Digestorum libri
Ex libro XXXVI
Dig. 5,1,75Idem libro trigensimo sexto digestorum. Si praetor iusserit eum a quo debitum petebatur adesse et ordine edictorum peracto pronuntiaverit absentem debere, non utique iudex, qui de iudicato cognoscit, debet de praetoris sententia cognoscere: alioquin lusoria erunt huiusmodi edicta et decreta praetorum. Marcellus notat: si per dolum sciens falso aliquid allegavit et hoc modo consecutum eum sententiam praetoris liquido fuerit adprobatum, existimo debere iudicem querellam rei admittere. Paulus notat: si autem morbo impeditus aut rei publicae causa avocatus adesse non potuit reus, puto vel actionem iudicati eo casu in eum denegandam vel exsequi praetorem ita iudicatum non debere.
The Same, Digest, Book XXXVI. Where the Prætor has ordered a party against whom an action is brought for a debt, to appear; and the number of citations is exhausted; and he decides that the absent party owes the debt, and suit is brought to enforce the judgment; the judge who hears the case cannot examine the decree of the Prætor, otherwise citations of this kind and the decrees of the Prætors would be illusory. Marcellus says in a note: “Where the plaintiff knowingly and falsely states anything with malicious intent, and it is clearly established that in this way he obtained a judgment in his favor from the Prætor; I think that the judge should admit the complaint of the defendant.” Paulus says in a note, that if the defendant was unable to be present because he was prevented by illness, or was employed in some business for the State, it is his opinion that in this case an action to enforce the judgment against him should be refused, or the Prætor ought not to permit execution to be issued.
Dig. 30,89Iulianus libro trigesimo sexto digestorum. Nam nec emancipatus hereditate omissa legatum ab herede petere prohibetur. praetor enim permittendo his, qui in potestate fuerint, abstinere se hereditate paterna manifestum facit ius se in persona eorum tribuere, quod futurum esset, si liberum arbitrium adeundae hereditatis habuissent.
Julianus, Digest, Book XXXIII. For an emancipated son, if he rejects the estate, cannot be prevented from claiming the legacy from the heir. The Prætor, by permitting those children who are under the control of their father to reject his estate, makes it plain that he intends to grant them the same right so far as they are personally concerned, to which they would have been entitled if they had had free power to enter upon the estate.
Dig. 30,91Iulianus libro trigesimo sexto digestorum. Quaesitum est, si filius familias, qui filium habebat, heres institutus fuisset, cum esset uterque in potestate aliena, an ab eo filio eius legari possit. respondi, cum possit a filio patri legari, consequens est, ut vel fratri ipsius vel filio vel etiam servo patris sui legetur. 1Praesenti quidem die data libertate servo legari vel pure vel sub condicione poterit: cum vero libertas sub condicione data fuerit, alias utiliter, alias inutiliter pure legabitur. nam si ea condicio libertatis fuerit, ut patre familias statim mortuo possit ante aditam hereditatem exsistere condicio, veluti: ‘Stichus si decem Titio dederit’ (vel ‘Capitolium ascenderit’), ‘liber esto’, utile legatum est: huiusmodi autem condiciones: ‘si heredi decem dederit’, ‘si post aditam hereditatem Capitolium ascenderit’, inutile legatum efficient. necessario autem ex asse herede scripto etiam hae condiciones, quae ante aditam hereditatem impleri possunt, inutile legatum efficient. 2Duobus heredibus institutis alteri Stichum legaverat et eidem Sticho decem. cum Stichus vivo testatore ad libertatem pervenisset, totum legatum ei debebitur: nam in solidum constitisse causam legati in eius persona hoc quoque argumento est, quod, si heres, cui legatus fuerat, hereditatem non adisset, solidum ab altero herede consequi possit. 3Servo legato legatum datum est: si alienatus a testatore fuisset, legatum ad emptorem pertinebit. 4Cum servus Titio et eidem servo aliquid legatur, fideicommitti potest, ut aut servum alicui restituat vel ea quae servo legata sunt: hoc amplius etiam ipsi servo, cum liber erit, fideicommissum a Titio dari potest. 5Si quis Stichum legaverit et eundem alienaverit vel manumiserit, deinde codicillis eidem legatum dederit, legatum vel manumisso vel emptori debebitur. 6Si mihi servus a te herede legatus fuerit et eidem servo aliquis legaverit et vivo eo qui mihi servum legaverat dies legati servo dati cesserit, confestim id legatum hereditati adquiritur: et ideo, quamvis postea moritur is qui servum mihi legaverat, ad me id quod servo legatum est non pertinebit. 7Cum homo ex testamento petitus est, causa eius temporis, quo lis contestabatur, repraesentari debet actori et, sicut partus ancillarum, sicut fructus fundorum interim percepti in hoc iudicium deducuntur, ita quod servo legatorum vel hereditatis nomine interim obvenerit praestandum est petitori.
Julianus, Digest, Book XXXVI. The question arose whether a son under paternal control, who himself had a son, should be appointed heir; as both of them are under the control of another, for can a son be charged with a legacy for the benefit of his own son? I answered that as a son can be charged with a legacy in favor of his father, it follows that he can be charged with one for the benefit of his brother, or his son, or even for the benefit of his father’s slave. 1Where freedom is granted to a slave at once, a legacy can be bequeathed to him either absolutely or conditionally. But where freedom has been bestowed upon him under some condition, it can at certain times be valid, and at others, even if bequeathed absolutely, it may be void; for if the condition of freedom was such that it could be fulfilled immediately on the death of the testator, before the estate was entered upon (for instance, “Let Stichus be free if he pays ten aurei to Titius, or ascends to the Capitol”), the legacy will be valid. Moreover, conditions like the following: “If he pays the heir ten aurei if he should ascend to the Capitol after my estate has been accepted,” the legacy will be void. Where, however, a necessary heir has been appointed for the entire estate, those conditions which could be complied with before the estate was entered upon render the legacy invalid. 2Where a testator appointed two heirs, and bequeathed Stichus to one, and ten aurei to Stichus, if Stichus becomes free during the lifetime of the testator, he will be entitled to the entire legacy; and a proof that it vests in the said slave personally is established by the fact that if the heir to whom the slave had been bequeathed should not enter upon the estate, he can recover the entire legacy from the other heir. 3Where a legacy is bequeathed to a slave, who himself is bequeathed, and he is sold by the testator, the legacy will belong to the purchaser. 4Where a slave is left to Titius, and the legacy is bequeathed to the same slave, the legatee can be charged with the trust, “Either to deliver the slave to someone, or to transfer to him the property which is bequeathed to the slave.” And, even more than this, Titius can be charged with the trust with reference to the slave himself, even after he shall become free. 5If anyone should bequeath Stichus, and then sell or manumit him, and subsequently should leave him a legacy by a codicil, either the manumitted slave or the purchaser will be entitled to the legacy. 6If you should be appointed an heir by a party who has charged you to deliver a slave, and some individual should bequeath a legacy to the said slave; and, during the lifetime of the person who bequeathed me the slave, the day for the transfer of the legacy to the slave arrives; that legacy is at once acquired by the estate. Hence, even though the person who bequeathed me the slave should die, the legacy left to the slave will not belong to me. 7Where a slave is claimed by virtue of a will, he should be delivered to the plaintiff in the same condition in which he was at the time issue was joined in the case. And, as the offspring of a female slave, as well as the crops of the land which have been obtained, in the meantime, are included in this action; therefore any property which meanwhile has been acquired by the slave either by bequest or inheritance must be delivered to the plaintiff.
Dig. 33,5,11Idem libro trigesimo sexto digestorum. Si Eros Seio legatus sit et Eroti fundus, deinde optio servi Maevio data fuerit isque Erotem optaverit, fundus ad solum Seium pertinebit, quoniam aditae hereditatis tempore is solus erit, ad quem posset legatum pertinere. nam et cum servo communi alter ex sociis legat, idcirco ad solum socium totum legatum pertinet, quoniam die legati cedente solus est, qui per eum servum possit adquirere.
The Same, Digest, Book XXXVI. If Eros is bequeathed to Seius, and a tract of land to Eros, and then the option of a slave is left to Mævius, and he chooses Eros, the land alone will belong to Seius, since at the time when the estate was entered upon he was the only one to whom the legacy could belong. For, where one of two joint-owners of a slave leaves him a bequest, the entire legacy will belong to the other joint-owner, as he is the only one who can acquire the legacy through the slave at the time when it becomes due.
Dig. 34,3,11Idem libro trigesimo sexto digestorum. Si debitor fideiussorem suum ab herede suo liberari iusserit, an fideiussor liberari debeat? respondit debere. item quaesitum est, an, quia mandati actione heredes tenerentur, inutile legatum esset, quemadmodum inutile legatum est quod debitor creditori suo legat. respondiaaDie Großausgabe liest respondit statt respondi., quotiens debitor creditori suo legaret, ita inutile esse legatum, si nihil interesset creditoris ex testamento potius agere quam ex pristina obligatione. nam et si Titius mandaverit Maevio, ut pecuniam promitteret, deinde liberari eum iusserit a stipulatore, manifestum est, quantum intersit promissoris liberari potius quam praestare ex stipulatu, deinde mandati agere.
The Same, Digest, Book XXXVI. If a debtor should order his surety to be released by his heir, ought he to be released? The answer is that he should be. As the heirs are liable to an action on mandate, the inquiry was also made whether the legacy was not void, as the debtor made a bequest to his creditor. The answer was that, whenever a debtor makes a bequest to his creditor, the legacy will be void if it should not rather be to the interest of the creditor to bring an action under the will, than one founded on the original obligation; for if Titius should have directed Mævius to promise the payment of a certain sum of money, and afterwards should direct him to be released by the stipulation, it is clear that it is more to the interest of the party making the promise to be released than to pay the amount in accordance with the stipulation, and then to bring an action on mandate.
Dig. 34,5,11Iulianus libro trigesimo sexto digestorum. Quotiens libertis usus fructus legatur et ei, qui novissimus supervixerit, proprietas, utile est legatum: existimo enim omnibus libertis proprietatem sub hac condicione ‘si novissimus supervixerit’ dari.
Julianus, Digest, Book XXXVI. Whenever an usufruct is bequeathed to freedmen, and the ownership of the property to the last survivor, the bequest is valid, for I think that, in this instance, the property is left under the following condition: “If he should be the last survivor.”
Dig. 36,2,17Idem libro trigensimo sexto digestorum. Cum legato servo aliquid legatur, dies eius legati quod servo datur non mortis tempore, sed aditae hereditatis cedit: et ideo impedimento non est regula iuris, quo minus manumisso legatum debeatur, quia etsi confestim pater familias moreretur, non in eiusdem personam et emolumentum legati et obligatio iuris concurreret. perinde igitur est hoc, de quo quaeritur, ac si filio herede instituto patri legatum esset: quod consistere intellegitur eo, quod, quamvis statim pater familias moriatur, potest emancipatus adire hereditatem, ut patri legatum debeat.
The Same, Digest, Book XXXVI. Where a legacy is left to a slave who is himself bequeathed, the legacy does not take effect at the time of the death of the testator, but at the time when the estate is entered upon; and hence the rule of law under which a legacy is not permitted to be given to a slave, even if he is manumitted, cannot be cited in opposition; for even if the testator should die immediately, the benefit of the legacy and the obligation of the law to pay the same are not concurrent in the person of the same individual. Therefore, the question under discussion is exactly the same as if a bequest had been made to a father, after his son had been appointed the heir of the testator; because it is understood that even if the father should die immediately, his son, having been emancipated, could enter upon the estate just as if he owed the legacy to his father.
Dig. 37,5,17Iulianus libro trigensimo sexto digestorum. Si emancipato filio praeterito pater extraneum heredem instituisset et ab eo rem legasset eaque adita hereditate dolo scripti heredis perisset, adversus emancipatum utilis actio dari debebit ei scilicet personae, cui filius legata praestare cogitur, quia praetori propositum est sine iniuria ceterarum personarum bonorum possessionem contra tabulas testamenti dari.
Ulpianus, Digest, Book XXXVI. Where an emancipated son was passed over in a will, and his father appointed a foreign heir, and charged him with the delivery of property which was lost through the fraud of the said heir, after the estate has been accepted, a prætorian action should be granted against the emancipated son, that is to say, in favor of the person to whom the son was obliged to pay the legacy; because the intention of the Prætor is that possession of an estate in opposition to the terms of the will should be granted without prejudicing the rights of other persons.
Dig. 40,4,16Idem libro trigensimo sexto digestorum. Si ita scriptum fuerit: ‘cum Titius annorum triginta erit, Stichus liber esto eique heres meus fundum dato’ et Titius, antequam ad annum trigensimum perveniret, decesserit, Sticho libertas competet, sed legatum non debebitur. nam favore libertatis receptum est, ut mortuo Titio tempus superesse videretur, quo impleto libertas contingeret: circa legatum defecisse condicio visa est.
The Same, Digest, Book XXXVI. Where the following provision is inserted into a will, “When Titius reaches the age of thirty years, let Stichus become free, and let my heir give him such-and-such a tract of land,” and Titius dies before reaching his thirtieth year, Stichus will obtain his freedom, but he will not be entitled to the legacy. For it is only in favor of freedom that it is admitted, after the death of Titius, that a time is held to exist during which freedom may be granted; but the condition on which the legacy depended is considered to have failed.
Dig. 45,1,55Idem libro trigensimo sexto digestorum. Cum quis sibi aut Titio dari stipulatus est, soli Titio, non etiam successoribus eius recte solvitur.
The Same, Digest, Book XXXVI. When anyone stipulates that payment should be made to himself for Titius, payment can be properly made to Titius, but not to his heirs.