Fideicommissorum libri
Ex libro I
Dig. 32,2Gaius libro primo fideicommissorum. Ex filio praeterito, licet suus heres erit, fideicommissum relinqui non potest.
Dig. 32,14Gaius libro primo fideicommissorum. Non dubium est, quin, si uxori legatum sit ‘si non nupserit’ idque alii restituere rogata sit, cogenda est, si nupserit, restituere. 1Heres quoque, cui iurisiurandi condicio remittitur, legatum et fideicommissum debet. 2Sed si cui legatum relictum est, ut alienam rem redimat vel praestet, si redimere non possit, quod dominus non vendat vel immodico pretio vendat, iustam aestimationem inferat.
Gaius, Trusts, Book I. There is no question, where a legacy is bequeathed to a wife under the condition that she will not marry again, and she is requested to return the legacy if she does; that she can be compelled to do so, if she should marry a second time. 1An heir who has been released from the requirement of taking an oath, will still be obliged to pay legacies and execute trusts under a will. 2Where, however, a legacy has been left to someone for the purpose of purchasing property belonging to another, in order to deliver the same to a third party; and he is unable to purchase said property for the reason that the owner will not sell it, or wishes to sell it at an exorbitant price, he must pay the just value of the same to the beneficiary of the trust.
Dig. 33,2,29Gaius libro primo fideicommissorum. Si quis usum fructum legatum sibi alii restituere rogatus sit eumque in fundum induxerit fruendi causa: licet iure civili morte et capitis deminutione ex persona legatarii pereat usus fructus, quod huic ipso iure adquisitus est, tamen praetor iurisdictione sua id agere debet, ut idem servetur, quod futurum esset, si ei, cui ex fideicommisso restitutus esset, legati iure adquisitus fuisset.
Gaius, Trusts, Book I. When anyone is requested to transfer to another an usufruct which was left to himself, and he has united it to the land for the purpose of enjoying the same; although the usufruct may be extinguished by operation of law, at the death, or by the forfeiture of civil rights by the legatee who acquired it under this title, the Prætor, nevertheless, should exert his authority in order that the right may be preserved if it was left to him under a trust, just as if it had been bequeathed as a legacy.
Dig. 34,5,5Gaius libro primo fideicommissorum. Quidam relegatus facto testamento post heredis institutionem et post legata quibusdam data ita subiecit: ‘si quis ex heredibus ceterisve amicis, quorum hoc testamento mentionem habui, sive quis alius restitutionem mihi impetraverit ab imperatore et ante decessero, quam ei gratias agerem: volo dari ei qui id egerit a ceteris heredibus aureos tot’. unus ex his, quos heredes scripserat, impetravit ei restitutionem et antequam id sciret, decessit. cum de fideicommisso quaereretur, an deberetur, consultus Iulianus respondit deberi: sed etiam si non heres vel legatarius, sed alius ex amicis curavit eum restitui, et ei fideicommissum praestari. 1Si tibi et postumo suo vel alieno hereditatem restituere quis rogaverit.
Gaius, Trusts, Book I. A certain individual, having been sent into exile, made a will, and after appointing an heir and making bequests to several persons added the following: “If any one of my heirs or other friends whom I have mentioned in this my will, or anyone else, should obtain my recall from the Emperor, and I should die before I can manifest my gratitude to him, I wish such-and-such a sum of money to be given by my other heirs to him who does this.” One of the heirs whom he had appointed obtained his recall, but before the testator knew it he died. The question arose as to the execution of the trust. Julianus, having been consulted, gave it as his opinion that the trust should be executed; and even if the party who obtained the recall of the testator was neither his heir nor legatee, but one of his friends, that the latter was entitled to the benefit of the trust. 1If anyone should charge you to deliver his estate to his posthumous heir, or a stranger;
Dig. 34,5,7Gaius libro primo fideicommissorum. utrum ita postumus partem faciat, si natus sit, an et si natus non sit, quaeritur. ego commodius dici puto, si quidem natus non est, minime eum partem facere, sed totum ad te pertinere, quasi ab initio tibi solido relicto: sin autem natus fuerit, utrosque accipere quantum cuique relictum est, ut uno nato pars tibi dimidia debeatur, duobus natis tertia tibi debeatur, tribus natis, quia trigemini quoque nascuntur, quarta debeatur. et nostra quidem aetate Serapias Alexandrina mulier ad divum Hadrianum perducta est cum quinque liberis, quos uno fetu enixa est. sed tamen quod ultra tres nascitur, fere portentosum videtur. 1Cum quidam pluribus heredibus institutis unius fidei commississet, ut, cum moreretur, uni ex coheredibus, cui ipse vellet, restitueret eam partem hereditatis, quae ad eum pervenisset: verissimum est utile esse fideicommissum: nec enim in arbitrio eius qui rogatus est positum est, an omnino velit restituere, sed cui potius restituat: plurimum enim interest, utrum in potestate eius, quem testator obligari cogitat, faciat, si velit dare, an post necessitatem dandi solius distribuendi liberum arbitrium concedat. 2Quaesitum est, si coheredes ex disparibus partibus scripti sunt, utrum partem suam in viriles partes restituere singulis debeat an pro portionibus hereditariis, ex quibus heredes scripti sint. et placuit, si testator ita restitui iussisset partem, si aliquam pecuniam dedissent, si quidem aequas partes iussi fuerint dare, conveniens videri esse etiam ex fideicommisso aequas partes eis restitui oportere: si vero dispares in ea pecunia distribuenda significavit testator, ut videantur hereditariis portionibus congruere, consentaneum esse etiam fideicommissum pro hereditariis partibus eis restitui debere.
Gaius, Trusts, Book I. It is asked if the posthumous child, whether he was born or not, could prevent you from profiting by your share of the estate. I think it is more proper to hold that if the posthumous child should not be born, he will not enable you to share in the estate, but the whole of it will belong to you, just as if it had been entirely left to you in the first place; but if he should be born, both of you will be entitled to what was left to each, and if one child is born, you will be entitled to half the estate; if two are born, you will be entitled to a third; and if three children are brought forth at once (for triplets are also born), you will be entitled to a fourth of the estate. And, even in our time, Serapias, an Alexandrian woman, was presented to the Divine Hadrian with her five children, whom she had had at a single birth. Where, however, more than three children come into the world at the same time, the event is considered a prodigy. 1Where a certain man, after having appointed several heirs, charged one of them under a trust to deliver the share of the estate which might come into his hands to any one of his co-heirs whom he might select at the time of his death, it is absolutely certain that this trust is a valid one; as it is not left to the discretion of the heir of whom the request was made, whether he should deliver the property at all, but to whom he prefers to deliver it. For it makes a great deal of difference whether the testator places it in the power of the trustee whom he desires to deliver, or not to deliver certain property, or whether, after having imposed upon him the necessity of delivering it, he grants him alone the unrestricted choice of distribution. 2Where co-heirs are appointed to unequal shares of an estate, the question arose whether the heir should be required to give each one equal shares, or only shares in proportion to those to which they are appointed heirs. It was decided that if the testator directed one of his heirs to give up his share to his co-heirs, if they paid him a certain sum of money, to which they were directed to contribute equally; it would seem to be just that equal portions of the property should be given to them by virtue of the trust. If, however, in the distribution of said money, the testator intended that they should contribute unequal shares, in order that they might correspond with the shares of the estate to which they were entitled, it would appear to be reasonable that, under the terms of the trust, the property should be delivered to them in proportion to their respective shares of the estate.
Dig. 35,1,88Gaius libro primo fideicommissorum. id est quae ipsi servo commodior sit,
Dig. 35,1,90Gaius libro primo fideicommissorum. Per fideicommissum varie data libertate non levissima spectanda est, sed novissima, quia posterior voluntas potior haberi debet: cui consonat etiam rescriptum divi Antonini.