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.)
1 Ulpianus 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.
1 Ulpianus, 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.
2 Idem libro septuagensimo nono ad edictum. Si autem certum sit hereditatem necdum aditam fuisse, nec satisdatio nec possessio locum habet.
2 The 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.
3 Idem 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.
3 The 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.
4 Papinianus 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.
4 Papinianus, 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.
5 Ulpianus 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 [ed. maior conputandum] <ed. minor 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.
5 Ulpianus, 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.
6 Iulianus 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.
6 Julianus, 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.
7 Marcianus libro tertio regularum. Dum venter in possessionem est, nullus legatorum servandorum causa in possessionem esse potest.
7 Modestinus, 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.
8 Papinianus 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.
8 Papinianus, 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.
9 Idem 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.
9 The 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.
10 Paulus 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.
10 Paulus, 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.
11 Hermogenianus 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.
11 Hermogenianus, 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.
12 Maecianus 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.
12 Marcianus, 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.
13 Callistratus 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.
13 Callistratus, 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.
14 Labeo 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.
14 Labeo, 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.
15 Valens 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.
15 Valens, 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.