Julianus, Digest, Book LXIV. If the actual property which came into the hands of the person was destroyed, we cannot say that he is enriched, but if it was converted into money, or something else, no further inquiry should be made of what became of it; but the party is held to be enriched, even though he may have afterwards lost what he obtained. For the Emperor Titus Antoninus stated in a Rescript to Claudius Frontinus, with reference to the value of the property of an estate, that suit might be brought against him on account of the estate, for this very reason; because, although the property which was originally included in the estate was not in his possession, still, the price of the property by which he became more wealthy, no matter how often the individual articles had been changed in their character, rendered him liable to the same extent as if the articles themselves had remained in their original form.

Julianus, Digest, Book LXIV. A man who was not solvent directed by his will that two slaves named Apollonius should be free and his heirs. One of the said slaves having died before the will was opened, it cannot improperly be held that the survivor would become free and the sole and necessary heir of the testator. If, however, both of them were living, the appointment would be void in accordance with the Lex Ælia Sentia, which prohibits the appointment of more than one necessary heir:

The Same, Digest, Book LXIV. A freedman can, during his lifetime, legally make donations to his friends who are entitled to them, but he cannot bequeath legacies to such friends, when, by so doing, he diminishes the share of his estate to which his patron is entitled.

Julianus, Digest, Book LXIV. When an estate is not solvent, even though the heir may be wealthy, freedom will not be acquired under the will. 1If, however, an insolvent testator leaves a bequest of freedom as follows, “Let Stichus be free, if my creditors are paid in full,” he cannot be considered to have ordered his slaves to become free in order to defraud his creditors. 2Ad Dig. 40,9,5,2Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 255, Note 5.If Titius has no other property than his slaves, Stichus and Pamphilus, and promises them to Mævius, under the following stipulation: “Do you promise to give either Stichus or Pamphilus?” and then, having no other creditor, he should manumit Stichus, the freedom of the latter will be annulled under the Lex Ælia Sentia. For although it was in the power of Titius to give Pamphilus, still, as long as he did not do so, he could not, without defrauding the stipulator, give Stichus, for the reason that Pamphilus might die in the meantime. If, however, he only promised to give Pamphilus, I have no doubt that Stichus will obtain his freedom; although in like manner, Pamphilus might die, as it makes a great deal of difference whether the slave who is manumitted was included in the stipulation or not. For anyone who pledges Stichus and Pamphilus as security for five aurei, when each of them is worth five aurei, can manumit neither; but if he was to give Stichus alone in pledge, he will not be considered to have manumitted Pamphilus for the purpose of defrauding his creditor.