De separationibus
(Concerning the Separation of the Property of an Estate.)
1 Ulpianus 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.
1 Ulpianus, 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.
2 Papinianus 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.
2 Papinianus, 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.
3 Idem 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.
3 The 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.
4 Idem 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.
4 The 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.
5 Paulus 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.
5 Paulus, 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.
6 Iulianus 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.
6 Julianus, 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.
7 Marcianus libro secundo regularum. Qui iudicium dictaverunt heredi, separationem quasi hereditarii possunt impetrare, quia ex necessitate hoc fecerunt.
7 Marcianus, 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.