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. XXXVII7,
De dotis collatione
Liber trigesimus septimus
VII.

De dotis collatione

(Concerning Collation of the Dowry.)

1Ul­pia­nus li­bro qua­dra­gen­si­mo ad edic­tum. Quam­quam ita de­mum ad col­la­tio­nem do­tis prae­tor co­gat fi­liam, si pe­tat bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem, at­ta­men et­si non pe­tat, con­fer­re de­be­bit, si mo­do se bo­nis pa­ter­nis mis­ceat. et hoc di­vus Pius Ul­pio Ad­ria­no re­scrip­sit et­iam eam, quae non pe­tie­rit bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem, ad col­la­tio­nem do­tis per ar­bi­trum fa­mi­liae her­cis­cun­dae pos­se com­pel­li. 1Si in sti­pu­la­tum de­duc­ta sit dos, si qui­dem ip­sa mu­lier sti­pu­la­ta sit vel ip­si neg­otium ges­tum, ae­que con­fer­re co­ge­tur: si ve­ro alii quae­si­ta est sti­pu­la­tio, di­cen­dum est ces­sa­re col­la­tio­nem. et­si tan­tum pro­mis­sa sit dos, col­la­tio eius fiet. 2Si sit ne­pos et nep­tis ex eo­dem fi­lio et do­ta­ta sit nep­tis, sit et fi­lius non pa­ter eo­rum: nep­tis om­nem do­tem so­li fra­tri col­la­tu­ra est. em­an­ci­pa­ta au­tem nep­tis do­tem et bo­na sua so­li ne­po­ti, non et­iam pa­truo con­fe­ret. 3Sed si sit nep­tis so­la, non et­iam ne­pos ex eo­dem, tunc con­fer­tur pa­truo item­que ne­po­ti vel nep­ti ex alio. 4Sed et si duae nep­tes sint ex di­ver­sis fi­liis, con­fe­rent et in­vi­cem et pa­truo, si ex eo­dem pa­tre, tan­tum in­vi­cem con­fe­rent. 5Cum dos con­fer­tur, im­pen­sa­rum ne­ces­sa­ria­rum fit de­trac­tio, ce­te­ra­rum non. 6Quod si iam fac­tum di­vor­tium est et ma­ri­tus non sit sol­ven­do, non de­be­bit in­te­gra dos com­pu­ta­ri mu­lie­ri, sed id quod ad mu­lie­rem pot­est per­ve­ni­re, hoc est quod fa­ce­re ma­ri­tus pot­est. 7Si sub con­di­cio­ne pa­ter vel ex­tra­neus do­tem pro­mi­se­rit, cau­tio­ne opus erit, ut tunc con­fe­rat mu­lier do­tem, cum do­ta­ta es­se coe­pe­rit. 8Fi­liam, quae ab in­tes­ta­to pa­tri he­res sit, con­fer­re qui­dem do­tem opor­tet: con­se­quens au­tem est, ut ex pol­li­ci­ta­tio­ne do­tis pro par­te di­mi­dia fra­trem suum li­be­ret: ae­quius enim est in so­li­dum de suo eam do­ta­tam es­se. 9Si em­an­ci­pa­tus fi­lius, qui con­tra ta­bu­las bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem ac­ce­pit, fi­liam do­ta­tam ha­beat, non de­bet do­tem eius con­fer­re, quia in bo­nis eius non est.

1Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XL. Although the Prætor only compels a daughter to make collation of her dowry where she demands possession of the estate under the Edict; still if she does not do so she should make collation, provided she meddles with the estate of her father. This was stated by the Divine Pius in a Rescript addressed to Ulpius Adrian; for, according to it, a woman who does not demand prætorian possession of an estate can be compelled to contribute her dowry in collation by means of an action in partition brought by her co-heirs. 1Where a dowry has been provided for under an agreement, and the woman herself has stipulated for it, or someone has done so who has charge of her business, she can also be compelled to place it in the mass of the estate. If, however, the stipulation was solicited by another, it must be said that collation need not be made, and where the dowry was merely promised, collation of the same ought to take place. 2Where there is a grandson, as well as a granddaughter by the same son, and the granddaughter was endowed, and there was another son who was not the father of the said children, the granddaughter must place her dowry in collation for the benefit of her brother alone. Moreover, if the granddaughter should be emancipated, she must place her dowry and her property in the mass of the estate for the benefit of her brother alone, and not for that of her uncle. 3Where, however, there is only a granddaughter, and no grandson by the same father, then collation must be made for the benefit of the paternal uncle, as well as for that of cousins of either sex. 4Where there are two granddaughters by different sons, they contribute in collation reciprocally, and for the benefit of their uncle; if they have the same father, they only contribute reciprocally. 5Where a dowry is placed in the mass of an estate, a deduction of necessary expenses, but of no others, is made. 6If a divorce has taken place, and the husband is insolvent, the wife is not compelled to account for her entire dowry, but only as much of it as can come into her hands; that is, as much as her husband is able to pay. 7If, however, the father or a stranger has promised a dowry under a condition, a bond must be given; and then the woman can make collation of her dowry as soon as she is endowed. 8A daughter who is the heir at law of her father must also contribute her dowry, and the result will be that where the dowry is promised she will release her brother from half the obligation; for it is more just that she should be endowed out of her own property. 9Where an emancipated son, who has obtained prætorian possession of the estate in opposition to the terms of the will, has a daughter who has been endowed by someone else, he will not be obliged to place her dowry in the mass of the estate, because it does not constitute any part of his property.

2Gaius li­bro quar­to de­ci­mo ad edic­tum pro­vin­cia­le. Fi­lia in ad­op­tio­nem da­ta et he­res in­sti­tu­ta de­bet sic ut em­an­ci­pa­ta non so­lum bo­na sua, sed et do­tem, quae ad eam per­ti­ne­re pot­erit, con­fer­re. si ad­huc pa­ter ad­op­ti­vus vi­vit, hic ne­ces­se ha­be­bit con­fer­re.

2Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book XIV. A daughter who has been given in adoption and appointed heir must, in the same manner as an emancipated daughter, contribute for collation her private property, as well as the dowry which she may have received. If her adoptive father should still be living, it will be necessary for him to make the collation.

3Ul­pia­nus li­bro quar­to dis­pu­ta­tio­num. Si fi­lia fue­rit he­res in­sti­tu­ta, col­la­tio­ne do­tis non fun­ge­tur. un­de si com­mis­so ab al­te­ro edic­to ne­ces­se ha­bue­rit con­tra ta­bu­las bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem ac­ci­pe­re, di­cen­dum est, quon­iam nul­lam in­iu­riam fra­tri fa­cit, non de­be­re eam do­tem con­fer­re: nam quod ha­buit ex iu­di­cio, con­ver­ti­tur ad con­tra ta­bu­las bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem. pla­ne si ex mi­no­re par­te fuit he­res in­sti­tu­ta et alia quae­dam in eam con­tu­lit con­tra ta­bu­las bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio auc­ta por­tio­ne eius, di­cen­dum erit col­la­tio­nis mu­ne­re eam fun­gi, ni­si for­te con­ten­ta fue­rit por­tio­ne, ex qua in­sti­tu­ta est: tunc enim di­cen­dum est ex iu­di­cio pa­ren­tis eam ve­nien­tem non de­be­re mu­nus col­la­tio­nis sus­ti­ne­re.

3Ulpianus, Disputations, Book IV. If a daughter should be appointed heir, she will not be required to place her dowry in the mass of the estate. Therefore, if another child has taken advantage of the Edict, she also must obtain possession of the estate in opposition to the terms of the will, for since she commits no wrong against her brother, she need not contribute her dowry, as what she obtained by the will is changed into what she would obtain through prætorian possession of the estate, contrary to its provisions. It is clear that, if she was appointed heir to a smaller portion of the estate than her legal share, and she obtained something else through the prætorian possession, as her share is increased thereby, she will be obliged to contribute for collation, unless she remains content with the share which was left her. For then it must be held that she will not be obliged to perform the duty of collation, as she acquired the property by the will of her father.

4Pom­po­nius li­bro ter­tio ad Quin­tum Mu­cium. Si pa­ter pro fi­lia do­tem pro­mi­se­rit, de­in­de ex­he­redatae vel et­iam em­an­ci­pa­tae et prae­ter­itae le­ga­tum de­de­rit, ha­be­bit fi­lia et­iam do­tem prae­ci­puam et le­ga­tum.

4Pomponius, On Quintus Mucius, Book III. Where a father promised a dowry for his daughter whom he afterwards disinherited, or if he bequeathed her a legacy after she had been emancipated, and passed her over in his will, she will be entitled to the dowry as a preferred legacy, as well as to the legacy.

5Pa­pi­nia­nus li­bro quin­to re­spon­so­rum. Fi­lius em­an­ci­pa­tus, qui pos­ses­sio­nem con­tra ta­bu­las ac­ci­pe­re po­tuit, in­tes­ta­ti pa­tris pos­ses­sio­nem ac­ce­pit: at­que ita fi­lia, quae man­sit in po­tes­ta­te, cum eius­dem fa­mi­liae fra­tre he­res in­sti­tu­ta, pos­ses­sio­nem in­tes­ta­ti pa­tris er­ro­rem fra­tris em­an­ci­pa­ti se­cu­ta ac­ce­pit. do­tem scrip­to fra­tri con­fer­re non co­ge­tur, cum ea pos­ses­sio frus­tra pe­ti­ta sit et fi­lia pa­tris vo­lun­ta­tem fi­ni vi­ri­lis par­tis re­ti­neat, id est ut om­nes trien­tes ha­beant et bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio un­de li­be­ri fin­ga­tur pro con­tra ta­bu­las es­se pe­ti­ta. 1Fi­lia, quae so­lu­to ma­tri­mo­nio do­tem con­fer­re de­buit, mo­ram col­la­tio­ni fe­cit: vi­ri bo­ni ar­bi­tra­tu co­ge­tur usu­ras quo­que do­tis con­fer­re, cum em­an­ci­pa­tus fra­ter et­iam fruc­tus con­fe­rat et fi­lia par­tis suae fruc­tus per­ci­piat.

5Papinianus, Opinions, Book V. An emancipated son, who could have obtained prætorian possession contrary to the provisions of the will, acquired possession of the estate of his father, under the Edict, on the ground of intestacy. A daughter also, who remained under parental control, having been appointed heir along with a brother of the same family, repeated the error of her emancipated brother, and obtained possession under the Edict on the ground of intestacy. She will not be obliged to contribute her dowry by way of collation for the benefit of her brother, who was appointed heir; as the prætorian possession which she claimed was of no force or effect, and she will retain her entire share of the estate under the will of her father; that is to say, each of the three children will have a third, and it will be presumed that the prætorian possession of the estate contrary to the provisions of the will, designated unde liberi, was demanded. 1Ad Dig. 37,7,5,1Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. III, § 610, Note 22.A daughter, who was obliged to contribute her dowry after the dissolution of her marriage, delayed doing so. She will be obliged to pay interest on the dowry in accordance with the judgment of a good citizen, since her emancipated brother must also place his income in collation, and she has received the income of her share.

6Pa­pi­nia­nus li­bro sex­to re­spon­so­rum. Pa­ter fi­lium em­an­ci­pa­tum he­redem in­sti­tuit et fi­liam ex­he­redavit, quae in­of­fi­cio­si li­te per­la­ta par­tem di­mi­diam he­redi­ta­tis abs­tu­lit. non es­se fra­trem bo­na pro­pria con­fer­re co­gen­dum re­spon­di: nam et li­ber­ta­tes com­pe­te­re pla­cuit:

6The Same, Opinions, Book VI. A father appointed his emancipated son his heir, and disinherited his daughter, who, having brought an action to declare the will inofficious, recovered half of the estate. I gave it as my opinion that her brother should not be compelled to place his own property in the mass of the estate; for it has been established that under such circumstances even bequests of freedom are valid.

7Pau­lus li­bro un­de­ci­mo re­spon­so­rum. nec ip­sa do­tem fra­tri­bus suis con­fe­ret, cum di­ver­so iu­re fra­tres sunt he­redes.

7Paulus, Opinions, Book XI. Nor shall she contribute her dowry for the benefit of her brothers, as the latter are heirs under a different right than hers.

8Pa­pi­nia­nus li­bro un­de­ci­mo re­spon­so­rum. Pa­ter nu­ben­ti fi­liae quas­dam res prae­ter do­tem de­dit eam­que in fa­mi­lia re­ti­nuit ac fra­tri­bus sub con­di­cio­ne, si do­tem et ce­te­ra quae nu­ben­ti tra­di­dit con­tu­lis­set, co­he­redem ad­scrip­sit. cum fi­lia se bo­nis abs­ti­nuis­set, fra­tri­bus res non in do­tem da­tas vin­di­can­ti­bus ex­cep­tio­nem do­li pla­cuit ob­sta­re, quon­iam pa­ter fi­liam al­ter­utrum ha­be­re vo­luit.

8Papinians, Opinions, Book XI. A father gave his daughter, at the time of her marriage, certain property in addition to her dowry, retained her under his control, and appointed her co-heir with her brothers, subject to the condition that she would contribute her dowry, and any other property which he had given her when she was married, by way of collation. As the daughter did not accept the estate, it was held that she could interpose an exception, on the ground of bad faith, against her brothers who brought an action to recover the property not included in the dowry, for the reason that her father intended that she should have one or the other of these.

9Try­pho­ni­nus li­bro sex­to dis­pu­ta­tio­num. Fuit quaes­tio­nis, an, si sua he­res fi­lia pa­tri cum fra­tri­bus con­ten­ta do­te abs­ti­neat se bo­nis, com­pel­la­tur eam con­fer­re. et di­vus Mar­cus re­scrip­sit non com­pel­li abs­ti­nen­tem se ab he­redi­ta­te pa­tris. er­go non tan­tum da­ta apud ma­ri­tum re­ma­ne­bit, sed et pro­mis­sa ex­ige­tur et­iam a fra­tri­bus et est ae­ris alie­ni lo­co: abs­ces­sit enim a bo­nis pa­tris.

9Tryphoninus, Disputations, Book VI. The question was raised whether a daughter who, along with her brothers, was a proper heir of her father and, being content with her dowry, refused to accept the estate, could be compelled to place it in collation. The Divine Marcus stated in a Rescript that, if she did not accept her father’s estate, she could not be forced to do so. Therefore, the dowry which was given will not only remain in the hands of the husband, but also, if it has been promised it can be collected from her brothers, and is considered a debt, as it is no longer included in the estate of the father.