Digestorum libri
Ex libro XXII
Dig. 34,9,6Marcellus libro vicesimo secundo digestorum. Rescriptum est a principe heredem rei quam amovisset quartam non retinere. et ideo si is qui quadringenta habebat universa quadringenta legavit et heres centum subtraxisset, trecentorum quartam retinebit, septuaginta quinque scilicet, et ducenta viginti quinque dabit legatariis: ex centum quae subripuit, legatariis quidem dabit septuaginta quinque, reliqua, id est viginti quinque, ad fiscum venient.
Marcellus, Digest, Book XXII. It was stated by the Emperor in a Rescript that an heir shall not retain the fourth part of an estate if he has appropriated any of the assets of the same; and therefore if the deceased left an estate of four hundred aurei, and the heir should abstract a hundred of them, and retain a quarter of the three hundred, that is to say, seventy-five, and give to the legatees two hundred and fifty, he must also give them seventy-five out of the hundred which he stole, and the remainder, that is to say, twenty-five, will be forfeited to the Treasury.
Dig. 35,2,2Marcellus libro vicesimo secundo digestorum. Nec amplius concedendum erit, quam quod sufficiat ad speciem modicam monumenti.
Dig. 35,2,56Idem libro vicesimo secundo digestorum. Cum quo de peculio agi poterat, heres creditori exstitit: quaeris, cuius temporis peculium computari oporteat in Falcidia lege. plerique putant, quod tunc in peculio fuerit, cum adiretur hereditas, inspiciendum. ego dubito, quoniam mortis tempus in ratione legis Falcidiae ineunda placuit observari: quid enim interest, peculium servi post mortem creditoris deminutum sit an debitor pauperior factus sit? 1Aliquis dicet: quid ex contrario, si ante aditam hereditatem adquisierit servus? et ego quaeram, si debitoris, qui tunc non erat solvendo, ampliatae facultates fuerunt? et cum in isto placuerit ex post facto uberiorem videri fuisse hereditatem, sicuti cum condicio crediti exstitit post mortem, ita etiam peculii incrementum pleniorem faciet hereditatem. 2Scaevola notat: quid ergo, si idem servus defuncto et alii dena debuit et una decem habuit? augetur scilicet et his hereditas, decem, quae defuncto naturaliter debebantur, in hereditate manentibus. 3Is, qui in bonis unum dumtaxat servum habebat, legavit eum Titio et fidei eius commisit, ut post triennium manumitteret: debet ex eo, quod interim ex operis servi ad Titium pervenire potest, quarta apud heredem remanere, quemadmodum si directo post triennium servo libertatem dedisset eiusque usum fructum ei legasset, aut ei proprietatem per fideicommissum relinquit. 4Stichum tibi, servo tuo decem legavit vel contra tibi decem, servo tuo Stichum, libertatemque Stichi fidei eius commisit. lex Falcidia minuit legata: redimere ab herede partem debes, quemadmodum si tibi utrumque legasset. 5Saepius evenit, ne emolumentum eius legis heres consequatur: nam si centum aureorum dominus viginti quinque alicui dedisset et eum instituerit heredem et dodrantem legaverit, nihil aliud sub occasione legis Falcidiae intervenire potest, quia vivus videtur heredi futuro providere.
The Same, Digest, Book XXII. The owner of a slave who was liable to an action having reference to the peculium of the latter became the heir of the creditor. You ask what time should be considered in computing the value of the peculium under the Falcidian Law. Several authorities hold that the value of the peculium at the time that the estate was entered upon should be considered. I doubt whether this is the case, as it has been determined that the time of the death of the testator is the date to be observed in calculating the proportion due under the Falcidian Law. But what difference does it make whether the peculium of the slave is diminished after the death of the creditor, or whether the debtor becomes poorer? 1On the other hand, someone may ask what course should be pursued if the slave acquires property before the estate was entered upon? I, myself, ask whether, the means of the debtor who, at that time, was not solvent, are increased. And, as it has been decided in the latter instance that the estate has, after this event, been increased in value; so, if the condition upon which the claim depended was fulfilled after the death of the creditor, the increase of the peculium would augment the value of the estate. 2Scævola inquires what should be done if the said slave owed ten aurei to the deceased and another person, and had ten aurei altogether in his peculium. Of course the estate is increased by the ten aurei, which were naturally due to him, and remain as a portion of his estate. 3A certain person, whose entire estate only consisted of one slave, bequeathed him to Titius, and charged the latter to manumit him at the end of three years. The heir will, in the meantime, while he is employed by Titius, be entitled to one-fourth of the value of the services of the slave, in the same manner as if the testator had directly given the slave his freedom after the lapse of three years, and had bequeathed the usufruct or the ownership of said slave to someone under a trust. 4A testator bequeathed his slave Stichus to you, and ten aurei to your slave; or, on the other hand, he bequeathed ten aurei to you and Stichus, your slave, and charged you to manumit Stichus. The Falcidian Law diminishes the legacy, and you should purchase a part of the slave from the heir, just as if the testator had bequeathed you both legacies. 5It frequently happens that the heir does not enjoy the benefit of this law, for if a testator, whose estate amounted to a hundred aurei, should give twenty-five to someone and then appoint him his heir, and bequeath three-fourths of his estate to another, the heir cannot obtain anything else under the Falcidian Law, because the testator, during his lifetime, is considered to have made provision for his future heir.
Dig. 39,5,20Marcellus libro vicensimo secundo digestorum. Si patronus ex debita parte heres instituatur et libertus fidei eius commisit, ut quid daret, et hoc stipulanti fideicommissario promiserit, non erit cogendus solvere, ne pars ex legibus verecundiae patronali debita minuatur. 1De illo dubitari potest, qui, quod per Falcidiam retinere poterat, voluntatem testatoris secutus spopondit se daturum: sed magis est, ut non possit suae confessioni obviare. quemadmodum enim, si solvisset, fidem testatori suo adimplesse videbatur et nulla ei repetitio concessa fuerat, ita et stipulatione procedente contra fidem testatoris, quam adgnovit, venienti ei merito occurretur.
Marcellus, Digest, Book XXII. If a patron is appointed heir to the share of an estate to which he is legally entitled, and his freedman charges him to pay a certain sum of money to someone, and he promises to do so in the presence of the beneficiary of the trust, he will not be compelled to pay it, for fear that the share due to him as patron under the law may be diminished. 1A doubt may arise with reference to an heir who, in accordance with the will of the testator, promises to pay a legatee what he would have a right to retain under the Falcidian Law, but the better opinion is that he cannot violate his obligation. For if he does make payment, he will be considered to have exactly complied with the wishes of the testator, and no suit for recovery will be granted him; just as where he had made a previous stipulation, and acted contrary to the wishes of the testator, which he already had acknowledged, his claim will, with good reason, be barred.
Dig. 41,6,2Marcellus libro vicensimo secundo digestorum. Si is, qui alienam rem donaverit, revocare constituerit donationem, etiamsi iudicium ediderit remque coeperit vindicare, curret usucapio.
Dig. 49,15,1Marcellus libro vicensimo secundo digestorum. Quod servus eius, qui ab hostibus captus est, postea stipulatus est, aut si legatum sit servo eius, posteaquam ille ad hostes pervenit, hoc habebunt heredes eius, quia et si captivitatis tempore decessisset, adquisitum foret heredi.
Marcellus, Digest, Book XXII. If a slave of anyone who has been taken prisoner by the enemy should afterwards enter into a stipulation, or if a legacy should be bequeathed to his slave after he has fallen into the hands of the enemy, his heirs will be entitled to it, for the reason that if he should die during his captivity it would be acquired by his heir.