1Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XL. This Title treats of a principle of natural equity which is introduced for a definite purpose; that is, in order to compel those who render a will of no effect by obtaining possession in opposition to its provisions to pay legacies and execute trusts for the benefit of certain persons, namely, children and ascendants, wives and daughters-in-law, to whom bequests of dowries have been made. 1The Prætor employs the terms ascendants and children in a general sense, and does not specify the different degrees of relationship; hence, payment must be made to them ad infinitum. Nor has the Prætor designated the different persons, or whether they belong to the male or the female sex. Therefore, anyone either in the ascending or descending line is permitted to claim his legacy; provided, however, the tie of blood-relationship exists between them. 2We permit those children also to claim their legacies who have been given in adoption by the testator, or who are adoptive, in case they still remain children until his death. 3Legacies bequeathed to posthumous descendants shall also be paid.

2Julianus, Digest, Book XXIII. Therefore, if a son should be emancipated while his wife was pregnant, and receive prætorian possession of an estate in opposition to the terms of the will, he will be obliged to pay a legacy bequeathed to the grandson.

3Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XL. Where, however, donations mortis causa have been made, I think that they should be sustained; but if they are given to different persons than those above mentioned, it is my opinion that the recipients should be deprived of them. 1The Prætor, however, had in mind only descendants and ascendants, for he does not include a legacy left to a brother or a sister. 2Moreover, that solely is owing which was left directly to the ascendants or descendants; for if anything should be bequeathed to a slave belonging to them, or to a person subject to their authority, they will not be entitled to it, for we do not ask by whom the legacy is acquired, but who has received the honor. 3Where, however, a legacy is bequeathed conjointly to one of the above-mentioned persons and to another to whom payment should not be made, only the portion belonging to the former will be preserved. 4Likewise, if any one of those persons is charged to pay to a stranger a legacy which was left to himself, it must be said that it should not be paid, because he will obtain no advantage thereby. 5If you suggest a case where a legacy is bequeathed to a stranger, and he is charged to pay it to one of the descendants or ascendants of the testator, we hold that, under the circumstances, it should be paid. 6Moreover, if a bequest is left to a stranger under the condition that he shall pay it to one of the descendants of the testator, it is perfectly just to say that the Prætor ought not to refuse him an action to recover it. 7Again, only those legacies which are legally bequeathed should be paid by the persons who obtain prætorian possession of the estate contrary to the provisions of the will. Hence it is true that they are not payable where a son obtains prætorian possession in opposition to the terms of the will.

4Julianus, Digest, Book XXIII. On this account it frequently happens that heirs who have been appointed reject the estate, because they know that an emancipated son has either demanded, or is about to demand, possession contrary to the provisions of the will.

5Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XL. A testator appointed his son, who was under the age of puberty, his heir, and appointed a substitute for him, but passed over his emancipated son; and both sons afterwards obtained prætorian possession of the estate. Certain legacies were bequeathed which were to be paid by the substitute of the minor, not only to descendants and ascendants, but also to strangers. The question arises, if the child under puberty should die, whether the substitute would be compelled to pay the legacies. It may be stated that if the said minor is charged with the legacies, they must be paid only to the descendants or ascendants of the testator; but if the substitute of the minor was charged with their payment, he must pay them to all the legatees, after taking into account the Falcidian Law; that is to say, he can retain the fourth of the half of the estate of the father which came into his hands, or an eighth of the entire estate. 1If the said child under the age of puberty should be appointed heir to only one-twelfth of the estate, the better opinion is that the substitute must subject half of the assets to contribution and then pay the legacies, after having retained the fourth allowed by the Falcidian Law; for, even if the minor was appointed heir only to a twelfth of the estate, still, the accrual will increase the legacies with which the substitute is charged. 2The Prætor, moreover, desires that legacies should be paid to all the children, excepting those to whom he grants possession contrary to the provisions of the will, for the reasons above mentioned; since he does not think that they should be permitted to claim the legacies bequeathed to them after he has granted them prætorian possession. Hence a child should determine whether he prefers to demand prætorian possession in opposition to the terms of the will, or to claim his legacy. If he should elect to proceed against the will, he will not be entitled to the legacy; if he should accept the legacy, he cannot claim prætorian possession contrary to the provisions of the will; which is our present practice. 3Where anyone obtains prætorian possession of an estate in opposition to the terms of the will, and it afterwards should appear that he is not one of the children who is entitled to it, but still is one of those to whom legacies should be paid, it has been established that he shall not be deprived of the right to claim his legacy, whether by the ordinary proceeding under the Prætorian Law, or by that authorized by the Carbonian Edict. 4Again, a legacy may be refused not only if a person has obtained prætorian possession, but also if he has received anything by the will of the deceased. The result is, as Julianus says, that if an heir, who has obtained prætorian possession of the estate contrary to the provisions of the will, had already been appointed a substitute for his brother, who was under the age of puberty, in case of the death of his minor brother, he will be refused an action to recover his estate. 5Where legacies are bequeathed to the children of the testator, and to strangers, although the deduction prescribed by the Falcidian Law will be made in the case of all of them, and will diminish the legacies of the children; still, for the reason that the legacies will not be paid to the strangers, those of the children will be increased. 6If, however, a share of the estate should be bequeathed to one of the descendants or ascendants, must it be preserved for him in the same way as is customary with legacies? Julianus very properly holds that, in this instance, the same rule should be observed with reference to a share of the estate, as has been adopted with respect to a legacy. This opinion is approved by a Rescript of the Divine Pius, as estates are not only bestowed by an honorable title, but such testamentary dispositions are also invested with greater distinction than where mere legacies are bequeathed. 7Moreover, relief should be granted persons of this kind to the extent, however, of protecting only their full shares, even though they may have been left a larger portion of the estate; for if they had received a smaller portion, they would be only entitled to an action to recover as much as had been bequeathed to them. The same rule should be observed with reference to legacies, property left in trust, and donations mortis causa. 8Shall he to whom a portion of the estate has been left be compelled to pay the bequest to all the legatees, or only to certain privileged persons? It is approved as the better opinion that they should be paid only to the privileged persons. He, however, will not be the only one to be benefited by this; for if any share of the estate is charged with legacies, whether to descendants, ascendants, or strangers, we can entertain no doubt that whatever is not paid to the strangers will benefit the descendants and ascendants. Therefore, the only instance where legacies not paid to strangers will accrue to him who demands prætorian possession in opposition to the terms of a will is where they should not be paid to legatees who are either descendants or ascendants.

6Julianus, Digest, Book XXIII. Salvius Aristo to Julianus, Greeting. A certain man had an emancipated son, and, having passed him over in his will, he appointed his father and a stranger his heirs, and gave his father a legacy in addition. The son demanded prætorian possession of the estate in opposition to the terms of the will. I ask, if both the heirs entered upon the estate, or if either of them did, or if neither of them should have done so, whether the legacy would be payable to the father, and if so, how much of it he would be entitled to? I answered that I have often remarked, that the Section of the Edict by which an emancipated son who has obtained prætorian possession of an estate contrary to the provisions of the will is ordered to pay legacies, bequeathed to children and parents, is somewhat defective; for if three-fourths of an estate should be bequeathed to anyone, he to whom it was left would be entitled to more than the emancipated son. This, therefore, should be regulated by a decree in such a way that the emancipated son may have his share of the estate, and that the appointed heir will not receive more than he does; and the amount of the legacies should be regulated so that no more will be paid to anyone on this account than will remain in the hands of the emancipated son by virtue of prætorian possession of the estate.

7Tryphoninus, Disputations, Book XVI. For, according to a Constitution of the Divine Pius, addressed to Tuscius Fuscianus, Governor of Numidia, parents and children, who have been appointed heirs, should be protected to the amount of their full shares, just as in the case of legacies, in order that such persons may not obtain any more through their appointment as heirs than would proportionally come into the hands of one who had obtained prætorian possession of the estate contrary to the provisions of the will.

8Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XL. Let us see what we should understand by the term “full shares.” Suppose, for instance, that there are two persons who have obtained prætorian possession contrary to the provisions of the will, and there is only one heir among the descendants and ascendants, the third of the estate would be the full share due to each. Where, however, there are three persons who have obtained prætorian possession in opposition to the terms of the will, the full share due to each will be one-fourth. This rule is also observed in the case of legacies. Where, however, one of the descendants obtains prætorian possession in opposition to the terms of the will, and several of the descendants and ascendants have received legacies, we must understand the rule to be, that a son who has been passed over will be entitled to half of the estate, and that all the other heirs who are among the number of descendants and ascendants will be entitled to the remaining half. 1Where any one of the descendants or ascendants is appointed an heir, as well as a legatee, shall we preserve for him only his legal share of the estate, or shall we also pay him his legacy; or shall we only give him which of the two he may select? The better opinion is, that both should be preserved for him, in such a way, however, that in receiving both he shall not have any more than the share of the estate to which he is entitled. 2If he for whom the share is preserved enters upon the estate, the grants of freedom made by the testator will necessarily become valid through his acceptance. Nevertheless, we must consider whether he who enters upon the estate should be liable to an action on the ground of bad faith. The better opinion is that, if after notice has been served upon him by the heir who was passed over, he obtained prætorian possession of the estate contrary to the provisions of the will, he should accept it, promising to pay the other his full share, he will be somewhat to blame, and will be liable to an action on the ground of bad faith, for he injures the estate, as the grants of freedom will become valid. 3Where anything has been bequeathed to the wife or daughter-in-law of the testator over and above her dowry, the excess shall not be paid, where prætorian possession has been obtained contrary to the provisions of the will. 4There is no doubt, whatever, that by the term “daughter-in-law” the wives of grandsons and others are not indicated. 5Moreover, where a dowry is increased, I do not think that the bequest should be reduced to the full share, where it was left to the wife or the daughter-in-law, as these women are entitled to it as a valid debt. 6The Prætor not only includes a dowry as a privileged bequest, but also anything which has been left instead of the dowry; as, for example, where the dowry consists of certain property, and a sum of money can be bequeathed in its stead, or vice versa; provided, however, that it is expressly stated that the money is left in lieu of the dowry.

9Paulus, On the Edict, Book XLI. An action will be granted to the woman, even though the legacy is larger than the dowry.

10Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XL. I think that the woman should also be protected, even if she has been appointed heir to a certain portion of the estate in lieu of her dowry. 1Moreover, we require that the woman should have been the wife of the testator at the time of his death. If he left the dowry as a preferred legacy to his daughter-in-law, and she should be married at the time of his death, the legacy is void, because the dowry is not yet payable. But as, while the marriage exists, an action will be granted against the heirs of the father-in-law, it must be held that the woman has the right to claim this preferred legacy of her dowry. 2He who demands prætorian possession in opposition to the terms of the will is not obliged to pay all the legacies bequeathed in the different degrees mentioned in the will, but only those which are bequeathed in that degree against which he obtained prætorian possession. For possession is sometimes demanded against another degree in which legacies must be paid; as, for example, when the testator has established two degrees of heirs, and has passed over his emancipated son, and still, in both degrees, he bequeathed legacies to descendants and ascendants. Julianus says that if anyone appointed in the first degree is living, the person obtaining prætorian possession must pay the legacies bequeathed to children and parents in the first degree; if, however, none of them are living, he must pay those left to persons in the second degree. But if no one belonging to either the first or the second degree should be alive at the time of the death of the testator, then, the son who has been passed over would seem to be entitled to prætorian possession ab intestato, and the legacies need not be paid to anyone. If, however, the appointed heirs should die after the death of the testator, and before the acceptance of the estate, the claim for prætorian possession would appear to be asserted against them; and any legacies with which they were charged should not be paid, but only those with which the substitutes have been charged.

11Paulus, On the Edict, Book XLI. Where both the appointed heir and the substitute are living at the time of the testator’s death, we hold that the legacies with which the appointed heir was charged should be paid, even though no one may enter upon the estate.

12Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XL. Whether the appointed heirs accept the estate or not, it must be said that the legacies with which they are charged shall be paid, although those appointed in the second degree may have accepted the estate, after the first ones have rejected it.

13Tryphoninus, Disputations, Book II. We also hold that legacies with which a substitute is charged are payable where the appointed heir has failed to comply with a condition, which was not in his power. For if he should not comply with it when he was able to do so, he should be considered as occupying the same position as an heir who refuses to accept an estate, as he will not be entitled to any benefit from it, and deservedly so, as he did not observe the condition.

14Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XIV. Sometimes a person obtains prætorian possession of an estate contrary to the provisions of the will, by a right which he enjoys in accordance with its provisions; for instance, where an emancipated son is appointed the heir, and another emancipated son is passed over in the will, and the appointed heir obtains prætorian possession in opposition to the terms of the will, and the heir who has been passed over fails to apply for it. In this instance, it is perfectly clear that the former can be compelled to pay all the legacies, just as if recourse had not been had to the Edict; for the accident of the emancipated son who was passed over ought not to be a source of profit to the heir who was appointed, merely because he who was passed over did not avail himself of his right. 1Where a son has been appointed heir by a testator, and is charged with a legacy to one of his descendants, or ascendants, and together with the others obtains prætorian possession of the estate in opposition to the terms of the will; it is better to decide that all those who have obtained prætorian possession in opposition to the terms of the will should be compelled to pay this legacy.

15Paulus, On the Edict, Book XLI. Where a son who is under paternal control is passed over, he will not be obliged to pay the legacies, even though he should demand possession of the estate in opposition to the terms of the will; because he will obtain the estate on the ground of intestacy, and not through having claimed prætorian possession. An exception based on fraud will not prejudice his rights; and it would be absurd for him to be compelled to pay the legacies because he demanded prætorian possession; as, without this, he would be entitled to the whole estate as heir at law. Whence, if there are two heirs who have been passed over, namely, one who has been emancipated, and the other who was still under paternal control, some authorities hold that the emancipated heir is not obliged to pay the legacies, because by the act of his brother he obtained half of the estate, when if he had not made the demand he would have been entitled to all of if. What, then, should be done when the proper heir is passed over? The rule which has just been mentioned will apply. Where, however, an heir is appointed and has the will of his father, he should be liable to the legatees, even if he fails to demand prætorian possession of the estate. 1But if one of the sons who was emancipated is appointed heir, and the other is passed over, and both of them obtain prætorian possession of the estate in opposition to the terms of the will, the one who was appointed heir, as well as the one who was passed over, must pay the legacies. If, however, the appointed heir is the only one who obtained prætorian possession contrary to the provisions of the will, he must pay the legacies to all the legatees, just as if he had accepted the estate. But if he should accept the estate, and the one who was passed over should obtain prætorian possession of the same, the latter must pay the legacies only to those persons who are privileged. A question arises with reference to the appointed heir, and many authorities hold that he should pay the legacies to the privileged persons. I think this opinion to be correct, since the Prætor protects him, for the reason that he is one of the children who can demand possession of the estate contrary to the provisions of the will. 2He must also be protected with reference to half of the estate, if he was appointed heir to a larger share than that amount, or was appointed heir to exactly one-half. Where he was appointed heir to less than half, we hold that he should be protected for no larger amount than that to which he was appointed; for how could he be entitled to more, since he did not obtain prætorian possession of the estate, and was not appointed heir to a greater portion? 3No legacy shall be paid to a woman who did not bring any dowry to her husband, even though it is bequeathed under the pretext of the return of her dowry. 4Where a foreign heir is appointed under the condition that a legacy shall be bequeathed to a privileged person, if he should pay ten aurei to the heir, an action will be granted him to recover his legacy, if he should pay it to anyone who has obtained possession of the estate contrary to the provisions of the will, but not if he should pay it to the appointed heir; for it is absurd that he should enjoy the benefit of the estate, and that the other should sustain the burden of paying the legacy. If, however, he should be ordered to pay it to Titius, he must not pay it to him, but to his son.

16Ulpianus, Disputations, Book IV. If we suppose the case of two children, one of whom, being under the control of his father, was passed over in his will, and the other, having been emancipated, was appointed by him his heir, the Edict will be applicable so far as the one who is under parental control is concerned. If both of them should demand prætorian possession contrary to the provisions of the will, he who remained subject to the authority of his father will not be required to pay the legacies to the descendants and ascendants of the testator as he is entitled to the property ab intestato. But can it be said that the emancipated son should not pay them himself, because he was deprived of the estate by one who would not be compelled to pay them, if he were alone? The better opinion is that the latter should, by all means, pay the legacies to the descendants and ascendants; hence if he did not obtain prætorian possession contrary to the provisions of the will, it must be said that he should be protected with reference to half of the estate, and that he must pay the legacies to the legal representatives of the testator. I doubt whether he will be obliged to pay all the legatees; still, for the reason that he is in full enjoyment of the property of the testator, he should discharge his entire duty under the will, so far as his share of the estate is concerned.

17Ulpianus, Digest, Book XXXVI. Where an emancipated son was passed over in a will, and his father appointed a foreign heir, and charged him with the delivery of property which was lost through the fraud of the said heir, after the estate has been accepted, a prætorian action should be granted against the emancipated son, that is to say, in favor of the person to whom the son was obliged to pay the legacy; because the intention of the Prætor is that possession of an estate in opposition to the terms of the will should be granted without prejudicing the rights of other persons.

18Africanus, Questions, Book IV. A son and grandson were under the control of their father, were appointed his heirs, and the testator, in addition to this, left a legacy to the grandson. The father of the latter, another son, who had been emancipated, demanded prætorian possession of the estate, and the grandson remained content with the legacy. Certain authorities were of the opinion that an action to recover the legacy should be granted to the grandson against the son alone who remained under his father’s control, because he was deprived of nothing, and the son who was emancipated obtained the share of his son, which could not be burdened with a legacy. The more just decision is that an action would lie only against the emancipated son, and, indeed, for not more than a fourth of the estate,

19The Same, Questions, Book V. For the reason that if all the heirs should demand prætorian possession of the estate, half of it would be divided between the grandson and his father.

20Marcianus, Rules, Book IV. If the emancipated son should demand prætorian possession contrary to the provisions of the will, it is established that the descendants and ascendants of the testator should be protected. If, however, various donations mortis causa should have been made to privileged persons by the testator, they must contribute pro rata to the share of the emancipated son, just as happens in the case of the division of an estate and legacies. 1Where, however, a father dies intestate, his son cannot complain of donations mortis causa, as no contribution of legacies takes place.

21Papinianus, Questions, Book XIII. If the portion of an estate to which a privileged person is entitled through the benefit of the law is rejected, the son who has received prætorian possession will profit by that share, but he shall not pay the legacies to anyone else than to privileged persons.

22The Same, Opinions, Book V. Where prætorian possession of the estate contrary to the provisions of the will is given to an emancipated son, who has been passed over, the other son, that is the appointed heir, who has also obtained prætorian possession, or who, having been content with what he acquires under the Civil Law, does not apply for prætorian possession, he will not be entitled to any preferred legacy which may have been left to him.

23Hermogenianus, Epitomes of Law, Book III. Those whom the Divine Pius stated could retain either what was left to them, or their legal shares of the estate, shall obtain nothing from slaves who have been unable to secure their freedom on account of prætorian possession given contrary to the provisions of the will.

24Tryphoninus, Disputations, Book XVI. The following question has arisen, namely: should he to whom a legacy has been bequeathed be included among the number of children, so that it can be paid to him by the son who has obtained prætorian possession of the estate in opposition to the terms of the will? It was decided that he must sustain this character at the time when the legacy begins to be payable.

25Marcellus, Digest, Book IX. A certain man who had emancipated his son, and retained his grandson under his control, disinherited his son, appointed his grandson his heir to a certain part of his estate, and passed over his other emancipated son in his will. It can be maintained that the grandson had a right to demand prætorian possession of the estate contrary to the provisions of the will; for prætorian possession is distributed in proportion to the share which each one would have obtained in case of intestacy, if the father had not been a proper heir. 1A testator, whose son had been adopted, appointed as his heir his grandson, whom his son had subsequently begotten, and passed over the emancipated son. Will the said grandson be entitled to prætorian possession of the estate under the Edict? He ought, nevertheless, to be protected, just as ascendants and descendants are to whom legacies must be paid by those who have obtained prætorian possession in opposition to the terms of the will. 2If the testator had retained under his control one or more grandsons by his said son, there is no doubt whatever that he or they should be protected to the same extent, as would have been the case if the grandson by his son, or the mother of the deceased, had been appointed heirs, for he can be compared to them.