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. XLII6,
De separationibus
Liber quadragesimus secundus
VI.

De separationibus

(Concerning the Separation of the Property of an Estate.)

1Ul­pia­nus li­bro se­xa­gen­si­mo quar­to ad edic­tum. Scien­dum est se­pa­ra­tio­nem so­le­re im­pe­tra­ri de­cre­to prae­to­ris. 1So­let au­tem se­pa­ra­tio per­mit­ti cre­di­to­ri­bus ex his cau­sis: ut pu­ta de­bi­to­rem quis Se­ium ha­buit: hic de­ces­sit: he­res ei ex­ti­tit Ti­tius: hic non est sol­ven­do: pa­ti­tur bo­no­rum ven­di­tio­nem: cre­di­to­res Se­ii di­cunt bo­na Se­ii suf­fi­ce­re si­bi, cre­di­to­res Ti­tii con­ten­tos es­se de­be­re bo­nis Ti­tii et sic qua­si duo­rum fie­ri bo­no­rum ven­di­tio­nem. fie­ri enim pot­est, ut Se­ius qui­dem sol­ven­do fue­rit po­tue­rit­que sa­tis cre­di­to­ri­bus suis vel ita se­mel, et­si non in as­sem, in ali­quid ta­men sa­tis­fa­ce­re, ad­mis­sis au­tem com­mix­tis­que cre­di­to­ri­bus Ti­tii mi­nus sint con­se­cu­tu­ri, quia il­le non est sol­ven­do aut mi­nus con­se­quan­tur, quia plu­res sunt hic. est igi­tur ae­quis­si­mum cre­di­to­res Se­ii de­si­de­ran­tes se­pa­ra­tio­nem au­di­ri im­pe­tra­re­que a prae­to­re, ut se­pa­ra­tim quan­tum cu­ius­que cre­di­to­ri­bus prae­ste­tur. 2Ex con­tra­rio au­tem cre­di­to­res Ti­tii non im­pe­tra­bunt se­pa­ra­tio­nem: nam li­cet ali­cui ad­icien­do si­bi cre­di­to­rem cre­di­to­ris sui fa­ce­re de­te­rio­rem con­di­cio­nem. at­qui igi­tur ad­iit he­redi­ta­tem de­bi­to­ris mei, non fa­ciet meam de­te­rio­rem con­di­cio­nem ad­eun­do, quia li­cet mi­hi se­pa­ra­tio­nem im­pe­tra­re, suos ve­ro cre­di­to­res one­ra­vit, dum ad­iit he­redi­ta­tem quae sol­ven­do non est, nec pot­erunt cre­di­to­res eius se­pa­ra­tio­nem im­pe­tra­re. 3Scien­dum est au­tem, et­iam­si ob­li­ga­ta res es­se pro­po­na­tur ab he­rede iu­re pig­no­ris vel hy­po­the­cae, at­ta­men, si he­redi­ta­ria fuit, iu­re se­pa­ra­tio­nis hy­po­the­ca­rio cre­di­to­ri po­tio­rem es­se eum, qui se­pa­ra­tio­nem im­pe­tra­vit: et ita Se­ve­rus et An­to­ni­nus re­scrip­se­runt. 4Sed et­iam ad­ver­sus fis­cum et mu­ni­ci­pes im­pe­tra­re­tur se­pa­ra­tio. 5Quae­si­tum est, an in­ter­dum et­iam he­redis cre­di­to­res pos­sunt se­pa­ra­tio­nem im­pe­tra­re, si for­te il­le in frau­dem ip­so­rum ad­ie­rit he­redi­ta­tem. sed nul­lum re­me­dium est pro­di­tum: si­bi enim im­pu­tent, qui cum ta­li con­tra­xe­runt: ni­si si ex­tra or­di­nem pu­ta­mus prae­to­rem ad­ver­sus cal­li­di­ta­tem eius sub­ve­ni­re, qui ta­lem frau­dem com­men­tus est: quod non fa­ci­le ad­mis­sum est. 6Sed si quis su­spec­tam he­redi­ta­tem di­cens com­pul­sus fue­rit ad­ire et re­sti­tue­re he­redi­ta­tem, de­in­de non sit cui re­sti­tuat, ex qui­bus ca­si­bus so­let hoc eve­ni­re. et ip­si qui­dem de­si­de­ran­ti suc­cur­ri si­bi ad­ver­sus cre­di­to­res he­redi­ta­rios sub­ve­nie­mus: hoc et di­vus Pius re­scrip­sit, ut per­in­de tes­ta­to­ris bo­na venirent, at­que si ad­ita he­redi­tas non fuis­set, cre­di­to­ri­bus quo­que hu­ius­mo­di he­redis de­si­de­ran­ti­bus hoc idem prae­stan­dum pu­to, li­cet ip­se non de­si­de­ra­vit, ut qua­si se­pa­ra­tio quae­dam prae­ste­tur. 7Item vi­dea­mus, si quis he­res pa­ren­ti ex­ti­te­rit, cum es­set im­pu­bes, de­in­de in­tra pu­ber­ta­tem de­ces­se­rit et sub­sti­tu­ti bo­na ven­eant, qui im­pu­be­ris he­redi­ta­tem ad­iit, an pa­tris cre­di­to­res pos­sint se­pa­ra­tio­nem im­pe­tra­re. et pu­to pos­se: hoc am­plius pu­to et­iam im­pu­be­ris cre­di­to­res pos­se se­pa­ra­tio­nem ad­ver­sus cre­di­to­res he­redis eius im­pe­tra­re. 8Se­cun­dum haec vi­dea­mus, si Pri­mus se­cun­dum he­redem scrip­se­rit, Se­cun­dus Ter­tium et Ter­tii bo­na ven­eant, qui cre­di­to­res pos­sint se­pa­ra­tio­nem im­pe­tra­re. et pu­tem, si qui­dem Pri­mi cre­di­to­res pe­tant, uti­que au­dien­dos et ad­ver­sus Se­cun­di et ad­ver­sus Ter­tii cre­di­to­res: si ve­ro Se­cun­di cre­di­to­res pe­tant, ad­ver­sus Ter­tii uti­que eos im­pe­tra­re pos­se, ad­ver­sus Pri­mi au­tem non pos­se. in sum­ma Pri­mi qui­dem cre­di­to­res ad­ver­sus om­nes im­pe­tra­re pos­sunt se­pa­ra­tio­nem, Se­cun­di cre­di­to­res ad­ver­sus Pri­mi non pos­sunt, ad­ver­sus Ter­tii pos­sunt. 9Si fi­lii fa­mi­lias bo­na ven­eant, qui cas­tren­se pe­cu­lium ha­bet, an se­pa­ra­tio fiat in­ter cas­tren­ses cre­di­to­res ce­te­ros­que, vi­dea­mus. si­mul er­go ad­mit­ten­tur, dum­mo­do, si qui cum eo con­tra­xe­runt, an­te­quam mi­li­ta­ret, for­tas­se de­beant se­pa­ra­ri: quod pu­to pro­ban­dum. er­go qui an­te con­tra­xe­runt, si bo­na cas­tren­sia dis­tra­han­tur, non pos­sunt venire cum cas­tren­si­bus cre­di­to­ri­bus. item si quid in rem pa­tris ver­sum est, for­te pot­erit et cre­di­to­ri con­tra­di­ci, ne cas­tren­se pe­cu­lium in­quie­tet, cum pos­sit po­tius cum pa­tre ex­per­i­ri. 10Il­lud scien­dum est eos de­mum cre­di­to­res pos­se im­pe­tra­re se­pa­ra­tio­nem, qui non no­van­di ani­mo ab he­rede sti­pu­la­ti sunt. ce­te­rum si eum hoc ani­mo se­cu­ti sunt, amis­e­runt se­pa­ra­tio­nis com­mo­dum (quip­pe cum se­cu­ti sunt no­men he­redis) nec pos­sunt iam se ab eo se­pa­ra­re, qui quo­dam­mo­do eum ele­ge­runt. sed et si usu­ras ab eo ea men­te qua­si eum eli­gen­do ex­ege­runt, idem erit pro­ban­dum. 11Item quae­ri­tur, si sa­tis ac­ce­pe­runt ab eo, an im­pe­trent se­pa­ra­tio­nem. et non pu­to: hi enim se­cu­ti sunt eum. for­te quem mo­ve­bit: quid er­go, si sa­tis non ido­neum ac­ce­pe­runt? et si­bi im­pu­tent, cur mi­nus ido­neos fi­de­ius­so­res ac­ci­pie­bant. 12Prae­ter­ea scien­dum est, post­ea­quam bo­na he­redi­ta­ria bo­nis he­redis mix­ta sunt, non pos­se im­pe­tra­ri se­pa­ra­tio­nem: con­fu­sis enim bo­nis et uni­tis se­pa­ra­tio im­pe­tra­ri non pot­erit. quid er­go si prae­dia ex­tent vel man­ci­pia vel pe­co­ra, vel aliud quod se­pa­ra­ri pot­est? hic uti­que pot­erit im­pe­tra­ri se­pa­ra­tio nec fe­ren­dus est, qui cau­sa­tur bo­na con­tri­bu­ta, cum prae­dia con­tri­bui non pos­sint, ni­si ita con­iunc­tae pos­ses­sio­nes et per­mix­tae pro­priis, ut im­pos­si­bi­lem se­pa­ra­tio­nem ef­fe­ce­rint: quod qui­dem per­ra­ro con­tin­ge­re pot­est. 13Quod di­ci­tur post mul­tum tem­po­ris se­pa­ra­tio­nem im­pe­tra­ri non pos­se, ita erit ac­ci­pien­dum, ut ul­tra quin­quen­nium post ad­itio­nem nu­me­ran­dum se­pa­ra­tio non pos­tu­le­tur. 14De his au­tem om­ni­bus, an ad­mit­ten­da se­pa­ra­tio sit nec ne, prae­to­ris erit vel prae­si­dis no­tio, nul­lius al­te­rius, hoc est eius, qui se­pa­ra­tio­nem in­dul­tu­rus est. 15Si quis pig­nus ab he­rede ac­ce­pe­rit, non est ei con­ce­den­da se­pa­ra­tio, qua­si eum se­cu­tus sit: ne­que enim fe­ren­dus est, qui qua­li­ter­qua­li­ter, eli­gen­tis ta­men men­te, he­redis per­so­nam se­cu­tus est. 16Quae­si­tum est, si for­te sint plu­res cre­di­to­res, qui­dam se­cu­ti he­redem, qui­dam non se­cu­ti, et hi, qui he­redem se­cu­ti non sunt, im­pe­tra­ve­rint se­pa­ra­tio­nem, an eos se­cum ad­mit­tant, qui se­cu­ti sunt. et pu­tem ni­hil eis prod­es­se: hos enim cum cre­di­to­ri­bus he­redis nu­me­ran­dos. 17Item scien­dum est vul­go pla­ce­re cre­di­to­res qui­dem he­redis, si quid su­per­fue­rit ex bo­nis tes­ta­to­ris, pos­se ha­be­re in suum de­bi­tum, cre­di­to­res ve­ro tes­ta­to­ris ex bo­nis he­redis ni­hil. cu­ius rei ra­tio il­la est, quod qui im­pe­tra­vit se­pa­ra­tio­nem, si­bi de­bet im­pu­ta­re suam fa­ci­li­ta­tem, si, cum es­sent bo­na ido­nea he­redis, il­li ma­lue­rint bo­na po­tius de­func­ti si­bi se­pa­ra­ri, he­redis au­tem cre­di­to­ri­bus hoc im­pu­ta­ri non pos­sit. at si cre­di­to­res de­func­ti de­si­de­rent, ut et­iam in bo­nis he­redis sub­sti­tuan­tur, non sunt au­dien­di: se­pa­ra­tio enim, quam ip­si pe­tie­runt, eos ab is­tis bo­nis se­pa­ra­vit. si ta­men te­me­re se­pa­ra­tio­nem pe­tie­runt cre­di­to­res de­func­ti, im­pe­tra­re ve­niam pos­sunt, ius­tis­si­ma sci­li­cet igno­ran­tiae cau­sa al­le­ga­ta. 18Item scien­dum est ne­ces­sa­rium he­redem ser­vum cum li­ber­ta­te in­sti­tu­tum im­pe­tra­re pos­se se­pa­ra­tio­nem, sci­li­cet ut, si non at­ti­ge­rit bo­na pa­tro­ni, in ea cau­sa sit, ut ei quid­quid post­ea ad­quisie­rit se­pa­re­tur: sed et si quid ei a tes­ta­to­re de­be­tur.

1Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LXIV. It must be noted that a separation of the property of an estate is generally obtained by a decree of the Prætor. 1A separation is ordinarily granted to creditors for the following reasons, for instance, where a creditor has Seius for his debtor, and the latter dies, leaving Titius his heir; and Titius not being solvent, his property is offered for sale. The creditors of Seius allege that his estate is sufficient to satisfy their claims; and that the creditors of Titius should be content with the estate of the latter, and hence there is, as it were, a sale of the property of two different debtors. It may, however, happen that Seius was solvent, and would have been able to satisfy his creditors, if not for the entire indebtedness, at least for a portion of it. If, however, their obligations are merged with those of the creditors of Titius, they will not receive so much, because Titius was insolvent, and they will receive still less, because there are more of them. It is, therefore, perfectly just that the creditors of Seius who desire a separation of property should be heard, and obtain from the Prætor permission for the payment of each class of creditors separately. 2On the other hand, however, the creditors of Titius cannot obtain a separation of property, although anyone by obtaining another creditor may make the condition of his former creditor worse. Therefore, he who accepts the estate of my debtor will not, by doing so, make my condition any worse, because I have the right to obtain a separation of property. He, however, will render the condition of his creditors worse, if he enters upon an estate which is not solvent, for the creditors cannot demand a separation of property. 3Moreover, it should be noted that even if it is suggested that the estate had been encumbered by the heir, by means of a pledge, or an hypothecation, still, if the property belonged to the estate, he who obtained a separation of it would, for this reason, be preferred to a creditor to whom the property had been hypothecated. This was stated by Severus and Antoninus in a Rescript. 4A separation of property can also be obtained against the Treasury, or any municipality. 5The question arose whether the creditors of the heir could sometimes obtain a separation of property, if he had committed fraud against them when he entered upon the estate. No remedy is, however, afforded, for they must blame themselves if they entered into a contract with such a man, unless we hold that the Prætor can make use of an extraordinary proceeding for relief against the deceit of him who has contrived such a fraud. It is, however, difficult to adopt such an opinion. 6If, however, an heir, even though he may allege that he thinks the estate is insolvent, should be compelled to accept and transfer it, and there is no one to whom he can deliver it, for this happens under some circumstances, we must come to his relief (if he asks it), against the creditors of the estate. This the Divine Pius stated in a Rescript, which enabled the property of the testator to be sold, just as if the estate had not been accepted. I think that this relief should also be granted to the creditors of the heir, if they request it, even if the heir himself did not ask for it, just as any separation of the claims is granted. 7Let us see if, in the case where a minor under the age of puberty becomes the heir of his father, and dies before reaching that age, and property in the hands of the substitute, who had accepted the estate of the minor, is sold, the creditors of the father can demand a separation of property.” I think that they can do so, and I go still further, and hold that the creditors of the minor can also demand a separation as against the creditors of his heir. 8In accordance with this, let us see if Primus should appoint Secundus his heir, and Secundus appoint Tertius his own heir, and the property of Tertius is sold by his creditors, what creditors can claim a separation of property. I think that if the creditors of Primus request this, they should be heard, against both the creditors of Secundus and Tertius; if the creditors of Secundus ask for a separation, they can obtain it against the heirs of Tertius, but not against those of Primus. In a word, the creditors of Primus can obtain a separation of property against all the other creditors; the creditors of Secundus can obtain one against the creditors of Tertius, but not against those of Primus. 9Where the property of a son under paternal control is sold by his creditors, and he has a castrense peculium, can a distinction be made between the creditors of the castrense peculium and the other creditors? They should all be admitted together, unless the claims of those who made the contract before the son entered the military service ought, perhaps, to be separated. I think that this opinion should be adopted. Therefore, if the creditors, who made contracts before the son entered the service, should sell the castrensian property, they cannot come in with the subsequent creditors. Moreover, if any of the property has been employed for the benefit of the father, the creditor may perhaps be prevented from touching the castrense peculium, as he has a right to bring a special action against the father. 10It should be noted that only those creditors can obtain a separation of property who have not stipulated with the heir with the intention of entering into a new obligation. If, however, they have approached him with this intention, they will lose the benefit of a separation of property, because, having obtained the claim of the heir, they cannot now separate themselves from him whom, to a certain extent, they have chosen as their debtor. But if, in selecting the heir as their debtor, they have required interest from him in that capacity, the same rule should be adopted. 11It is also asked whether they can obtain a separation of property, if they have received security from the heir. I do not think that they can do so, for they have followed him who have induced them to change. But what if they accepted insufficient security? They themselves are to blame for not having received sureties who were solvent. 12It must also be remembered that after the property of the estate is merged with that of the heir, a separation of property cannot be obtained, for where property is united and mingled together, a separation cannot be demanded. But what if it consisted of distinct tracts of land, slaves, cattle, or anything else which can be divided? Under these circumstances, a separation can be demanded, nor will anyone who maintains that the property is merged be heard, as tracts of land cannot be merged, unless the possession of different persons is so joined and mingled that a separation cannot be effected, which very rarely occurs. 13When we have stated that a separation of property cannot be obtained after a long period of time, this must be understood to mean that it cannot be demanded after five years from the time when the estate was accepted have elapsed. 14In all these cases, in order to determine whether a separation of property should take place or not, the opinion of the Prætor or the Governor, and that of no one else must be obtained, that is to say, the opinion of him who can grant the separation. 15If a creditor should take a pledge from the heir, a separation of property should not be conceded to him, because he looks to the heir for payment. For he should not be heard who asserts that the heir is liable, having with that intention accepted him as his debtor in any manner whatsoever. 16Where there are several creditors, some of whom have claims against the heir as their debtor, and others have not, and the latter obtain a separation, the question arose whether they can admit the former to share with them. I think that this will not profit them, for they should be included among the creditors of the heir himself. 17It should also be noted that it is commonly held that the creditors of an heir can have anything of the residue of the property of the testator applied to the payment of their claims, but that the creditors of the testator can obtain nothing from the property of the heir. The reason for this is, that they who obtained the separation can only blame themselves, if, when the property of the heir was sufficient to pay them, they preferred that the estate of the deceased should be separated for their benefit, but the creditors of the heir are not to blame for anything of this kind. If, however, the creditors of the deceased petition to share in the property of the heir, they should not be heard; for the separation which they themselves demand removes them from all participation in the said property. But where the creditors of the deceased carelessly demand a separation of property, they are excusable, because their ignorance of the condition of the estate may be alleged as a just cause for their doing so. 18It must be remembered that a slave who has been appointed a necessary heir, with the grant of his freedom, can obtain a separation of property; so that if he does not meddle with the estate of his patron, he will be in a position to have whatever he may hereafter acquire separately together with anything which is due to him from the testator.

2Pa­pi­nia­nus li­bro vi­cen­si­mo quin­to quaes­tio­num. Ab he­rede ven­di­ta he­redi­ta­te se­pa­ra­tio frus­tra de­si­de­ra­bi­tur, uti­que si nul­la frau­dis in­cur­rat su­spi­cio: nam quae bo­na fi­de me­dio tem­po­re per he­redem ges­ta sunt, ra­ta con­ser­va­ri so­lent.

2Papinianus, Questions, Book XXV. Where the estate has been sold by the heir, a separation of it cannot legally be demanded, if there is no suspicion of fraud; for any acts performed by the heir in good faith, in the meantime, are usually considered to be legal.

3Idem li­bro vi­cen­si­mo sep­ti­mo quaes­tio­num. De­bi­tor fi­de­ius­so­ri he­res ex­ti­tit eius­que bo­na ven­ie­runt: quam­vis ob­li­ga­tio fi­de­ius­sio­nis ex­tinc­ta sit, ni­hi­lo mi­nus se­pa­ra­tio im­pe­tra­bi­tur pe­ten­te eo, cui fi­de­ius­sor fue­rat ob­li­ga­tus, si­ve so­lus sit he­redi­ta­rius cre­di­tor si­ve plu­res. ne­que enim ra­tio iu­ris, quae cau­sam fi­de­ius­sio­nis prop­ter prin­ci­pa­lem ob­li­ga­tio­nem, quae ma­ior fuit, ex­clu­sit, dam­no de­bet ad­fi­ce­re cre­di­to­rem, qui si­bi di­li­gen­ter pro­spe­xe­rat. 1Quid er­go, si bo­nis fi­de­ius­so­ris se­pa­ra­tis so­li­dum ex he­redi­ta­te sti­pu­la­tor con­se­qui non pos­sit? utrum por­tio cum ce­te­ris he­redis cre­di­to­ri­bus ei quae­ren­da erit an con­ten­tus es­se de­be­bit bo­nis, quae se­pa­ra­ri ma­luit? sed cum sti­pu­la­tor is­te non ad­ita fi­de­ius­so­ris a reo he­redi­ta­te bo­nis fi­de­ius­so­ris ven­di­tis in re­si­duum pro mis­ce­ri de­bi­to­ris cre­di­to­ri­bus po­tue­rit, ra­tio non pa­ti­tur eum in pro­pos­i­to sum­mo­ve­ri. 2Sed in quo­li­bet alio cre­di­to­re, qui se­pa­ra­tio­nem im­pe­tra­vit, pro­ba­ri com­mo­dius est, ut, si so­li­dum ex he­redi­ta­te ser­va­ri non pos­sit, ita de­mum ali­quid ex bo­nis he­redis fe­rat, si pro­prii cre­di­to­res he­redis fue­rint di­mis­si. quod si­ne du­bio ad­mit­ten­dum est cir­ca cre­di­to­res he­redis di­mis­sis he­redi­ta­riis.

3The Same, Questions, Book XXVII. A debtor became the heir of his surety, and the creditors of the latter sold his property. Although the liability of the security was extinguished, still, a separation of property will be granted on the demand of him to whom the surety was liable, whether he was the only creditor of the estate or whether there were several. For the rule of law which excludes the obligation of the security on account of the principal obligation, which is the greater, should not prejudice the rights of the creditor who has diligently provided for his own interest. 1But what if, after the separation of the property of the surety, the stipulator should be unable to collect his entire claim from the estate? Can his share be demanded along with those of the other creditors of the heir, or must he remain content with the property which he preferred to be separated? As, however, this stipulator could have shared with the creditors of the debtor in any balance which remained, if the estate of the surety had not been accepted by the creditor of the principal debtor, after the sale of the property of the surety, reason does not permit that he should be excluded in the case proposed. 2But with reference to every other creditor who has obtained a separation of property, it is more advantageous to hold that if he can not collect his entire debt from the estate, he can still recover something from the property of the heir, if the personal creditors of the heir have been satisfied, because there is no doubt that he should be admitted to share with the creditors of the heir, after those of the estate have been satisfied.

4Idem li­bro duo­de­ci­mo re­spon­so­rum. Cre­di­to­ri­bus, qui ex die vel sub con­di­cio­ne de­ben­tur et prop­ter hoc non­dum pe­cu­niam pe­te­re pos­sunt, ae­que se­pa­ra­tio da­bi­tur, quon­iam et ip­sis cau­tio­ne com­mu­ni con­su­le­tur. 1Le­ga­ta­rios au­tem in ea tan­tum par­te, quae de bo­nis ser­va­ri po­tuit, ha­be­re pig­no­ris cau­sam con­ve­nit.

4The Same, Opinions, Book XII. A separation of property shall also be granted to creditors where the debt is due after a certain time, or under some condition, on account of which they have not yet been able to bring suit to recover the money, since provision has also been made for them by double security. 1It is established that legatees are considered to have a lien only upon that part of an estate which remains after the debts are paid.

5Pau­lus li­bro ter­tio de­ci­mo quaes­tio­num. Si cre­di­to­res he­redi­ta­rii se­pa­ra­tio­nem bo­no­rum im­pe­tra­ve­runt et in­ve­nia­tur non ido­nea he­redi­tas, he­res au­tem ido­neus: non pot­erunt re­ver­ti ad he­redem, sed eo, quod se­mel pos­tu­la­ve­runt, sta­re de­bent. sed si post im­pe­tra­tam se­pa­ra­tio­nem ali­quid he­res ad­quisie­rit, si qui­dem ex he­redi­ta­te, ad­mit­ti de­be­bunt ad id quod ad­quisi­tum est il­li qui se­pa­ra­tio­nem im­pe­tra­ve­runt: sed si il­lis sa­tis­fac­tum fue­rit, quod su­per­est tri­bue­tur pro­priis he­redis cre­di­to­ri­bus. at si ex alia cau­sa he­res ad­quisie­rit, non ad­mit­ten­tur he­redi­ta­rii cre­di­to­res. quod si pro­prii ad so­li­dum per­ve­ne­runt, id quod su­per­erit tri­buen­dum he­redi­ta­riis qui­dam pu­tant: mi­hi au­tem id non vi­de­tur: cum enim se­pa­ra­tio­nem pe­tie­runt, re­ces­se­runt a per­so­na he­redis et bo­na se­cu­ti sunt et qua­si de­func­ti bo­na ven­di­de­runt, quae aug­men­ta non pos­sunt re­ci­pe­re. idem­que ex­is­ti­mo di­cen­dum, et­iam­si cir­ca se­pa­ra­tio­nem bo­no­rum de­cep­ti mi­nus con­se­cu­ti sunt quam pro­prii he­redis cre­di­to­res. pro­prii au­tem he­redis cre­di­to­res ha­bent pro­pria eius bo­na et per­so­nam, quae pot­est do­nec vi­vit ad­quire­re.

5Paulus, Questions, Book XIII. If the creditors of an estate obtain a separation of property and the estate is found to be insolvent, but the heir is solvent, they cannot have recourse to the latter, but must adhere to the separation which they have already demanded. If, however, the heir should acquire property after the separation has been obtained, and any of it is derived from the estate, they who obtained the separation must, along with the personal creditors of the heir, be admitted to share in what had been acquired. But where their claims have been satisfied, any residue shall be paid to the creditors of the heir; but if the latter acquires any property from some other source, the creditors of the estate will not be permitted to take it. If, however, the personal creditors of the heir are paid in full, some authorities think that anything which remains should be turned over to the creditors of the estate; but I do not accept this opinion, for when they demanded a separation of property they no longer looked to the heir personally for payment, but had recourse to the estate, and, as it were, sold the property of the estate, which was not capable of augmentation. I thinks that the same rule should be held to apply, even if the creditors were deceived with reference to the separation of the property, and obtained less than the personal creditors of the heir. The latter, however, have, as their security, his property and his person, which they can obtain during his lifetime.

6Iu­lia­nus li­bro qua­dra­gen­si­mo sex­to di­ges­to­rum. Quo­tiens he­redis bo­na sol­ven­do non sunt, non so­lum cre­di­to­res tes­ta­to­ris, sed et­iam eos, qui­bus le­ga­tum fue­rit, im­pe­tra­re bo­no­rum se­pa­ra­tio­nem ae­quum est, ita ut, cum in cre­di­to­ri­bus so­li­dum ad­quisi­tum fue­rit, le­ga­ta­riis vel so­li­dum vel por­tio quae­ra­tur. 1Si li­ber­ta he­res in­sti­tu­ta bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem se­cun­dum ta­bu­las pe­tis­set eius, qui sol­ven­do non erat, quae­si­tum est, an bo­na eius se­pa­ra­ri ab he­redi­ta­riis de­bent. re­spon­dit: non est in­iquum suc­cur­ri pa­tro­no, ne one­ra­re­tur ae­re alie­no, quod li­ber­ta pe­ten­do bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem se­cun­dum ta­bu­las con­tra­xe­rit.

6Julianus, Digest, Book XLVI. Whenever an heir is insolvent, it is equitable that not only the creditors of the testator, but also those to whom bequests have been made, should obtain a separation of property, so that, after the claims of the creditors have been fully satisfied, the legatees may obtain their legacies entirely, or in part. 1If a freedwoman, who has been appointed heir, demands prætorian possession in accordance with the provisions of the will of the testator, who was not solvent, the question arises whether her own property should be separated from that of the estate. The answer is that relief should be granted to her patron, to prevent him from being oppressed by the indebtedness which his freedwoman contracted by retaining possession of the estate in accordance with the provisions of the will.

7Mar­cia­nus li­bro se­cun­do re­gu­la­rum. Qui iu­di­cium dic­ta­ve­runt he­redi, se­pa­ra­tio­nem qua­si he­redi­ta­rii pos­sunt im­pe­tra­re, quia ex ne­ces­si­ta­te hoc fe­ce­runt.

7Marcianus, Rules, Book II. The creditors of an estate who have filed-claims against the heir can, nevertheless, obtain a separation of property, because they took this step from necessity.