Fideicommissorum libri
Ex libro XII
Dig. 35,3,9Idem libro duodecimo fideicommissorum. Si non in controversia sit proprietas, sed usus fructus (potest enim rei, cuius proprietas Titio legata est, usus fructus alii legari), tunc de eo restituendo non heredi, sed Titio caveri debeat. interdum et si ab herede legetur usus fructus, Titio cavendum est: veluti si detracto usu fructu proprietas ei legetur, usus fructus Seio: quid enim attinebit hoc casu heredi caveri, ad quem emolumentum intercidentis usus fructus non sit spectandum? verum si usu fructu Seio legato proprietas Titio ita legetur, ut, cum ad Seium pertinere desierit, habeat proprietatem, tunc heredi caveri oportebit a fructuario, ab herede autem Titio, quia non sit certum usu fructu intercepto ad Titium proprietatem reversuram.
The Same, Trusts, Book XII. When the ownership of property is not in controversy, but the usufruct of the same is (for it may happen that the ownership is bequeathed to Titius, and the usufruct to someone else), then security to restore it should not be given to the heir, but to Titius. Sometimes, even if the heir is charged with the transfer of the usufruct, security should be given to Titius; for instance, if the usufruct, having been reserved, the ownership is left to him, and the usufruct to Seius; for, in this instance, what advantage would it be for security to be given to the heir, since no benefit will accrue to him if the usufruct should be extinguished? If, however, the usufruct, having been bequeathed to Seius, and the ownership is left to Titius in such a way that when the usufruct ceases to belong to Seius, he will be entitled to the ownership, then security must be furnished to the heir by the usufructuary, and also by the heir to Titius, because it is not certain that, if the usufruct should be extinguished, the ownership will be acquired by Titius.
Dig. 36,4,12Maecianus libro duodecimo fideicommissorum. Municipiis fideicommissum relinqui posse dubium non est. sed si non caveatur, adversus municipes quidem non dubitavimus ex hoc edicto iri in possessionem posse: ipsos vero municipes, si his non caveatur, non idem adsecuturos: sed extraordinario remedio opus erit, videlicet ut decreto praetoris actor eorum in possessionem mittatur.
Marcianus, Trusts, Book XII. There is no doubt that property can be left in trust to a municipality. If security should not be provided, we have no hesitation in saying that, according to the Edict, the citizens of the town can be placed in possession of the estate; but they themselves, if security should not be given them, cannot be placed in possession, but an extraordinary remedy will be required; that is to say, an agent who represents them can be placed in possession of the property by a decree of the Prætor.
Dig. 50,17,96Maecianus libro duodecimo fideicommissorum. In ambiguis orationibus maxime sententia spectanda est eius, qui eas protulisset.