Ad legem Iuliam et Papiam libri
Ex libro XIII
Dig. 28,5,74Gaius libro tertio decimoaaDie Großausgabe liest duodecimo statt tertio decimo. ad legem Iuliam et Papiam. Sub condicione herede instituto si substituamus, nisi eandem condicionem repetemus, pure eum heredem substituere intellegimur.
Gaius, On the Lex Julia et Papia, Book XIII. Where an heir is appointed under a condition, and we substitute another for him, unless, when doing so, we repeat the same condition, the substitution of the heir will be understood to be absolute.
Dig. 35,1,69Gaius libro tertio decimo ad legem Iuliam et Papiam. Si ita expressum erit: ‘Titio, si voluerit, do lego’, apud Labeonem Proculus notat non aliter ad heredem legatarii pertinere, quam si ipse legatarius voluerit ad se pertinere, quia condicio personae iniuncta videtur.
Gaius, On the Lex Julia et Papia, Book XIII. If the testator expressed himself as follows, “I give and bequeath to Titius such-and-such property, if he is willing,” Proculus, on Labeo, remarks that the legacy will not belong to the heir of the legatee, unless the legatee himself desired him to have it, because the condition appears to be attached to the person.
Dig. 38,16,14Idem libro tertio decimo ad legem Iuliam et Papiam. In suis heredibus aditio non est necessaria, quia statim ipso iure heredes existunt.
The Same, On the Lex Julia et Papia, Book XIII. Formal acceptance is not necessary for proper heirs, because they immediately become heirs by operation of law.
Dig. 40,7,31Gaius libro tertio decimo ad legem Iuliam et Papiam. Si servo sub condicione rationum editarum legatum sit, per eam condicionem eum iussum esse legatum accipere, ut pecuniam reliquorum reddat, non dubitatur. 1Et ideo cum quaesitum est ‘Stichus cum rationes dederit, cum contubernali sua liber esto’ an mortuo Sticho ante condicionem contubernalis eius libera esse possit: Iulianus dixit quaestionem esse in hac specie, quae et in legatis agitatur ‘illi cum illo do’, an altero deficiente alter ad legatum admittatur: quod magis sibi placere, perinde ac si ita scriptum esset ‘illi et illi’. aliam etiam esse quaestionem, an contubernali quoque condicio iuncta sit: quod magis esset. itaque si nulla reliqua Stichus habuerit, statim eam liberam esse, si habuerit reliqua, debere eam numerare pecuniam: nec tamen liciturum ex suo peculio dare, quia id illis permissum sit, qui principaliter pro sua libertate pecuniam dare iubentur.
Gaius, On tine Lex Julia et Papia, Book XIII. If a legacy is bequeathed to a slave on the condition of his rendering his accounts, there is no doubt that, under the condition by which he is directed to receive the legacy, he must pay over any balance remaining in his hands. 1Therefore, when inquiry was made with reference to the following clause, “Let Stichus, together with his female companion, be free, after he has rendered his accounts,” and Stichus should die before the condition is complied with, will his companion be free? Julianus says that there is a point in this case which also arises with respect to legacies, as where a testator says, “I give to So-and-So together with So-and-So,” and one of the parties is lacking, the other is permitted to take the legacy; because the better opinion is that the case is just as if the testator had said, “I give to So-and-So and So-and-So.” It is also said that there is another question, namely, whether the condition is also imposed upon the female companion. It is held that this is the case; hence, if Stichus has no balance in his hands, the woman will immediately become free; but if a balance remained in his hands, she must pay the money, nor will it be lawful for her to take it out of the peculium, because this is only permitted to those who are directed to make payment in their own names, in consideration of the freedom which is granted them.