Fideicommissorum libri
Ex libro I
Dig. 32,9Maecianus libro primo fideicommissorum. Si ita fuerit fideicommissum relictum: ‘ad quemcumque ex testamento meo vel ab intestato’ vel ita: ‘ad quemcumque quoquo iure bona mea perveniant’: hac oratione et eius, qui postea natus erit inve familiam venerit et eius, qui postea cognatus esse coeperit, fidei commissum videtur: eius quoque, quae nondum nupta erit, sed postea eo casu, quo ex edicto ad uxorem bona mariti intestati solent pertinere.
Marcianus, Trusts, Book I. Where a trust was left as follows, “To anyone who may obtain my estate under the terms of my will, or through intestacy,” or, “To anyone in whom my estate may vest by any title whatsoever,” by these terms a child who may subsequently be born or come into the family, or anyone who may afterwards become a near relative of the testator, is held to be charged with the trust, as well as any woman who is not yet married, and afterwards is ascertained to be in the position in which, according to the Edict, the property of an intestate husband usually passes to his wife.
Dig. 35,2,28Maecianus libro primo fideicommissorum. Pater quoque in legatis, quae filius ei dedit alio herede instituto, legis Falcidiae rationem patitur.
Dig. 49,17,18Maecianus libro primo fideicommissorum. Ex castrensi peculio servus a patre heres institui potest et filium necessarium heredem patri facit. 1Et in summa ea res hi actus patris, qui ad praesens alienationem alicuius iuris de castrensi peculio praestant, impediuntur: hi vero, qui non statim quidem, sed postea efficere solent, eo tempore animadvertentur, quo habere effectum consuerunt, ut, si sit filius, cui auferatur, nihil agatur, si ante decesserit, actus patris non impediatur. 2Itaque negabimus patrem filio salvo communi dividundo agentem proprietatem alienaturum, exemplo dotalis praedii. sed nec si socius ultro cum eo agat, quicquam agetur, veluti si cum eo ageret, cui bonis interdictum est. 3Servos ex eo peculio usu fructu, item praedia tam usu fructu quam ceteris servitutibus pater liberare poterit: sed et servitutes his adquirere. id enim et eum, cui bonis interdictum est, verum est consequi posse. neque autem servis ex eo peculio neque praediis usum fructum vel servitutem imponere pater potest. 4Si quando ex eo peculio filius rem alienam bona fide tenebit, an pater eius in rem vel ad exhibendum actionem pati debeat, ut ceterorum nomine, quaeritur. sed verius est, cum hoc peculium a patris bonis separetur, defensionis necessitatem patri non inponendam. 5Sed nec cogendus est pater aes alienum, quod filius peculii nomine, quod in castris adquisiit, fecisse dicetur, de peculio actionem pati: et, si sponte patiatur, ut quilibet defensor satisdato filium in solidum, non peculio tenus defendere debet. sed et eius filii nomine non aliter movere actiones potest, quam si satis dederit eum ratam rem habiturum.
Marcianus, Trusts, Book I. A slave forming part of the castrense peculium of a son may be appointed heir by his father, and in this way make the son the necessary heir of his father. 1And, in a word, all matters or acts of the father which, for the time, may cause any alienation of a right belonging to the castrense peculium are prohibited, but any of these things which do not become operative immediately, but do so afterwards, are considered with reference to the time when they ordinarily take effect; so that if a son is deprived of any of his rights by his father, his act will be void, but this will not be the case if the son is already dead. 2Therefore, we deny that a father who brings an action in partition, while his son is living, cannot alienate the property; as is the case with land forming a part of the dowry. And if a partner of the son should make any agreement with the father, it will be void, just as if he had contracted with someone who had been forbidden to manage his own estate. 3A father can release from usufruct slaves who form part of the peculium castrense of his son, and he can also release land from usufruct, as well as from other servitudes imposed upon it; and he can also acquire servitudes for the land. It is true that he who is forbidden to manage his own property has this privilege. A father, however, cannot impose an usufruct or a servitude on the slaves or land constituting part of the peculium. 4If a son in good faith holds as part of his peculium property which belongs to another, the question arises whether a real action or one to compel the production of the property can be brought against his father, as in the case of other sons. The better opinion is that as this peculium is separate from the property of the father, the necessity of making a defence should not be imposed upon him. 5Nor can a father be compelled to defend an action De peculia, based on indebtedness which his son is said to have incurred on account of the peculium which he acquired in the service; and if he voluntarily submits to be sued, he should, like any other defender, give security for the entire amount involved, and not merely to the extent of the peculium. He cannot, however, bring an action in the name of his son without giving security that the latter will ratify his act.
Dig. 50,17,93Maecianus libro primo fideicommissorum. Filius familias neque retinere neque reciperare neque apisci possessionem rei peculiaris videtur.