Digestorum libri
Ex libro XXI
Dig. 9,2,34Marcellus libro vicensimo primo digestorum. Titio et Seio Stichum legavit: deliberante Seio, cum Titius vindicasset legatum, Stichus occisus est: deinde Seius repudiavit legatum. perinde Titius agere possit, ac si soli legatus esset,
Marcellus, Digest, Book XXI. A party bequeathed Stichus to Titius and Seius, and while Seius was deliberating and after Titius had brought suit to recover the legacy, Stichus was killed, and then Seius rejected the legacy. In this instance Titius can bring an action just as if the legacy had been bequeathed to him alone.
Dig. 9,2,36Marcellus libro vicensimo primo digestorum. nam sicut repudiante legatario legatum heredis est actio perinde ac si legatus non esset, ita huius actio est ac si soli legatus esset. 1Si dominus servum, quem Titius mortifere vulneraverat, liberum et heredem esse iusserit eique postea Maevius exstiterit heres, non habebit Maevius cum Titio legis Aquiliae actionem, scilicet secundum Sabini opinionem, qui putabat ad heredem actionem non transmitti, quae defuncto competere non potuit: nam sane absurdum accidet, ut heres pretium quasi occisi consequatur eius, cuius heres exstitit. quod si ex parte eum dominus heredem cum libertate esse iusserit, coheres eius mortuo eo aget lege Aquilia.
Marcellus, Digest, Book XXI. For as where an heir is entitled to an action when a legatee rejects a legacy, just as if the slave had not been bequeathed; so Titius has a right of action, just as if the slave had been left to him alone. 1Where the owner of a slave, whom Titius mortally wounded, orders by his will that he shall be free and become his heir, and subsequently Mævius becomes the heir to the slave, Mævius will not be entitled to an action under the Lex Aquilia against Titius, according to the opinion of Sabinus, who held that the right of action was not transmitted to the heir where the deceased would not have been entitled to the right; but it would truly seem to be absurd that an heir should obtain damages to the value of the person killed, and whose heir he was. Where, however, the owner ordered that he should be free and also be his heir to a part of his estate, then, when he died, his co-heir can bring an action under the Lex Aquilia.
Dig. 26,7,30Idem libro vicesimo primo digestorum. Tutoris praecipuum est officium, ne indefensum pupillum relinquat.
Dig. 35,3,5Marcellus libro vicesimo primo digestorum. Videamus, an stipulatio ‘qua amplius per Falcidiam ceperis licuerit dari’ adversus eum non sufficiat, qui legatum alii restituere ex fideicommissi causa debet. sufficiet autem dici nihil eius fidei commissum esse: cavebit scilicet legatario et is, qui fideicommissum accipiet, nisi forte malet legatarius circuitu sublato heredi caveri. sed et legatario praeterea cavendum est, si (ut plerumque aequum est) pro rata ex fideicommisso retinere ei concedendum est, quamvis tantum ex legato apud eum erit remansurum, ut sufficere possit ad praestandum fideicommissum.
Marcellus, Digest, Book XXI. Let us see whether this stipulation, namely, “Do you promise to return whatever you may have received above what is allowed by the Falcidian Law?” will not be sufficient as against the party who is obliged to pay a legacy to another under the terms of a trust. It will be sufficient for the heir to say that there is nothing to be done by him under the trust. For, in this case also, he who receives the benefit of the trust must furnish security to indemnify the legatee, unless the latter should prefer to give security to the heir in order to avoid circumlocution. Moreover, security must be given to the legatee if (as is perfectly proper), he should be permitted to retain a proportionate sum out of what was paid under the trust, even though enough of the legacy may remain in his hands to discharge the entire fiduciary obligation.
Dig. 46,8,17Marcellus libro vicensimo primo digestorum. Cum debitore decem creditoris nomine Titius egit: partem petitionis ratam habuit dominus. dicendum est obligationis partem consumptam, quemadmodum si decem stipulatus esset aut exegisset creditorque non totum, sed partem gestae rei comprobasset. idcirco si ex stipulatu ‘decem aut Stichum, utrum ego voluero’ absente me Titius domino quinque petisset, insecuta ratihabitione recte actum videri.
Marcellus, Digest, Book XXI. Titius brought suit for ten aurei in the name of a creditor against the debtor of the latter, and the principal ratified a part of the claim. It must be said that a portion of the obligation is extinguished, just as if he had stipulated for, or collected ten aurei, and the creditor had approved not all, but a part of the transaction. Therefore, if I have stipulated for ten aurei, or Stichus, whichever I wish, and, during my absence, Titius demands five, and I ratify his act, what has been done is considered valid.