Ex posterioribus Labeonis libri
Ex libro I
Dig. 21,1,53Iavolenus libro primo ex posterioribus Labeonis. Qui tertiana aut quartana febri aut podagra vexarentur quive comitialem morbum haberent, ne quidem his diebus, quibus morbus vacaret, recte sani dicentur.
Javolenus, On the Last Works of Labeo, Book I. Where a slave has tertian or quartan fever, or gout or epilepsy, he it not held to be legally sound, even on days when he is free from these diseases.
Dig. 28,6,39Iavolenus libro primo ex posterioribus Labeonis. Cum ex filio quis duos nepotes impuberes habebat, sed alterum eorum in potestate, alterum non, et vellet utrumque ex aequis partibus heredem habere et, si quis ex his impubes decessisset, ad alterum partem eius transferre: ex consilio Labeonis Ofilii Cascellii Trebatii eum quem in potestate habebat solum heredem fecit et ab eo alteri dimidiam partem hereditatis, cum in suam tutelam venisset, legavit: quod si is, qui in potestate sua esset, impubes decessisset, alterum heredem ei substituit. 1Filio impuberi in singulas causas alium et alium heredem substituere possumus, veluti ut alius, si sibi nullus filius fuerit, et alius, si filius fuerit et impubes mortuus fuerit, heres sit. 2Quidam quattuor heredes fecerat et omnibus heredibus praeter unum substituerat: unus ille, cui non erat quisquam substitutus, et ex ceteris alter vivo patre familias decesserant. patrem, cui nemo erat substitutus, ad substitutum quoque pertinere Ofilius Cascellius responderunt, quorum sententia vera est.
Javolenus, On the Last Works of Labeo, Book I. A man had, by his son, two grandsons who were under puberty, one of whom was under his control, and the other was not. He wished them to inherit equal portions of his estate, and provided that, if either of them died before reaching the age of puberty, his share should be transferred to the other; and in compliance with the advice of Labeo, Ofilius, Cascellius, and Trebatius, he appointed as his sole heir the grandson who was under his control, and charged him with the delivery of half of his estate to his other grandson when he arrived at puberty, and substituted the other heir for the one who was under his control, if the latter should die before reaching that age. 1We can substitute two heirs under different conditions for a son under the age of puberty; for instance, one of them can be substituted if the son should have no children, and another child should be born and die before reaching the age of puberty. 2A certain testator appointed four heirs, and substituted others for all of them except one, and the one for whom no substitute had been appointed, as well as one of the others, died during the lifetime of the father. Ofilius and Cascellius held that the share of the one for whom no one had been substituted also belonged to the substitute of the deceased heir; which opinion is correct.
Dig. 29,2,60Iavolenus libro primo ex posterioribus Labeonis. Filium emancipatum pater solum heredem instituit et, si is heres non esset, servum liberum et heredem esse iusserat: filius, tamquam pater demens fuisset, bonorum possessionem ab intestato petit et ita hereditatem possedit. Labeo ait, si probaretur sana mente pater testamentum fecisse, filium ex testamento patri heredem esse. hoc falsum puto: nam filius emancipatus cum hereditatem testamento datam ad se pertinere noluit, continuo ea ad substitutum heredem transit nec potest videri pro herede gessisse, qui, ut hereditatem omitteret, ex alia parte edicti possessionem bonorum petat. Paulus: et Proculus Labeonis sententiam improbat et in Iavoleni sententia est.
Javolenus, On the Last Works of Labeo, Book I. A father appointed his emancipated son his sole heir, and ordered that, if he should not become his heir, his slave should be free and be his heir. The son demanded prætorian possession of his father’s estate on the ground of intestacy, alleging that he was insane, and in this way obtained possession of it. Labeo says that if his father should be proved to have been of sound mind when he made his will, the son will be his heir by virtue of the will. I think that this opinion is incorrect, for where an emancipated son declines to accept an estate given to him by will, it immediately passes to the substituted heir; nor can he be held to have acted in the capacity of heir who demands prætorian possession under another section of the Edict, in order to avoid taking advantage of his rights under the will. Paulus: “Proculus disapproves of the opinion of Labeo, and adopts that of Javolenus.”
Dig. 29,2,62Iavolenus libro primo ex posterioribus Labeonis. Antistius Labeo ait, si ita institutus sit ‘si iuraverit, heres esto’, quamvis iuraverit, non tamen eum statim heredem futurum, antequam pro herede aliquid gesserit, quia iurando voluntatem magis suam declarasse videatur. ego puto satis eum pro herede gessisse, si ut heres iuraverit: Proculus idem, eoque iure utimur. 1Si servus heres institutus post iussum domini, antequam adiret, alienatus esset, novum iussum posterioris domini, non iussum prioris exigitur.
Javolenus, On the Last Works of Labeo, Book I. Antistius Labeo says that if an heir is appointed as follows: “Let him be my heir, if he will make oath”, he will, nevertheless, not become the heir at once, even though he should be sworn before he performs some act in that capacity; because by taking the oath he is held merely to have disclosed his intention. I think, however, that he has acted in the capacity of heir if he has taken the oath as such. Proculus entertains the same opinion, and this is our practice. 1Where a slave is appointed an heir, and is alienated after having been ordered by his master to accept the estate, before he does so, a new order by his second master, and not that of his old one, is required.
Dig. 35,1,39Iavolenus libro primo ex posterioribus Labeonis. Quae condicio ad genus personarum, non ad certas et notas personas pertineat, cum existimamus totius esse testamenti et ad omnes heredes institutos pertinere: at quae condicio ad certas personas accommodata fuerit, eam referre debemus ad eum dumtaxat gradum, quo hae personae institutae fuerunt. 1Cum ita in testamento scriptum erat ‘ut aliquid in foro fiat’ neque adscriptum erat in quo foro, Labeo ait, si non appareat, quid mortuus senserit, in eius municipii foro faciendum, in quo is qui testamentum fecerit domicilium habuerit: quam sententiam ego quoque probo.
Javolenus, On the Last Works of Labeo, Book I. Where a condition has reference to a certain class of persons, and not to individuals who are well known, we think that it relates to the entire will, and to all the heirs who have been appointed; but where the condition only has reference to certain individuals, we should consider it as relating only to that degree in which the said parties have been appointed heirs. 1Where a clause was inserted in a will providing that a “building may be erected in the Forum,” and it is not stated in what Forum, Labeo says that if it does not appear what the intention of the deceased was, the building should be erected in the Forum of the town in which the party who made the will resided. I also approve this opinion.
Dig. 50,16,217Iavolenus libro primo ex posterioribus Labeonis. Inter illam condicionem ‘cum fari potuerit’ et ‘postquam fari potuerit’ multum interest: nam posteriorem scripturam uberiorem esse constat, ‘cum fari potuerit’ artiorem et id tantummodo tempus significari, quo primum fari possit. 1Item ita data condicione ‘illud facito in diebus’, si nihil praeterea fuisset adiectum, in biduo condicionem impleri oportet.
Javolenus, On the Last Works of Labeo, Book I. There is a great difference between the conditions, “When he will be able to speak,” and “After he shall have been able to speak,” for it is established that the latter has a broader signification than the former, which only has reference to the time when the person can speak for the first time. 1Likewise, when a condition is stated as follows, “Do this in so many days,” if nothing more should be added, the condition must be complied with within two days.