Notae ad Iuliani Digestorum libros
Ex libro XL
Dig. 35,2,75Ex libro quadragesimo digestorum Iuliani Marcellus. Sed si ideo legatum ei datum est, ut integra legata vel fideicommissa praestet, deneganda erit actio legati, si lege Falcidia uti mallet.
Marcellus, On the Digest of Julianus, Book XL. Where a bequest is made to an heir in order that he may pay the legacies in full, as well as the trust with which he is charged, an action based on the legacy will be refused him if he prefers to avail himself of the benefit of the Falcidian Law.
Dig. 36,1,28Iulianus libro quadragensimo digestorum. Ita tamen, ut hi quibus restituetur hereditas actorem eligant et ad agendum et ad excipiendas actiones. 1Si servum hereditarium heres, qui coactus adierit, iussisset adire hereditatem ab alio eidem servo relictam et tunc hereditatem, quam suspectam sibi esse dixerat, restituerit, an etiam eam hereditatem, quae per servum adquisita esset, restituere deberet, quaesitum est. dixi non magis hanc hereditatem in restitutionem venire, quam quod servus hereditarius post aditam hereditatem stipulatus fuisset aut per traditionem accepisset aut fructus, qui ex rebus hereditariis percepti fuissent, utique si nulla mora fideicommisso facta fuisset. sed si quid ante aditam hereditatem servus stipulatus fuisset aut per traditionem accepisset, id restitui debebit, sicut fructus ante aditam hereditatem in restitutionem venient. 2Qui suspectam sibi hereditatem dicit, nullum commodum ex testamento consequetur, quod habiturus non esset, si heres institutus non fuisset aut non adisset. et ideo si pupillo substitutus fuerit itaque: ‘quisquis mihi heres erit, idem filio meo heres esto’, hereditatem, quae ex substitutione ad eum pervenerit, restituere cogendus erit. si vero detracto hoc articulo ‘quisquis mihi heres erit’ substitutus ita fuerit: ‘Titius filio meo heres esto’, tum, si solus patri heres extiterit, nihilo minus cogendus erit hereditatem pupilli restituere, si vero coheredem habuerit, retinebit pupilli hereditatem, quia potuit coherede adeunte, quamvis ipse patris omisisset hereditatem, ex substitutione adire. 3Si pater filium, quem in potestate habebat, heredem scripserit et ab eo petierit, ut hereditatem Sempronio restitueret, isque suspectam sibi esse dicet, poterit ex Trebelliano senatus consulto hereditas restitui. quare et si non inmiscuerit se hereditati, nihilo minus actiones, quae ei et in eum competebant, ad Sempronium transferentur. 4A patre heres scriptus et exheredato filio substitutus si rogatus fuerit hereditatem, quae ad eum ex substitutione pervenerit, Titio restituere, cogendus non est vivo pupillo patris hereditatem adire, primum quia sub condicione fideicommissum datum est, deinde quia non probe de hereditate viventis pueri aget: mortuo autem pupillo compelli debet hereditatem patris adire. 5Quod si duo heredes a patre instituti fuerint et utriusque fidei commissum sit, ut exheredati filii hereditatem restituerent, satis erit vel unum cogi adire: hoc enim facto etiam is, qui patris hereditatem non adit, filii hereditatem adire et restituere cogetur. 6Quotiens filius emancipatus bonorum possessionem contra tabulas accipit, nulla ratio est compellendi heredis ad restituendam hereditatem et sicut neque legata neque fideicommissa cetera praestare cogitur, ita ne ad restitutionem quidem hereditatis compelli debet. Marcellus: plane non est compellendus adire, si iam filius bonorum possessionem, ne intercidat fideicommissum mortuo herede instituto et omissa a filio bonorum possessione. 7Qui ex Trebelliano senatus consulto hereditatem restituit, sive petat a debitoribus hereditariis sive ab eo petatur, exceptione restitutae hereditatis adiuvari vel summoveri potest. actiones autem fideicommissario competunt, quas habuit heres eo tempore, quo fideicommissum restituebat. Marcellus: sed eas quoque actiones, quae sub condicione erant et quarum dies eo tempore non cesserat, fideicommissario competere placet. sed antequam restitueretur hereditas, exceptione aliqua heres adiuvandus non est: cum hoc minus ex causa fideicommissi sit restituturus. 8Trebellianum senatus consultum locum habet, quotiens quis suam hereditatem vel totam vel pro parte fidei heredis committit. 9Quare si Maevius te heredem instituerit et rogaverit, ut hereditatem Titii restituas, a quo esses heres institutus, et tu hereditatem Maevii adieris, perinde a te fideicommissum petetur, ac si fundum, qui tibi a Titio legatus esset, restituere rogatus fuisses: ideoque et si suspectam Maevii hereditatem dixeris, cogi te non oportet eam adire. 10Quod si Maevius te rogaverit et suam hereditatem et Titianam restituere tuque sponte adieris hereditatem, uteris legis Falcidiae commodo et partem quartam Maevianae hereditatis retinebis, dimidiam et quartam ex fideicommisso restitues, nec intererit, eidem utramque hereditatem an alii Maevianam, alii Titianam rogatus fueris restituere. sed si suspectam Maevianam hereditatem dixeris, cogeris eam adire et restituere ei, cui rogatus fueris: is autem, cui Titianam hereditatem restituere rogatus fueris, non poterit te compellere ad adeundum. 11Si ex Trebelliano hereditatem restituit heres et fructus praediorum retinet vel ipsa praedia, sive etiam debitor eius qui testamentum fecit fuerit, necessarium est actionem adversus eum fideicommissario dari. Marcellus: hoc idem necessario faciendum est, cum parte hereditatis restituta familiae erciscundae iudicium inter eum qui restituit hereditatem et qui receperit accipietur. 12Qui rogatus est emancipato filio restituere hereditatem, cogi debet adire et restituere, quamvis filius contra tabulas bonorum possessionem accipere possit. 13Si patronus ex parte debita heres institutus et rogatus restituere hereditatem suspectam sibi esse dicat, puto rectius facturum praetorem, si coegerit eum adire hereditatem et restituere, quamvis possit mutata voluntate eam partem hereditatis retinere. 14Si praeceptis quibusdam rebus heres rogatus sit restituere hereditatem et coactus eam adierit, an praecipere debeat? respondi eum, qui iussu praetoris adit hereditatem, omni commodo prohiberi debere. 15Sed si eidem legatum esset sub hac condicione ‘si heres non esset’ et suspectam sibi hereditatem dicat, non aliter cogendus est adire, quam ut legata, quae sub condicione ‘si heres non esset’ data erant, restituantur, non quidem a coheredibus, ne onerentur, sed ab eo cui restituta fuerit hereditas. nam sicut explendae fidei gratia cogendus est adire hereditatem, ita ob id ipsum damno adfici non debebit. 16Heres ex asse erat instituta consobrina mea et eius fidei commissum, ut partem dimidiam hereditatis statim Publio Maevio restitueret, alteram partem, cum ipsa moreretur, eidem Publio Maevio: praeterea alia aliis legata data sunt. Maevius partem dimidiam hereditatis statim percepit et cavit, quod amplius quam per legem Falcidiam liceret cepisset, redditu iri: sed et ceteri legata solida acceperant et similiter de restituendo quod amplius percepissent caverunt. mortua consobrina mea Publius Maevius desiderat sibi alteram partem hereditatis cum fructibus restitui. quaero itaque, quantum ei restituere debeam? utrum quod supra quadrantem bonorum penes consobrinam meam remanserat nec amplius quicquam? an et ab aliis, quibus legata soluta sunt, repetere quid debeam et quantum? item quaero, si quod ab his ex stipulatione percepero et quod apud consobrinam meam supra quadrantem remanserat, non efficiet partem dimidiam hereditatis, an ex incremento et fructibus eius summae, quae supra quadrantem bonorum penes consobrinam meam remansit, supplere ei debeam, dumtaxat ne partem dimidiam hereditatis quantitas quae restitueretur excedat? an vero, sicut Publius Maevius desiderat, quidquid seposito quadrante bonorum eiusque quadrantis fructibus perceptum est restitui ei debet? respondi, quod supra quadrantem penes consobrinam tuam remansit, si adiectis fructibus quantitatem partis dimidiae hereditatis, quae mortis tempore fuit, non minuet, totum Publio Maevio restituendum: nec ex stipulatione ab his, quibus legata soluta sunt, repeti quicquam potest. si vero fructus quantitatem partis dimidiae exuberant, quadranti tuo et fructibus eius accedet. si vero fructus eius partis, quae supra quadrantem apud consobrinam tuam remanserat, non implent quantitatem partis dimidiae bonorum, ex stipulatione agi poterit. in summa ratio ita ponenda est, ut tu omni modo quadrantem et fructus eius, praeterea, si eius quod quadrantem excedit fructus in tantum excreverit, ut quantitatem partis dimidiae bonorum excedat, etiam id quod excesserit retineas. 17Qui suos servos rogatus est manumittere et hisdem hereditatem restituere, detracto pretio servorum hereditatem restituere debebit.
Julianus, Digest, Book XL. The cities, in order that the estates may be transferred to them, should select an agent who can sue and be sued. 1Where an heir who was compelled to accept an estate orders a slave forming part of the same to enter upon another left to the said slave by a stranger, and then transfers the former estate which he says he suspects of being insolvent, the question arises whether he ought also to transfer the one which had been acquired by the slave. I held that this estate should not be included in the transfer, any more than if the slave belonging to the first estate had, after having accepted it, entered into a stipulation and received it by delivery, or had collected the income from the property of the estate without being in default in the execution of the trust. If, however, the slave, before accepting the estate, entered into any stipulation, or accepted it by delivery, he must restore the subject of the stipulation, as the income collected before the estate was accepted will be included in the transfer. 2Ad Dig. 36,1,28,2Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. III, § 559, Note 24.When an heir says that he suspects the estate of being insolvent, he will obtain no benefit under the will which he would not have obtained if he had not been appointed heir, or had not entered upon the estate. Therefore, if he was substituted for a minor as follows, “Let whoever shall be my heir also be my son’s heir,” he should be compelled to transfer the estate which came into his hands by virtue of the stipulation. If, however, the clause, “Whoever shall be my heir,” is omitted, and he should be substituted as follows, namely, “Let Titius be my son’s heir,” then, if the heir alone should survive the father he can, nevertheless, be compelled to transfer the estate of the minor. But if he should have a co-heir, he can retain the estate of the minor, because if his co-heir enters upon the estate, he can also enter by virtue of the substitution, even though he may have rejected the estate of the father. 3Where a father appoints his son, whom he has under his control, his heir, and charges him to transfer his estate to Sempronius, and says that he suspects the estate of being insolvent, the son can be compelled to transfer it under the Trebellian Decree of the Senate. Wherefore, even if he should not have concerned himself with the affairs of the estate, still, any rights of action for or against him will pass to Sempronius. 4When an heir, appointed by a father and substituted for his disinherited son, is charged to transfer to Titius the estate which may come to him by virtue of the substitution, he cannot be compelled to accept the estate of his father during the lifetime of the minor; in the first place, because the trust was established under a condition, and second, for the reason that an action with reference to the estate cannot legally be brought during the lifetime of the boy. When the minor dies, however, he should be compelled to enter upon the father’s estate. 5Where two heirs have been appointed by a father, and both of them have been charged to transfer his estate to a disinherited son, it will be sufficient for only one of them to be compelled to enter upon the same; for by this act he who did not enter upon the estate of the father can be compelled to enter upon and transfer the estate of the son. 6Whenever an emancipated son acquires possession of the estate contrary to the provisions of the will, there is no reason to compel the heir to transfer the estate; and, as he is not compelled to pay either legacies or trusts, so he can not be forced to transfer any portion of the estate. Marcellus: It is clear that he should not be compelled to enter upon the estate, where the son has already obtained possession of the same to prevent the trust from being extinguished, if the appointed heir should die, and prætorian possession of the property should be refused by the son. 7A person who has transferred an estate under the Trebellian Decree of the Senate can either be relieved or barred by an exception on the ground that the estate has been transferred, whether he is sued by the creditors of the estate, or sues the debtors. Moreover, the same actions can be brought by the beneficiary which the heir could have brought at the time when he transferred the property left under the trust. Marcellus: It is also established that those actions which were subject to a condition, the time for the fulfillment of which had not yet arrived, will lie in favor of the beneficiary of the trust. The heir, however, cannot have recourse to any exception before the estate has been transferred, as otherwise he would transfer so much less under the trust. 8The Trebellian Decree of the Senate is applicable whenever anyone charges his heir with the distribution of either the whole or a part of the estate, at a time. 9Hence, if Mævius should appoint you his heir, and ask you to deliver the estate of Titius, and you should enter upon the estate of Mævius just as if you had been charged with the trust, and had been asked to transfer land which had been devised to you by Titius, and you should say that you had reason to think that the estate of Mævius was insolvent, you cannot be compelled to enter upon the same. 10If Mævius should ask you to transfer to someone both his estate and that of Titius, and you voluntarily accept the estate, you can avail yourself of the benefit of the Falcidian Law, and retain the fourth part of the estate of Mævius, and transfer the other three-fourths in compliance with the terms of the trust. Nor will it make any difference whether you are asked to transfer both estates to the same individual, or the Msevian estate to one person, and the Titian estate to another. If you should say that the estate of Mævius is probably insolvent, you can be compelled to accept it and transfer it to the person to whom you are asked to deliver it; but he to whom you are charged to transfer the estate of Titius cannot compel you to enter upon it. 11If the heir should transfer the estate under the Trebellian Decree of the Senate, and should retain the income of the land, or the land itself, or should even be the debtor of the person who made the will, it will be necessary for an action to be granted to the beneficiary against him. Marcellus: It will also be necessary for this to be done where, only a portion of the estate having been transferred, an action in partition is brought between the person who delivered the estate and the one who received it. 12Where anyone is asked to transfer an estate after a son has been emancipated, he should be compelled to accept and transfer it, even though the son can obtain prætorian possession of the same in opposition to the provisions of the will. 13When a patron is appointed heir to that portion of the estate of his freedman to which he is entitled by law, and, having been asked to transfer the estate, says that he has reason to think that it is insolvent, I hold that the Prætor will act more justly if he compels him to enter upon and transfer the estate; although, notwithstanding this change of mind, he can retain that part of the same to which he is legally entitled. 14Where, after the reservation of certain property as a preferred legacy, the heir is requested to transfer an estate, and is compelled to accept it, ought he to retain the preferred legacy? I answered that anyone who enters upon an estate by order of the Prætor should be prevented from enjoying any advantage. 15But if a bequest is left to the same person under the condition that he does not become the heir, and he alleges that he has reason to think the estate to be insolvent, he cannot be compelled to accept it unless he surrenders the legacies which were bequeathed dependent upon the condition of his not becoming the heir; and this should not be done by the co-heirs to avoid liability, but by him to whom the estate was transferred. For, as the heir is obliged to accept the estate in order that the wishes of the testator may be complied with, so he should not be subjected to loss on this account. 16My cousin was appointed sole heir to an estate, and charged to transfer half of it immediately to Publius Mævius, and the other half after her death to the said Publius Mævius. Other legacies were also bequeathed to other persons. Mævius at once received his half of the estate, and gave security to return anything which he might have obtained over and above what was permitted by the Falcidian Law, and the others were paid their legacies in full, and likewise gave security to return any excess which they might have received. My cousin having died, Publius Mævius demanded that the other half of the estate, along with its income, should be delivered to him. Therefore, I ask how much I ought to transfer to him, and whether it should be what remained in the hands of my cousin in excess of the fourth part of the property, and nothing more; or whether I could recover something from the others to whom legacies had been paid, and if so, how much? I also ask if what I may receive from them under the stipulations, and what remained in the hands of my cousin in excess of the fourth of the estate should not amount to half of the same, whether I shall be compelled to make up the deficiency from the increase and the income of the property which remained in the hands of my cousin over and above the fourth, in order that the amount which should be transferred may not exceed the fourth part of the estate. Or, as Publius Mævius demands, after the fourth of the estate had been excepted, must whatever has been obtained from the profits of the said fourth be delivered to him? I answered that, if, with the addition of the income, whatever above the fourth remained in the hands of your cousin does not amount to less than half of the estate as it was at the time of her death, it must all be transferred to Publius Mævius; and nothing can be recovered under the stipulation from those to whom legacies have been paid. If, however, the income exceeds the value of half the estate, it must be added to your fourth and the income of the same. But if the income of your share which remained in the hands of your cousin in excess of the fourth does not amount to half of the estate, an action can be brought under the stipulation. In short, the calculation should be made in such a way that the income will actually be in excess of a fourth, and if it increased to such an extent as to amount to more than half of the estate, you can retain whatever is in excess. 17When anyone is asked to manumit his slaves, and transfer the estate to them, he should do so after having deducted the price of the slaves.