Julianus, Digest, Book XXIV. The Edict having reference to the inspection of pregnant women conflicts with the one granted in accordance with the provisions of the Carbonian Decree. 1Sometimes, however, the Prætor should dispense with these formalities, where the examination of the woman does not take place, or her delivery is not watched, and this occurs not through her malice but through her ignorance.

Julianus, Digest, Book XXIV. Where a father substituted his two sons under the age of puberty reciprocally, and Titius for the one who would die last; the opinion was that the brothers alone were entitled to the possession of the estate, and that there were in this instance two degrees of appointment, as it were; so that, in the first place, the brothers should be substituted for one another, and if they should not be heirs, then Titius was to be called to the succession.

Julianus, Digest, Book XXIV. If, however, the children should die before demanding prætorian possession of the estate, it will not be unjust for the Prætor to decide that their heirs shall have the advantage of possession, either in compliance with the provisions of the will, or in opposition to the same.

Julianus, Digest, Book XX. Therefore, if a child does not demand possession of the estate under the First Section, he can, in some instances, obtain possession under the following Section of the Carbonian Edict, and sometimes he cannot do so; for if a controversy should arise immediately after the death of the father as to whether he could demand possession of the estate with the other children, the year will be considered to have expired at the same time, so far as both periods are concerned. If, however, after a certain term has elapsed, he should ascertain that his rights were disputed, he can, even if the time has expired during which he could have demanded possession of the estate under the First Section of the Edict, demand it under the Second Section; and when he has obtained it, he can always avail himself of the possessory actions. But where judgment has been rendered against him after he has reached puberty, the actions will be refused him.

Julianus, Digest, Book XXIV. If it is denied that a minor has been legally adopted, and for that reason his right to the estate of his father is disputed, it will not be unjust for a decree similar to those issued under the Carbonian Edict to be rendered. 1Likewise, where a minor, under the age of puberty, is said to have been given in adoption, and hence his right to the estate of his natural father is denied, since in this case the question arises whether he is entitled to the estate as a son, there will be ground for the application of the Carbonian Edict. 2If, however, we suppose that the son is disinherited, it will not be necessary to postpone the decision of the controversy until the age of puberty, because the question does not involve the right of the son himself, but the validity of the will. 3If the mother of the person whose freedom and claim to the estate of his father are in dispute is called into court to testify in a suit brought to establish his freedom, the decision with reference to his mother should not always be deferred to the time of puberty; for there are instances where the cases of those who are said to be supposititious children are determined without delay. 4Whenever a decree is rendered under the Carbonian Edict, the matter is considered to be in the same condition in which it would have been if no controversy had arisen with reference to the person who obtained prætorian possession of the estate. 5Again, where two brothers have been placed in possession under this decree, and one of them refuses to defend his share of his father’s estate, the other will be compelled to defend the whole of it, or abandon it all to the creditors. 6Sometimes, a disinherited son obtains possession of the estate under the Carbonian Edict, where he does not demand prætorian possession contrary to the provisions of the will, but, on the ground of intestacy, which is granted to children; because he denies that his father’s will is such that prætorian possession can be given under it, as it is alleged that he is not his son. 7If a minor demands possession of the estate of a freedman of his father, and it is denied that he is the son of the patron, for the reason that there is no dispute with reference to the estate of his father, the determination of the controversy should not be postponed. If, however, this controversy should arise after a decree under the Carbonian Edict had been rendered, its determination should be deferred until the time of puberty. 8The question arose whether a minor could have possession under the Carbonian Edict at the same time with the appointed heirs, who obtained it in accordance with the terms of the will. I answered that if he should not be the son, or had not obtained prætorian possession of the estate contrary to the provisions of the will, on the ground of intestacy, he could obtain it under the Carbonian Edict, at the same time that the appointed heirs acquired prætorian possession of the estate in accordance with the provisions of the will.

The Same, Digest, Book XXIV. If the following was inserted into a will, “Let Sempronius be the heir to half of my estate; let Titius be an heir to a third of my estate, if a ship should arrive from Asia; and let the said Titius be the heir to a sixth of my estate, if a ship should not arrive from Asia,” in this instance, Titius is not appointed heir to two different shares of the estate, but he is understood to be substituted for himself, and therefore he is held to be entitled to no larger a share than one-third. In accordance with this statement, as a sixth of the estate remains undisposed of, Titius will not only obtain possession of a third of the same under the Prætorian Edict, but also of the sixth which will accrue to him. 1Where a substitute is appointed for a son under the age of puberty, as follows, “If my son should die before reaching the age of puberty, then let Titius be my heir,” he can claim the estate just as if the word “my” had not been added, and he can also obtain prætorian possession of it. 2If a mistake is made in the name or the surname of the person entitled to the estate, he can, nevertheless, obtain prætorian possession of the same. 3Ad Dig. 37,11,8,3Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. III, § 673, Note 1.Moreover, where the name of the heir has been erased in the will at the desire of the testator, even though it can still be read, he is not understood to have been appointed, so that he can either enter upon the estate, or demand prætorian possession of the same in accordance with the Civil Law. 4A certain man drew up his will in writing, but appointed orally a substitute for his son, who was under the age of puberty. I gave it as my opinion that the intention of the Prætor in granting jpossession of the estate was that the heirs of the son and those of the father should be considered separately. For just as prætorian possession of an estate is granted to the appointed heir of the son separately from the heirs of the father, so it should also be given separately from the appointed heirs of the father, where the heir is orally appointed.