Digestorum libri
Ex libro XIV
Dig. 29,7,19Marcellus libro quarto decimo digestorum. Is qui unum filium habebat, cum codicillos ad eum scripsisset, decessit intestatus herede eo et quem postea procreavit. adgnatione sui heredis nemo dixerit codicillos evanuisse: igitur si nihil tum de postumis speravit, et codicilli non evanescent et quae relicta sunt, pro parte dimidia filius, ad quem codicillus factus est, solvere compellitur, non etiam postumus. sed et si codicillos reliquisset duobus superstitibus filiis decedens, cum putaret alterum ex his prius decessisse, simili modo dici potest omnia perinde debere filium, ad quem scripti sunt codicilli, atque si solus heres exstitisset patri. immo dumtaxat partem debet: eorum tamen, quae pro parte praestari non possunt, nihil eorum praestandum, quoniam illi non fuerit filio ablaturus, nisi solum putaret successorem sibi futurum.
Marcellus, Digest, Book XIV. A father, who had an only son, made a codicil directed to him, and died intestate, leaving as his heir a son whom he had begotten after he had made the codicil. No one can say that the codicil was annulled, and therefore if the deceased did not expect to have a posthumous heir, the codicil will not become void through his death; and the son to whom it was directed will be compelled to pay the legacy in proportion to his share of the estate, but the posthumous son will not be compelled to pay anything. But if he, at the time of his death, should have left two surviving sons, but thought that one of them was dead, in like manner, it can be held that the son to whom the codicil was directed may be compelled to pay the entire legacy, just as if he had been the sole heir of his father; but he will only owe a sum in proportion to his share of the estate. Still, no part of a legacy which cannot be divided shall be paid, as the father would not have deprived his son of his share, unless he had thought that he would be his sole heir.
Dig. 35,1,47Marcellus libro quarto decimo digestorum. Servo libertatem ita dedit: ‘ille, si meus erit, liber esto’: legatum vel hereditatem sine condicione ei dedit: deinde eum alienavit. debebitur domino eius legatum vel hereditas et iussu eius adiri poterit: nam id expressit ‘si meus erit’ in libertate danda, quo futurum erat ut impediretur libertas, etiamsi expressum non esset. saepenumero tamen mutatur rei effectus, quamquam id expresserit testator, quod et si non fecisset, inesset tamen.
Marcellus, Digest, Book XIV. A master bequeathed freedom to his slave as follows, “Let him be free if he belongs to me at the time of my death.” He gave the legacy or the estate to him unconditionally, and then sold him. The legacy or the estate will be due to his new master, and the slave can accept it by his order; for the testator in granting him his liberty expressly stated, “If he belongs to me,” with the result that, even if this condition had not been explicitly mentioned, his freedom would be prevented. Still, the disposition of property is very frequently changed, even where the testator specifically indicated something which, if it was not done, would still be understood.
Dig. 50,16,95Marcellus libro quarto decimo digestorum. Potest ‘reliquorum’ appellatio et universos significare.