Julianus, Digest, Book XXVII. In those instances where anything has been established contrary to the principles of the law, we cannot follow this rule of law.

Julianus, Digest, Book XXVII. A military tribune made a codicil while in camp, after his successor arrived, and then died. As he ceased to occupy the position of a soldier after his successor had arrived in the camp, his codicil must be considered as having been executed under the common law governing Roman citizens. 1Where anyone, after executing a will, enters the military service, this will is also considered that of a soldier, under certain circumstances; as, for instance, if he opened the will and read it, and sealed it a second time with his seal; and still more so, if he erased part of it, defaced it, or made any additions to, or corrections in it. If, however, none of these things took place, his will will not enjoy any of the privileges attaching to the testament of a soldier.

Julianus, Digest, Book XXVII. If my son should be appointed heir by his mother, and I, having relinquished my testamentary rights, demand possession of the estate in the name of my said son, an action in favor of the legatees should be granted against me, just as if I myself had been appointed the heir, and, having relinquished my rights under the will, had obtained possession of the property of the estate on the ground of intestacy.

Julianus, Digest, Book XXVII. If a freedman should pass over his patron in his will and appoint a foreign heir, and his patron should give himself in adoption before demanding prætorian possession in opposition to the terms of the will, and the appointed heir should reject the estate, the patron can, then, as heir at law, demand possession of the entire estate of the freedman. 1If a freedman should die intestate, and his patron should have a son and two grandsons by another son, the grandsons shall not be admitted to the succession of the freedman, as long as there is a son, because it is evident that the person who is in the nearest degree is the one who is called to the succession of the freedman. 2Moreover, if the freedman had two patrons, one of whom left a son and the other left two, I stated that the estate should be equally divided between them.

Julianus, Digest, Book XXVII. Where an emancipated son, who was passed over, does not demand prætorian possession of the estate contrary to the provisions of the will, and the appointed heirs enter upon the estate, he will lose his father’s estate by his own fault, for although prætorian possession in accordance with the provisions of the will may not have been demanded, the Prætor still will not protect him so as to enable him to obtain prætorian possession as a descendant. The Prætor is not accustomed to protect a patron who has been passed over in the will against the appointed heirs, if he does not demand prætorian possession of the estate contrary to the provisions of the will, under that Section of the Edict which refers to heirs at law.

Julianus, Digest, Book XXVII. The following terms of the Edict, “If he who should have been the heir of the testator dies intestate,” must be taken in their broadest sense, and understood to have reference to a certain period of time, not to the date of the testator’s death, but to that when prætorian possession of his estate is demanded. Hence, if the heir-at-law has lost his civil rights, it is clear that he can be barred from obtaining this kind of prætorian possession of the estate.

Julianus, Digest, Book XXVII. If one of two brothers should die after having made a will in accordance with law, and then, while his heir was deliberating with reference to accepting the estate, the other brother should die intestate, and the appointed heir should reject the inheritance, the paternal uncle of the brothers will be entitled to it as heir at law; for that kind of prætorian possession which refers to him “who should be the heir” has reference to the time when the possession of an estate can first be claimed on the ground of intestacy.

Julianus, Digest, Book XXVII. Rights of cognation acquired by adoption are extinguished by the loss of civil rights. Therefore, for example, if within a hundred days after the death of his adopted brother, an adopted son loses his civil rights, he cannot obtain prætorian possession of the estate of his brother, which would otherwise pass to him as being the next of kin. For it is clear that not only the time of the death, but also the time when possession of the estate was demanded, should be taken into consideration by the Prætor.

The Same, Digest, Book XXVII. Marcellus says that where sons under paternal control, who are serving in the army, have obtained the unrestricted right to dispose of their property by will to anyone whom they may select, it may be held that they are also released from the observance of the ordinary formalities required in the case of donations mortis causa. Paulus says, with reference to this, that it is established by the Imperial Constitutions that donations mortis causa can be revoked in the same way as legacies.