1Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XLIX. The Successory Edict was promulgated in order that estates might not remain too long without ownership, and the creditors suffer from too protracted a delay. Therefore, the Prætor thought that a limit should be prescribed for those to whom he granted prætorian possession, and to establish a succession among them, in order that the creditors might sooner ascertain to whom they must apply; whether the estate escheated to the Treasury for want of ownership, or whether they themselves should institute proceedings to obtain prætorian possession, just as if the deceased had died without leaving any successor. 1For even one can reject prætorian possession which is granted to himself, but he cannot reject that which is granted to another. 2Therefore, my agent cannot reject prætorian possession to which I am entitled, without obtaining my consent to do so. 3A master can reject prætorian possession to which he is entitled through a slave. 4Let us see whether a guardian can reject prætorian possession of an estate to which his ward is entitled. The better opinion is that he cannot do so, but the ward himself can reject it with the authority of his guardian. 5The curator of an insane person can, under no circumstances, reject prætorian possession of an estate to which the latter is entitled because the latter has not yet obtained it. 6Where a person has once refused to demand prætorian possession of an estate, he loses his right, even though the prescribed time for doing so had not yet expired; for, when he refused to accept it, possession of the estate had already begun to belong to others, or to escheat to the Treasury. 7Let us see whether prætorian possession of an estate authorized by a decree can be rejected. And, indeed, it may be terminated by lapse of time, but it is none the less true that it cannot be rejected, because it was not granted before the decree was issued. Again, after the decree has been issued, the rejection will be too late, as a right which has once been acquired cannot be rejected. 8If the relative first in degree should die within the prescribed hundred days, the one next in succession can immediately demand possession of the estate. 9What we have said with reference to demanding prætorian possession within a hundred days must be understood to mean that it can be demanded even on the hundredth day; just as where an act is to be performed within certain kalends, the kalends themselves are included. The same rule applies where some act is to be performed within a hundred days. 10Where one of those to whom prætorian possession may be given under the terms of the Edict refuses, or neglects to demand it for himself within the specified time, the other heirs in the next degree can claim prætorian possession of the estate, just as if the one in the first degree had not been included in the number of those entitled to the same. 11However, it should be considered whether the one who is excluded in this way can also be admitted to share with the others; for instance, a son who is under paternal control, where possession of an estate ab intestato has been granted to him under the First Section of the Edict relating to children. He is excluded by lapse of time, or by rejection of the estate, and prætorian possession passes to the heirs next in degree. Will he himself succeed by virtue of this Section relating to succession? The better opinion is that he can do so; for he can demand possession of the estate as one of the heirs at law, and after them, in his own degree, under the Section where the cognates, who are next of kin, are called to the succession. This is our practice, so that the son is admitted to the succession in this manner, and therefore, he can succeed himself in accordance with the Second Section of the Edict. This rule can also be said to apply with reference to prætorian possession in accordance with the provisions of the will; so that if he who can succeed to the prætorian succession on the ground of intestacy does not apply for it in accordance with the terms of the will, he can still in this way succeed himself. 12A longer time to demand prætorian possession of an estate is accorded to parents and children on account of the honor attaching to blood, because those who are, so to speak, coming into possession of their own property, should not be too closely restrained. It has, therefore, been determined that they shall be given a year, so that they may be afforded a reasonable time for demanding prætorian possession of the estate, and not be pressed to do so; and that, on the other hand, the property may not remain too long without an owner. It is true that sometimes when they are interrogated in court by impatient creditors, they must state whether they will demand prætorian possession or not; so that, if they say that they intend to reject it, the creditors may know what they will have to do. If they say that they are still deliberating, they should not be hurried. 13When anyone is substituted by his father for his brother, who is under the age of puberty, he must demand prætorian possession of his estate, not within a year, but within a hundred days. 14This favor is granted to parents and children, not only where they are themselves directly in the line of succession, but also where a slave of one of the children or parents is appointed an heir; for in this case, prætorian possession can be demanded within a year. For it is the person who demands possession who is entitled to this benefit. 15If, however, the father of an emancipated son desires to obtain prætorian possession of his estate in opposition to the provisions of the will, it is settled that he has a year in which to do so. 16Julianus says that, generally speaking, prætorian possession can, under all circumstances, be demanded by parents and children within a year.

2Papinianus, Opinions, Book VI. A cognate of an inferior degree is not entitled to the benefit of the Successory Edict, when one in the first degree has obtained prætorian possession under his own Section of the Edict. Nor will it make any difference whether the cognate, first in degree, obtained the right of rejection on account of his age. Hence it was decided that the property is legally escheated to the Treasury as being without an owner.