes se le­ga­tum: quip­pe, si con­ve­nia­tur, ex­cep­tio­ne do­li ma­li uti pos­sit ei cui le­ga­tum so­lu­tum est. 3Cum con­stet le­ga­tum non de­be­ri, di­vus Pius ad Ae­mi­lium Eques­trem re­scrip­sit non de­be­re prae­to­rem sa­tis­da­tio­nem ad­mit­te­re. 4Tunc an­te ad­itam he­redi­ta­tem sa­tis­dan­dum de le­ga­tis est, cum ad­huc du­bium est, an he­redi­tas ad­ea­tur. ce­te­rum si cer­tum sit re­pu­dia­tam vel omis­sam he­redi­ta­tem vel abs­ten­tos ne­ces­sa­rios he­redes, frus­tra hoc edic­tum im­plo­ra­tur, cum cer­tum sit le­ga­tum vel fi­dei­com­mis­sum non de­be­ri.

1Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LII. If anyone should take security after he has been forbidden to do so, can the bond be recovered by the heir, so that he may be released? If, indeed, the heir knowingly gave security when it was not necessary he cannot be released. But what if he was not aware that he was excused from giving security? He can then recover. If, being ignorant of law, he thought that he could not be excused from giving security, can he recover the bond? In this instance, anyone may still very properly say that he can do so. But what if a stipulation had been entered into, shall we hold that the sureties can avail themselves of an exception, or not? The better opinion is that they can avail themselves of an exception, because security has been given in a case where none was required. 1The Prætor does not demand that the furnishing of security should be opposed by the heir, but he will be satisfied if the failure to give it was not caused by either the legatee or the beneficiary of the trust. Therefore, if there is no one who can be called upon to give bond (that is to say, some person who has been charged to the payment of a legacy, or the execution of a trust), the legatee and the beneficiary can be placed in absolute possession of the property by the terms of this Edict, because it is true that the person to whom security should be given is not to blame for it not being furnished. Security, however, should not be offered to the legatee, but it will be sufficient if he demanded it, and it was not given, or if there was no one of whom he could ask it. 2Where the release of a claim is bequeathed to a debtor, no bond should be required, because he himself has the legacy in his hands; since, if an action is brought against him, he can interpose an exception on the ground of fraud. 3The Divine Pius stated in a Rescript, directed to Æmilius of the Equestrian Order, that the Prætor should not permit a legatee, to whom his legacy has been paid, to ask security of the heir when it is established that the legacy is not due. 4Security must be furnished for the payment of a legacy before the estate has been entered upon, when it is still doubtful whether it will be accepted. Moreover, where it is certain that it will be rejected or relinquished, or where the necessary heirs will not accept it, recourse will be had in vain to this Edict, as it is clear that the legacy will not be payable, or the trust executed.

2Idem li­bro sep­tua­gen­si­mo no­no ad edic­tum. Si au­tem cer­tum sit he­redi­ta­tem nec­dum ad­itam fuis­se, nec sa­tis­da­tio nec pos­ses­sio lo­cum ha­bet.

2The Same, On the Edict, Book LXXIX. Moreover, if it is certain that the estate has not yet been accepted, there will be no ground for demanding security, or prætorian possession of the property.

3Idem li­bro quin­qua­gen­si­mo se­cun­do ad edic­tum. Si is, a quo sa­tis pe­ti­tur, of­fe­rat co­gni­tio­nem et di­cat: ‘ho­die con­stet de fi­dei­com­mis­so, ho­die aga­mus’, di­cen­dum est ces­sa­re sa­tis­da­tio­nem, cum pos­sit an­te de fi­dei­com­mis­so quam de sa­tis­da­tio­ne con­sta­re. 1Nec non il­la co­gni­tio im­plo­ran­da erit ab he­rede, si for­te di­ca­tur per ca­lum­niam sa­tis pe­ti: hoc enim com­mu­ne est om­nium sa­tis­da­tio­num. di­vus enim Pius re­scrip­sit eum, apud quem sa­tis pe­ti­tur, de­be­re ex­plo­ra­re, num per ca­lum­niam sa­tis pe­ta­tur: de qua re sum­ma­tim de­bet co­gnos­ce­re. 2Si pro­cu­ra­tor sa­tis le­ga­to­rum de­si­de­ret, si qui­dem man­da­tum ei sit, non ha­be­bit ne­ces­se de ra­to ca­ve­re, sed erit ei sa­tis­dan­dum: si ve­ro du­bi­te­tur, an man­da­tum sit vel non sit, de ra­to cau­tio erit ex­igen­da. 3Si se­mel fue­rit sa­tis­da­tum, quae­si­tum est, an et­iam rur­sus ca­ven­dum sit, si for­te di­ca­tur ege­nos fi­de­ius­so­res es­se da­tos. et ma­gis est, ut ca­ve­ri non de­beat: hoc enim di­vus Pius re­scrip­sit Pa­cu­viae Li­ci­nia­nae: ip­sam enim fa­ci­li­ta­ti suae ex­pen­sum fer­re de­be­re, quae mi­nus fi­de­ius­so­res ido­neos ac­ce­pit: ne­que enim opor­tet per sin­gu­la mo­men­ta one­ra­ri eum, a quo sa­tis pe­ti­tur.

3The Same, On the Edict, Book LII. Where the heir, of whom security is demanded, suggests a judicial investigation of the legality of the bequest, and says, “Institute proceedings immediately with reference to the trust, let us go into court at once,” it must be said that the bond is no longer in force, as the validity of the trust must be established before that of the security is determined. 1This judicial investigation can the more readily be solicited by the heir, if he alleges that a bond is demanded for the purpose of annoyance; for this is the ordinary rule in all cases where security is asked. The Divine Pius stated in a Rescript that the judge before whom a bond is demanded should ascertain whether this is done maliciously, or not. He should make this inquiry summarily. 2Where the agent of a legatee demands security, if, indeed, he has been specially directed to do so, he himself will not be required to give bond that his act will be ratified, but security must be furnished him. If, however, it should be doubtful whether he has been appointed agent, or not, a bond for the ratification of his act shall be exacted of him. 3Where security has once been given, the question arises whether it should be given a second time, when it is alleged that the sureties are poor. The better opinion is that security should not be given a second time; for the Divine Pius stated in a Rescript addressed to Pacuvia Liciniana that she herself must bear the loss caused by her acceptance of sureties who were insolvent. Nor is it necessary for the person of whom security may be demanded to be annoyed every moment.

4Pa­pi­nia­nus li­bro vi­cen­si­mo oc­ta­vo quaes­tio­num. Pla­ne si no­va cau­sa al­le­ge­tur, vel­uti quod fi­de­ius­sor de­ces­se­rit aut et­iam rem fa­mi­lia­rem in­opi­na­to for­tu­nae im­pe­tu amis­e­rit, ae­quum erit prae­sta­ri cau­tio­nem.

4Papinianus, Questions, Book XXVIII. It is evident that it is but just that another bond should be given where some new reason is alleged for doing so; as, for instance, if the surety should die, or should lose his property by some unexpected misfortune.

5Ul­pia­nus li­bro quin­qua­gen­si­mo se­cun­do ad edic­tum. Is cui le­ga­to­rum fi­dei­ve com­mis­so­rum no­mi­ne non ca­ve­tur mis­sus in pos­ses­sio­nem nun­quam pro do­mi­no es­se in­ci­pit. nec tam pos­ses­sio re­rum ei quam cus­to­dia da­tur: ne­que enim ex­pel­len­di he­redem ius ha­bet, sed si­mul cum eo pos­si­de­re iu­be­tur, ut sal­tem tae­dio per­pe­tuae cus­to­diae ex­tor­queat he­redi cau­tio­nem. 1Si alius dam­ni in­fec­ti no­mi­ne mis­sus sit in pos­ses­sio­nem, alius le­ga­to­rum ser­van­do­rum cau­sa, pos­se eum, qui le­ga­to­rum ser­van­do­rum cau­sa in pos­ses­sio­nem mis­sus est, et­iam dam­ni in­fec­ti sa­tis­da­re: qui si sa­tis­de­de­rit, non ali­ter de­ce­de­re pos­ses­sio­ne de­be­bit, quam ei cau­tum fue­rit et­iam eo no­mi­ne, quod se dam­ni in­fec­ti ob­li­ga­vit. 2Si plu­res le­ga­ta­rii mit­ti in pos­ses­sio­nem de­si­de­ra­ve­rint, om­nes venire de­bent in pos­ses­sio­nem: is enim qui ex cau­sa le­ga­to­rum pos­si­det si­bi, non alii pos­si­det. alia est cau­sa, cum cre­di­to­res rei ser­van­dae cau­sa mit­tun­tur in pos­ses­sio­nem: nam is qui pos­si­det non si­bi, sed om­ni­bus pos­si­det. 3Qui prior mis­sus est le­ga­ta­rius in pos­ses­sio­nem, non prae­fer­tur ei qui post­ea mit­ti­tur: in­ter le­ga­ta­rios enim nul­lum or­di­nem ob­ser­va­mus, sed si­mul om­nes ae­qua­li­ter tue­mur. 4Post­quam rei ser­van­dae cre­di­to­res pos­si­de­re coe­pe­runt, le­ga­to­rum ser­van­do­rum gra­tia mis­sus in pos­ses­sio­nem cre­di­to­ri­bus po­tior non ha­be­bi­tur. 5Qui in pos­ses­sio­nem le­ga­to­rum ser­van­do­rum cau­sa mit­ti­tur, in pos­ses­sio­nem qui­dem re­rum he­redi­ta­ria­rum om­ni­mo­do ve­niet, hoc est ea­rum quae in cau­sa he­redi­ta­ria ma­nent: ea­rum au­tem, quae in cau­sa he­redi­ta­ria non erunt, non alias mit­ti­tur, quam si do­lo ma­lo in ea cau­sa es­se de­sie­rint, nec sem­per, sed cau­sa co­gni­ta. 6‘Bo­no­rum’ au­tem ap­pel­la­tio­ne hae res com­prae­hen­sae vi­de­bun­tur, qua­rum pro­prie­tas ad he­redem per­ti­net. 7Sed et si vec­ti­ga­les agri sunt et si qua pi­g­no­ra tes­ta­to­ri da­ta, in eo­rum quo­que mit­te­tur pos­ses­sio­nem. 8Sed et in par­tus an­cil­la­rum et fe­tus pe­co­rum, item fruc­tus ae­que om­ni mo­do le­ga­ta­rius et fi­dei­com­mis­sa­rius mit­ten­tur. 9Sed et si rem alie­nam de­func­tus bo­na fi­de eme­rit, in pos­ses­sio­nem eius mit­ten­dum le­ga­ta­rium con­stat: nam et haec res in cau­sa he­redi­ta­ria est. 10Si de­po­si­ta res apud de­func­tum fue­rit vel com­mo­da­ta, lo­cum mis­sio non ha­bet, quia non sunt is­tae res he­redi­ta­riae. 11Si ex duo­bus he­redi­bus al­ter sa­tis­da­re sit pa­ra­tus, al­ter non, in par­tem eius mis­sio lo­cum uti­que ha­be­re de­bet. mis­si ita­que le­ga­ta­rii im­pe­dient et­iam eum, qui sa­tis­de­dit, rei ad­mi­nis­tra­tio­ne: qua­re sua­den­dum erit he­redi, ut in as­sem sa­tis­det, ne ad­mi­nis­tra­tio eius im­pe­dia­tur. 12Si ab im­pu­be­ris sub­sti­tu­to le­ga­ta sint re­lic­ta et im­pu­bes de­ces­se­rit, mis­sio non so­lum in ea bo­na, quae tes­ta­to­ris fue­runt, ve­rum ad ea quo­que, quae im­pu­bes ad­quisiit, lo­cum ha­be­bit: nam haec quo­que he­redi­ta­ria sunt: vi­vo au­tem im­pu­be­re ne­que mis­sio ne­que sa­tis­da­tio lo­cum ha­bet. 13Si he­res non sit, a quo fi­dei­com­mis­sum re­lic­tum est, sed al­te­rius no­mi­nis suc­ces­sor, di­cen­dum est, ut edic­to lo­cus sit et do­lus eius sit aes­ti­man­dus. 14Sed et si he­redis he­res sit, qui do­lo fe­cit, ae­que no­ce­re de­be­bit. 15Do­lum ac­ci­pe­re de­be­mus et cul­pam la­tam, sed non om­nem do­lum, sed qui in ne­cem le­ga­ta­rio­rum et fi­dei­com­mis­sa­rio­rum fac­tus est. 16Im­pe­ra­tor An­to­ni­nus Au­gus­tus re­scrip­sit cer­tis ex cau­sis et­iam in pro­pria bo­na he­redis le­ga­ta­rios et fi­dei­com­mis­sa­rios es­se mit­ten­dos, si post sex men­ses, quam ad­iti pro tri­bu­na­li fue­rint hi quo­rum de ea re no­tio est, in sa­tis­fac­tio­ne ces­sa­tum est, in­de fruc­tus per­cep­tu­ros, quo­ad vo­lun­ta­ti de­func­to­rum sa­tis­fiat. quod re­me­dium ser­va­re­tur et ad­ver­sus eos, qui ex qua cau­sa fi­dei­com­mis­so mo­ram fa­ciunt. 17Sa­tis­fac­tio­nis ver­bum li­cet la­tius pa­tet, ta­men ad ex­sol­ven­dum le­ga­tum re­fer­tur. 18Pro­in­de et si re­mis­sa sit sa­tis­da­tio, re­scrip­tum lo­cum ha­be­bit, quia mo­ra fit so­lu­tio­ni. 19Sex au­tem men­sum pu­to con­ti­nuum tem­pus, non pos­ses­sio­num com­pu­tan­dum11Die Großausgabe liest con­pu­tan­dum statt com­pu­tan­dum.. 20Ces­sa­tum non ac­ci­pi­mus, si pu­pil­lus tu­to­rem non ha­beat nec cu­ra­to­rem fu­rio­sus vel ad­ules­cens: nam frus­tra­tio non de­bet hu­ius­mo­di per­so­nis no­ce­re, quae sunt in­de­fen­sae. cer­te si he­redi­tas ia­cue­rit ali­quo tem­po­re, hoc tem­pus de me­dio de­tra­hen­dum est. 21Quae­ri pot­erit, an in vi­cem usu­ra­rum hi fruc­tus ce­dant, quae in fi­dei­com­mis­sis de­ben­tur. et cum ex­em­plum pig­no­rum se­qui­mur, id quod ex fruc­ti­bus per­ci­pi­tur pri­mum in usu­ras, mox, si quid su­per­fluum est, in sor­tem de­bet im­pu­ta­ri: quin im­mo et si am­plius quam si­bi de­be­tur per­ce­pe­rit le­ga­ta­rius, ex­em­plo pig­ne­ra­ti­ciae ac­tio­nis et­iam uti­lis ac­tio ad id re­fun­den­dum da­ri de­be­bit. sed pi­g­no­ra qui­dem quis et dis­tra­he­re pot­est, hic au­tem frui tan­tum ei con­sti­tu­tio per­mi­sit, ut fes­ti­ne­tur ad sen­ten­tiam. 22Qui le­ga­to­rum ser­van­do­rum cau­sa in pos­ses­sio­nem mit­ti­tur, et fruc­tus cus­to­di­re et ce­te­ra de­be­bit. et pa­ti qui­dem he­redem co­le­re agros et fruc­tus red­ige­re, sed cus­to­di­re le­ga­ta­rium fruc­tus opor­te­bit, ne ab he­rede con­su­man­tur: quod si he­res fruc­tus no­lit co­ge­re, per­mit­ten­dum erit le­ga­ta­rio co­ge­re fruc­tus et co­ac­tos ser­va­re. quin im­mo si ta­les sint fruc­tus, quos pri­mo quo­que tem­po­re venire ex­pe­diat, ven­de­re quo­que le­ga­ta­rio per­mit­ten­dum est et pre­tium ser­va­re. in ce­te­ris quo­que re­bus he­redi­ta­riis mis­si in pos­ses­sio­nem hoc erit of­fi­cium, ut uni­ver­sas res he­redi­ta­rias col­li­gat et ibi cus­to­diat, ubi do­mi­ci­lium de­func­tus ha­buit, et, si nul­la do­mus sit, ha­bi­ta­tio­nem con­du­cat vel hor­reum quod­dam, in quo res col­lec­tae cus­to­dian­tur. et pu­to ita le­ga­ta­rium cus­to­di­re res he­redi­ta­rias de­be­re, ut ne­que he­redi au­fe­ran­tur ne­que de­per­eant de­te­rio­res­ve fiant. 23Quod si ex con­sti­tu­tio­ne quis in pos­ses­sio­nem mit­ta­tur, cu­ran­dum est, ne vis fiat uten­ti et fruen­ti le­ga­ta­rio. 24Sa­tis­fie­ri vo­lun­ta­ti de­func­ti sic ac­ci­pi­tur, quo­ad vo­lun­ta­ti de­func­ti vel ex fruc­ti­bus vel ali­un­de sa­tis­fiat. 25Con­sti­tu­tio au­tem di­vi An­to­ni­ni per­ti­net ad eos, a qui­bus uti­li­ter fi­dei­com­mis­sum re­lic­tum est, quam­vis he­redes non sint: par enim uti­li­tas est. 26In pos­ses­sio­nem mis­sus le­ga­to­rum ser­van­do­rum cau­sa si li­tem eo no­mi­ne con­tes­ta­tus sit, non an­te de­ce­de­re pos­ses­sio­ne de­bet, quam ei pro li­te fue­rit cau­tum. 27Mis­sus in pos­ses­sio­nem si non ad­mit­ta­tur, ha­bet in­ter­dic­tum pro­pos­i­tum: aut per via­to­rem aut per of­fi­cia­lem prae­fec­ti aut per ma­gis­tra­tus in­tro­du­cen­dus est in pos­ses­sio­nem. 28Mis­sio au­tem lo­cum ha­be­bit non tan­tum, si quis id ip­sum, quod le­ga­tum est, ro­ga­tus sit, ve­rum et­iam si quid vel ex eo vel pro eo re­sti­tue­re fue­rit ro­ga­tus. 29Si Ti­tio pu­re le­ga­tum fue­rit et eius fi­dei com­mis­sum sub con­di­cio­ne, ut Sem­pro­nio re­sti­tue­ret, non in­ique prae­to­rem sta­tu­tu­rum Iu­lia­nus scrip­sit, si, an­te­quam le­ga­tum con­se­qua­tur le­ga­ta­rius, fi­dei­com­mis­si con­di­cio­na­lis sa­tis non det, ut ma­gis Sem­pro­nio det le­ga­ti per­se­cu­tio­nem, ut is le­ga­ta­rio sa­tis­det de­fi­cien­te con­di­cio­ne red­di de­cem. sed et si ac­ce­pe­rit Ti­tius ab he­rede de­cem, ae­quum es­se Iu­lia­nus ait co­gi eum in­vi­cem sa­tis­da­re aut ip­sa de­cem tra­de­re et Sem­pro­nium Ti­tio ca­ve­re: et hoc iu­re uti­mur, id enim et Mar­cel­lus ait. 30Quid er­go, si et le­ga­tum sub con­di­cio­ne sit re­lic­tum et fi­dei­com­mis­sum, ne­que fi­dei­com­mis­si sa­tis­de­tur? ae­quis­si­mum erit fi­dei­com­mis­sa­rium no­mi­ne le­ga­ti sa­tis ac­ci­pe­re ab he­rede, si ei le­ga­ta­rius non ca­veat, sci­li­cet ut et ip­se le­ga­ta­rio ca­veat. quod si iam ac­ce­pit le­ga­ta­rius ab he­rede sa­tis, de­cer­nen­dum erit ex ea sa­tis­da­tio­ne ma­gis fi­dei­com­mis­sa­rio quam le­ga­ta­rio dan­dam ac­tio­nem, in eum sci­li­cet ca­sum, quod fi­dei­com­mis­si eius con­di­cio ex­ti­tit: ip­sius et­iam le­ga­ti per­se­cu­tio dan­da erit fi­dei­com­mis­sa­rio, si non­dum so­lu­tum est et con­di­cio eius ex­ti­tit, sci­li­cet si fue­rit fi­dei­com­mis­sa­rius pa­ra­tus ca­ve­re le­ga­ta­rio.

5Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LII. A person to whom security is not given for the payment of a legacy or the execution of a trust, even if he is placed in possession, does not begin to acquire the ownership of the same; for it is not so much the actual possession of the property as the safe-keeping of it which is granted him. He has no right to drive the heir away, but he is ordered to take possession of the property with him, so that by the annoyance of perpetual custody he may compel the heir to furnish security. 1Where one person is placed in possession of property to avoid threatened injury to the same, and another is placed in possession for the purpose of preserving the legacies, he who has possession for the purpose of preserving the legacies can also give security against the damage which is apprehended, and, if he should do so, he need not relinquish possession, unless security is given to him to the amount for which he has bound himself in providing against threatened injury. 2Where several legatees desire to be placed in possession of property, they must all go and take possession, for he who obtains it for the purpose of preserving legacies holds possession solely for himself, and not for anyone else. The case, however, is different where creditors are placed in possession in order to preserve the property, for in this instance, the one who obtains possession does so not merely for himself but for all the other creditors as well. 3A legatee who has been given possession first is not preferred to one to whom it is given afterwards; for we observe no order of precedence among legatees, but protect all of them equally at the same time. 4After creditors have obtained possession for the purpose of preserving property, a legatee who has been placed in possession to secure the payment of his legacy will not have preference over the creditors. 5Where a person who has been placed in possession of property for the purpose of preserving his legacy comes into possession of the entire estate, that is to say, if the property in question still forms part of the estate, he will not acquire possession of property which does not belong to it, unless the said property has ceased to form part of the same through fraud, and his possession will not be perpetual, but will be dependent upon the result of the judicial inquiry. 6Moreover, all those things are understood to be included in the term “property,” whose ownership belongs to the heir. 7Where there are lands which constitute part of the estate merely because they are subject to certain claims, and where articles have been given in pledge to the testator, the legatee will also be placed in possession of them. 8The legatee and the beneficiary of the trust will also be given possession of the offspring of slaves, and the increase of flocks, as well as of all the crops. 9If, however, the deceased, in good faith, purchased property belonging to another, it has been settled that the legatee should be placed in possession of this also, for it forms part of the estate. 10Where property has been deposited with, or loaned to the deceased, the legatee cannot be placed in the possession of the same, for such property is not included in the estate. 11Where one of two heirs is ready to furnish security, and the other is not, the legatee can be placed in possession of the share of the estate belonging to the latter. Hence, the legatees who are placed in possession will also take precedence of the heir who gave security to the administration of the estate; therefore the heir should be induced to give security for the estire estate, in order to prevent his administration of the same from being interfered with. 12Where the substitute of a minor under the age of puberty is charged with the payment of legacies, and the minor dies, possession will be granted, not only of the property which belonged to the testator, but also of that which the minor himself acquired, for it likewise forms part of the estate. During the lifetime of the minor, however, possession cannot be granted, nor can security be required. 13If the person who is charged with the trust is not an heir, but a successor for some other reason, it must be said that the Edict will apply, and the bad faith of the trustee taken into consideration. 14Moreover, where the heir of the heir is the one who is guilty of fraud, he also should suffer for it. 15We should understand fraud in this instance to mean gross negligence, and not every kind of bad faith, but only such as is committed to the prejudice of legatees and beneficiaries of trusts. 16The Emperor Antoninus Augustus stated in a Rescript that, in certain cases, legatees and beneficiaries should be placed in possession of property belonging to the heir himself, and if, within six months from the time when the legatees first appeared in the court of a magistrate invested with jurisdiction, their claims were not satisfied, they could collect the income of said property until the will of the deceased had been complied with. This remedy also is available against those who are in default in the execution of trusts with which they have been charged. 17Although the term “satisfaction” has a usually broader signification, in this instance it refers to the payment of legacies. 18Hence, even where the heir has been excused from giving security by the testator, the Rescript will apply, because the heir may be in default of payment. 19Again, I think that the term of six months should be calculated continuously, and not with the sessions of the court. 20We do not consider that a failure to pay the legacies takes place where a ward has no guardian, and an insane person, or a minor, has no curator. For failure to act should not prejudice persons of this kind who cannot defend themselves. It is certain that if the estate should be without an heir for a certain time, this should be deducted from the term of six months above mentioned. 21It may be asked whether the crops which are due under the terms of the trust should take the place of interest, and, as we follow the example of pledges, whatever is collected by way of income should first be considered as interest, and anything in excess of this should be credited on the principal. And, indeed, if the legatee should collect more than he is entitled to, an equitable action, as in the case of an action on pledge, should be granted to compel him to refund the surplus. Anyone, however, can sell the pledges, and in this case the constitution only permits the legatee to collect the income in order to hasten the decision of the case. 22Where anyone is placed in possession of property in order to provide for the payment of legacies, he must keep the income and all the other effects, and permit the heir to cultivate the fields and harvest the crops; but the legatee must take charge of the latter to prevent them from being consumed by the heir. If the heir should refuse to gather the crops, the legatee should be permitted to do so, and to keep possession of them. But where the crops are of such a nature that it is expedient to sell them immediately, the legatee should be permitted also to sell them, and to retain the price. When anyone is placed in possession of other property belonging to the estate, it will be his duty to collect everything of this kind, and take care of it, wherever the deceased had his residence; and if there is no house there suitable for this purpose, he can hire one, or a warehouse in which the property which has been collected can safely be kept. I think also that the legatee should exercise such supervision over the property of the estate that the heir cannot be deprived of it, or it cannot be lost, or become deteriorated. 23Where anyone has been placed in possession of property under the terms of the constitution, care must be taken to employ no force against any other legatee who has the use and enjoyment of the same. 24The wishes of the deceased is understood to be complied with where this is done with reference to the income of the estate, or in any other way. 25Moreover, the said Constitution of the Divine Antoninus also has reference to those who are legally charged with a trust, even if they are not heirs, for the obligation is the same. 26Where a person is placed in possession of property in order to provide for the safety of legacies, and judicial proceedings are instituted against him on account of said property, he should not relinquish possession of the same, unless security is furnished him for the expense of litigation. 27Where anyone is placed in possession, and is not permitted to take it, he will be entitled to the interdict provided for this purpose, and must be placed in possession either by a court attendant, by an officer of the Prætor, or by a magistrate. 28A legatee can be placed in possession, not only where anyone is charged to transfer the very property which is bequeathed, but also where he is charged to transfer a portion of the same, or something else instead of it. 29Where a legacy is bequeathed absolutely to Titius, and he is charged under a condition to transfer it to Sempronius, Julianus says that the Prætor will not render an unjust decision if, before the legatee obtains the bequest, he refuses to give security for the execution of the conditional trust; and that he should then permit Sempronius himself to claim the legacy, in order that he may give security, and agree to pay ten aurei if the condition should not be fulfilled. If, however, Titius should receive the ten aurei from the heir, Julianus says that it will be only just to compel him to give bond or to pay the ten aurei, and for Sempronius to furnish security to Titius. This is our present rule, which is adopted by Marcellus. 30But what if the legacy is left under a condition, as well as the trust, and no security is furnished for the execution of the trust? It will be perfectly equitable for the beneficiary to take security from the heir for the payment of the legacy, if the legatee should not secure him; that is to say, in order that he himself may give bond to the legatee. Where, however, the legatee has already received security from the heir, it must be held that an action should be granted, on account of the security, to the beneficiary of the trust, rather than to the legatee; that is to say, in the event that the condition of the trust is fulfilled. The right to demand the legacy itself should be granted to the beneficiary of the trust, if it has not yet been paid, and the condition upon which it was dependent has been complied with, provided that the beneficiary was ready to furnish security to the legatee.

6Iu­lia­nus li­bro tri­gen­si­mo oc­ta­vo di­ges­to­rum. Si pe­cu­niae nu­me­ra­tae usus fruc­tus le­ga­tus es­set et in tes­ta­men­to cau­tum, ne eo no­mi­ne sa­tis da­re­tur, pro­prie­tas non est le­ga­ta, sed le­ga­ta­rio per­mit­ten­dum sa­tis­da­re et usum fruc­tum pe­cu­niae ha­be­re: et prope­mo­dum in hac pro­pos­i­tio­ne nul­lae prae­to­ris erunt par­tes, quia, ni­si sa­tis­de­tur, agi cum he­rede non pot­erit. 1Qui fi­dei­com­mis­si ser­van­di cau­sa in pos­ses­sio­nem mis­sus est, non prius de pos­ses­sio­ne de­ce­de­re de­bet, quam ei fi­dei­com­mis­sum so­lu­tum aut eo no­mi­ne sa­tis­da­tum fue­rit: nam quod si in­te­gra re fie­ret, in pos­ses­sio­nem non mit­te­re­tur, id cum of­fe­re­tur, dis­ce­de­re a pos­ses­sio­ne de­bet.

6Julianus, Digest, Book XXXVIII. Where the usufruct of a sum of money is bequeathed, and it is provided by the will that security shall not be given on account of the same, the ownership of the money is not bequeathed, but the legatee should be permitted to give security and enjoy the usufruct of the money. In a case of this kind, the intervention of the Prætor is really not necessary, because, unless security is furnished, the legatee cannot bring an action against the heir. 1Where a person is placed in possession of property for the purpose of executing a trust, he should not be compelled to relinquish it before the trust has been executed, or security furnished that it will be. For if this is done while the property remains intact, the legatee should not be placed in possession, and when the offer to do this is made, he should relinquish possession.

7Mar­cia­nus li­bro ter­tio re­gu­la­rum. Dum ven­ter in pos­ses­sio­nem est, nul­lus le­ga­to­rum ser­van­do­rum cau­sa in pos­ses­sio­nem es­se pot­est.

7Modestinus, Rules, Book III. Where an unborn child is placed in possession of an estate, no legatee can be given possession of it to provide for the payment of the legacy.

8Pa­pi­nia­nus li­bro sex­to quaes­tio­num. Si le­ga­to­rum sa­tis non da­tur, re­sti­tu­ta he­redi­ta­te in ea­rum quo­que re­rum pos­ses­sio­nem le­ga­ta­rius mit­ten­dus erit, quae do­lo ma­lo eius, cui re­sti­tu­ta est he­redi­tas, in he­redi­ta­ria cau­sa de­sie­runt.

8Papinianus, Questions, Book VI. If security is not given for the payment of a legacy, and the estate is transferred, the legatee shall be placed in possession of such property as has ceased to form part of the estate through the fraud of him to whom it was transferred.

9Idem li­bro no­no de­ci­mo quaes­tio­num. Et­iam si con­dem­na­tus he­res fue­rit nec pe­cu­niam sol­vat, le­ga­ta­rius pot­est de­si­de­ra­re mit­ti in pos­ses­sio­nem. 1Cum sub con­di­cio­ni­bus con­tra­riis ea­dem res duo­bus le­ge­tur, si non ca­vea­tur, uter­que mit­ti­tur in pos­ses­sio­nem.

9The Same, Questions, Book XIX. Even if the heir should be ordered by the court to pay the legacy, and does not do so, the legatee can apply to be placed in possession. 1Where the same property is bequeathed to two persons, under different conditions, and security is not furnished, both of them can be placed in possession of said property.

10Pau­lus li­bro ter­tio sen­ten­tia­rum. Si nul­lae sint res he­redi­ta­riae, in quas le­ga­ta­rii vel fi­dei­com­mis­sa­rii mit­tan­tur, in rem qui­dem he­redis mit­ti non pos­sunt, sed per prae­to­rem de­ne­ga­tas he­redi ac­tio­nes ip­si per­se­quun­tur.

10Paulus, Sentences, Book III. Where there is no property belonging to an estate of which the legatees or beneficiaries of a trust can be placed in possession, they shall not, for this reason, be given possession of property belonging to the heir; but they can bring any actions with reference to the estate, and such actions will be denied to the heir by the Prætor.

11Her­mo­ge­nia­nus li­bro quar­to iu­ris epi­to­ma­rum. Si fi­dei­com­mis­so­rum vel le­ga­to­rum ser­van­do­rum cau­sa mis­sus in pos­ses­sio­nem eam rem te­neas, quae mi­hi per fi­dei­com­mis­sum re­lic­ta es­set, ae­quius est me eam ha­be­re, cui ea ip­sa re­lic­ta est, quam te, qui al­te­rius fi­dei­com­mis­si no­mi­ne in­gres­sus in eam es­ses. nam et si mi­hi sub con­di­cio­ne le­ga­tum est et tu me­dio tem­po­re in pos­ses­sio­nem eius fac­tus fue­ris le­ga­to­rum ser­van­do­rum cau­sa, de­in­de con­di­cio im­ple­ta es­set, non de­ne­ga­bi­tur mi­hi eius rei in­te­gra per­se­cu­tio. sic enim et si sta­tu­li­be­rum ex ea­dem cau­sa pos­si­de­re coe­pis­set, im­ple­ta con­di­cio­ne ius­tam li­ber­ta­tem eius im­pe­di­re non pot­est. 1Si rei ser­van­dae cau­sa in pos­ses­sio­nem mis­sus es­set pro­prius cre­di­tor he­redis et rei per fi­dei­com­mis­sum mi­hi re­lic­tae ad­ep­tus fue­rit, ni­hil me per eum lae­di opor­te­re con­ve­nit, non ma­gis quam si ab ip­so he­rede eam rem pig­no­ri ac­ce­pis­set.

11Hermogenianus, Epitomes of Law, Book IV. If, after having been placed in possession of the property of an estate, in order to provide for the payment of legacies, or the execution of trusts, you should hold some article which has been bequeathed to me in trust, it is more equitable that I should have the said article which has been bequeathed to me than that you should have it, for the reason that you are only in possession of the same in order to insure the execution of another trust. Where, however, a legacy is bequeathed to me under a condition, and, in the meantime, you are placed in possession of the property for the purpose of securing the payment of legacies, and the condition should subsequently be complied with, I will not be refused permission to demand the property. In like manner, if anyone should obtain possession of a slave who is to be free under a condition, and the condition should be fulfilled, the legatee cannot prevent the slave from obtaining the freedom to which he is entitled. 1If a creditor of the heir is placed in possession of property for the purpose of securing the payment of his claim, and he acquires possession of some article which has been left to me in trust, it is established that I will not be prejudiced on this account any more than if the creditor had received the said article in pledge from the heir himself.

12Mae­cia­nus li­bro duo­de­ci­mo fi­dei­com­mis­so­rum. Mu­ni­ci­piis fi­dei­com­mis­sum re­lin­qui pos­se du­bium non est. sed si non ca­vea­tur, ad­ver­sus mu­ni­ci­pes qui­dem non du­bi­ta­vi­mus ex hoc edic­to iri in pos­ses­sio­nem pos­se: ip­sos ve­ro mu­ni­ci­pes, si his non ca­vea­tur, non idem ad­se­cu­tu­ros: sed ex­tra­or­di­na­rio re­me­dio opus erit, vi­de­li­cet ut de­cre­to prae­to­ris ac­tor eo­rum in pos­ses­sio­nem mit­ta­tur.

12Marcianus, Trusts, Book XII. There is no doubt that property can be left in trust to a municipality. If security should not be provided, we have no hesitation in saying that, according to the Edict, the citizens of the town can be placed in possession of the estate; but they themselves, if security should not be given them, cannot be placed in possession, but an extraordinary remedy will be required; that is to say, an agent who represents them can be placed in possession of the property by a decree of the Prætor.

13Cal­lis­tra­tus li­bro ter­tio edic­ti mo­ni­to­rii. Quam­vis mi­ni­ma res le­ga­ta sit vel per fi­dei­com­mis­sum re­lic­ta, ta­men, si non sol­va­tur ab he­rede vel eo no­mi­ne ca­vea­tur, cum ca­ve­ri opor­teat, in pos­ses­sio­nem om­nium bo­no­rum, quae ex ea he­redi­ta­te sunt, le­ga­ta­rium si­ve fi­dei­com­mis­sa­rium prae­tor le­ga­to­rum ser­van­do­rum cau­sa mit­tit.

13Callistratus, On the Monitory Edict, Book III. Even though the property which has been bequeathed or left in trust may be only of trifling value, still, if it is not delivered by the heir, or security furnished by him to do so, when it is necessary to give security, the Prætor will place the legatee or the beneficiary of the trust in possession of the entire estate, for the purpose of securing the payment of the legacy.

14La­beo li­bro se­cun­do pos­te­rio­rum a Ia­vo­le­no epi­to­ma­to­rum. Quae le­ga­to­rum ser­van­do­rum cau­sa in bo­nis est, in cau­sa ves­cen­di de­mi­nuet, si fi­lia nep­tis pro­nep­tis uxor­ve es­set nec nup­ta sit nec suum quic­quam ha­beat.

14Labeo, Epitomes of the Last Works of Javolenus, Book II. Where the daughter, granddaughter, great-granddaughter, or wife of the deceased, is not married, and has no property of her own, and has been placed in possession of the estate to insure the payment of legacies, she can use the property of said estate for her support.

15Va­lens li­bro sep­ti­mo ac­tio­num. In­ter­dum li­cet do­lo ma­lo fe­ce­rit he­res, quo mi­nus res in cau­sa he­redi­ta­ria ma­neant, non pot­erit in pos­ses­sio­nem ea­rum le­ga­ta­rius mit­ti, vel­uti si lo­cum re­li­gio­sum fe­ce­rit aut quid pu­bli­ce con­se­cra­ve­rit per­mis­su sci­li­cet im­pe­ra­to­ris aut ali­quem non in frau­dem cre­di­to­ris ma­nu­mi­se­rit.

15Valens, Actions, Book VII. Sometimes, although the heir may have acted fraudulently and caused the property of the estate to be diminished, the legatee can not be placed in possession of it; as, for example, where he has rendered some of the land religious, or has publicly consecrated a part of the same, for instance, with the consent of the Emperor; or where he has manumitted a slave without the intention of defrauding creditors.

16............ Si Ti­tius ser­vum Mae­vio le­gat sub con­di­cio­ne et ei­dem ser­vo Sem­pro­nius sub con­di­cio­ne le­gat, pen­den­te con­di­cio­ne utra­que ab he­rede Sem­pro­nii tam Ti­tii he­res quam Mae­vius iu­re sa­tis­da­tio­nem pos­tu­lant.

No translation given.

17............ Si fi­lio qui in po­tes­ta­te est a pa­tre he­rede in­sti­tu­to le­ga­ta da­ta sunt, ad sa­tis­da­tio­nem pa­ter a fi­lio com­pel­li non pot­est: sed si ma­le ad­mi­nis­trat, cu­ra­tor con­sti­tuen­dus est re­rum fi­lio re­lic­ta­rum ita, ut red­itus ea­rum utri­que prae­stet: aut si pe­cu­niae sum­ma le­ga­ta est, prin­ceps ad­eun­dus est.

No translation given.