The Same, Epistles, Book VIII. A freedman who died insolvent, having passed oyer his patron, left his estate to foreign heirs. I ask whether the patron can demand prætorian possession contrary to the provisions of the will. The answer was that, as the estate had been entered upon by the appointed heirs, the patron can demand prætorian possession, because an estate is considered to be solvent whenever an heir is found to accept it: And, indeed, it is absurd that the right of the patron to demand prætorian possession of an estate should be based on the estimate of others, and not on the wishes of the patron himself; and that the little that the latter can claim in a case of this kind should be taken from him. For many reasons may arise for which it might be expedient for the patron to demand prætorian possession, even if the amount of the indebtedness which the freedman left behind him exceeds the assets of the estate; for instance, if certain lands are included in the estate of the freedman in which are situated the burial places of the ancestors of the patron, and the latter takes advantage of his rights to obtain prætorian possession, in order that the said burial places may be obtained by him as his share, he considering this right to be of great importance to him; or, for example, where a slave whom the patron values, not from the price which he might bring but for the affection which he entertains for him, forms part of the estate. Therefore, the patron should be none the less entitled to claim possession of the estate, who forms an estimate of the value of the property of the freedman, rather by his own opinion, than by the computation of others; for an estate should be considered to be solvent both because an heir is found for it, and for the reason that prætorian possession of the same is demanded.

The Same, Epistles, Book VIII. I ask whether you think the following stipulation is dishonorable, or not. A natural father appointed, as his heir, his son, whom Titius had adopted under the condition that he should be released from paternal control. His adoptive father refused to emancipate him, unless he was willing to stipulate for the payment of a sum of money by a third party in consideration of his manumission. After his emancipation, the son entered upon the estate, and then the father, under the terms of the stipulation above mentioned, demanded the money. The answer was, I do not think that the ground of this stipulation is dishonorable, as otherwise he would not have emancipated his son. Nor can the terms of the stipulation be considered unjust, if the adoptive father desired to obtain some advantage, on account of which his son would have more esteem for him after his emancipation.