The Same, Digest, Book XXXI. It does not make much difference whether a guardian is absent when any business is transacted with his ward, or whether, if he is present, he is not aware of what is being done.

The Same, Digest, Book XXXI. Where the following provision was inserted into a will: “Let Titius be my heir, and if Titius becomes my heir, let Mævius become my heir”; and Titius, having relinquished his testamentary rights, obtains possession of the estate as heir-at-law, the petition to recover the estate should not be granted against him in favor of Mævius for the share of the estate to which he would have been entitled, if Titius had not relinquished his hereditary rights. For, as the heir obtains possession of the estate when testamentary rights are relinquished, the legacies and grants of freedom must be taken into account, since otherwise they cannot be granted except by the heir. The Prætor, however, cannot intervene where an estate is disposed of in this way, for the testator is to blame for having bequeathed a part of it under such a condition, when he could have bequeathed it absolutely. 1Wherefore, if the following provision was inserted into a will: “Let Titius be my heir, and if any of the above-mentioned persons whom I have appointed becomes my heir, let Stichus be free and my heir”, and Titius having relinquished his rights under the will obtains possession of the estate, the Prætor cannot assure Stichus of his freedom, nor can he grant him an action for the recovery of the estate. 2Where anyone draws up a will as follows: “Let Titius be my heir, and if Titius should not become my heir, let Mævius be my heir, and if any of the heirs whom I have previously appointed becomes my heir, I bequeath a hundred aurei to Mævius, if he should not become my heir”. Titius relinquished his rights under the will and obtained possession of the estate by operation of law, and the question arises whether an action for the recovery of the estate should be granted to Mævius, in whose power it was to acquire it all by entering upon the same by virtue of the substitution. It was decided that Mævius would be entitled to the action, because nothing prevented him from having a good reason for not involving himself in the affairs of the estate.

Julianus, Digest, Book XXXVII. He can, indeed, claim the entire legacy, even though he would have been himself improperly charged if he had not refused the estate.

Julianus, Digest, Book XXXI. It makes a great deal of difference whether the condition is one of fact or one of law. For conditions like the following, “If a ship should arrive from Asia,” “If Titius should become Consul,” although they may not be fulfilled, they prevent the heir from entering upon the estate, so long as he is ignorant that they remain unfulfilled. Those, however, which refer to matters of law, only require to be unfulfilled whether the heir is aware of the fact or not. For instance, where anyone thinks he is under paternal control, when he is, in reality, the head of a household, he can acquire an estate. Wherefore, when anyone is appointed heir to a portion of an estate, although he may be ignorant whether the will has been opened or not, he can still enter upon the estate.