The Same, Digest, Book XXV. It makes a great deal of difference whether a claim is sold under some condition, or whether the obligation is incurred under a condition and the sale is absolute. In the first instance, if the condition is not fulfilled, the sale is void; in the second, the sale is made as soon as contracted; for, if Titius owes you ten aurei under some condition, and I purchase his note from you, I can immediately bring an action on sale to compel you to release him.

Julianus, Digest, Book XXV. When a legacy is bequeathed under the condition, “If she should not marry Titius,” it must be considered just as if it had been bequeathed after the death of Titius; and therefore the legatee will be entitled to it without furnishing the Mucian bond. The woman will have a right to the legacy, even if she should marry someone else.

Julianus, Digest, Book XXV. A freedman appointed his patron his heir, under the condition of his being sworn (which condition the Prætor is accustomed to remit), and I do not think that there is any doubt that the patron will be excluded from prætorian possession of the estate, as it is true that he has been appointed heir. 1Where a legacy was left to Titius, and he was charged to transfer it to his patron, an action to recover the legacy should be denied to Titius, if the amount to which the patron is legally entitled has been paid to him by the appointed heir. 2A freedman appointed his patron and a stranger joint heirs to half of his estate. The fourth to which the patron was appointed heir should, all of it, be credited to him on his legal share, and the remainder which is due on said share should be deducted pro rata from the shares of all the other heirs. 3The same rule should be observed with reference to a legacy bequeathed to the patron and Titius conjointly; so that a part of the legacy may be credited upon the share due to the patron, and as much should be deducted from the share of Titius, proportionally, as that which ought to be deducted from the portion of the heir. 4Where a freedman appoints his emancipated son his heir under a certain condition, and the condition having failed, his substitute enters upon the estate, I ask whether the Prætor should give the patron possession of the share to which he was entitled against the substitute, or whether he should come to the relief of the emancipated son with reference to the entire estate. The answer was that, as the father had appointed his son his heir in the first degree conditionally, and the condition under which he was appointed had failed to be fulfilled, the estate will belong to the second degree; or if the son should die while the condition is still pending, the patron will acquire possession of the estate to the amount to which he was entitled by law, as against the substitute. The same rule will apply where the son does not obtain possession of the estate through having been excluded by lapse of time, or because of his rejecting it. Therefore, if the condition should fail to be fulfilled, the estate will belong to the son, and the Prætor will, in preference, protect the emancipated son against the substitute. Moreover, I think whenever a son is appointed an heir conditionally, that, in some instances, disinheritance is necessary with reference to the substitution, and in others it is superfluous. For if the condition should be of such a nature that it is in the power of the son to comply with it; for instance, if it was that he should make a will, I hold that if the condition was not fulfilled, the son must give way to the substitute. If, however, the condition was such that it was not in the power of the son to comply with it, for instance, if it was that Titius should become Consul, then the substitute ought not to be admitted to the succession, unless the son had been specifically disinherited. 5If a freedman should appoint his emancipated son his heir, and charge him to deliver the entire estate to Sempronius, and the son should allege that he suspected the estate of being insolvent, but should enter upon the same by order of the Prætor and transfer it to Sempronius, possession of the share of the estate to which he was entitled will, very properly, be granted to the patron, just as if not the son, but he to whom the estate was transferred, had been the heir of the freedman. 6Moreover, if the son should reject the inheritance of his father’s freedman, and his co-heir should assume all the burdens of the estate, prætorian possession must be granted to the patron; for, in either event, the share of the latter is not taken from that of the son, but from that of the stranger.