Regularum libri
Ex libro II
Dig. 4,3,36Marcianus libro secundo regularum. Si duo dolo malo fecerint, invicem de dolo non agent.
Dig. 4,6,46Marcianus libro secundo regularum. Qui rei publicae causa afuit, etiam adversus eum, qui pariter rei publicae causa afuerit, restituendus est, si aliquid damni iuste queritur.
Dig. 4,8,51Marcianus libro secundo regularum. Si de re sua quis arbiter factus sit, sententiam dicere non potest, quia se facere iubeat aut petere prohibeat: neque autem imperare sibi neque se prohibere quisquam potest.
Ad Dig. 4,8,51ROHGE, Bd. 4 (1872), S. 137: Einfluß des befürchteten Standesinteresses der Schiedsrichter auf Giltigkeit und Wirksamkeit des Schiedsspruchs.ROHGE, Bd. 7 (1873), S. 331: Gegenstand des Schiedsvertrages können auch künftige Rechtsverhältnisse sein. Bezeichnung der Person der Schiedsrichter.ROHGE, Bd. 7 (1873), S. 331: Einfluß des befürchteten Standesinteresses der Schiedsrichter auf Giltigkeit und Wirksamkeit des Schiedsspruchs.ROHGE, Bd. 8 (1873), S. 418: Einfluß des befürchteten Standesinteresses der Schiedsrichter auf Giltigkeit und Wirksamkeit des Schiedsspruchs.ROHGE, Bd. 21 (1877), Nr. 31, S. 86: Rechtsweg gegen einen Beschluß der Gesellschafter über Ausschließung eines Socius.Marcianus, Rules, Book II. Where anyone has been appointed an arbiter in a matter in which he himself is interested, he cannot make an award, because he would order himself to do something, or forbid himself to bring suit; for no one can command himself to perform an act, or prohibit himself from doing it.
Dig. 26,8,15Marcianus libro secundo regularum. Accipientis et edentis iudicium idem tutor auctor utrique fit. sed hoc utrum ita est, si bis auctor factus est, an et una auctoritas sufficiat eo animo, ut ad utrumque pertineat? dubitat quidem Pomponius, sed fortiter defenditur sufficere unam auctoritatem.
Marcianus, Rules, Book II. The same guardian can grant his authority to two wards in a case where one is plaintiff and the other defendant. In case, however, he should act in this twofold capacity, will a single authorization be sufficient, under these circumstances, for both the wards? Pomponius is in doubt on this point, but it may be strongly maintained that a single authorization will suffice.
Dig. 28,2,32Marcianus libro secundo regularum. Si filio emancipato exheredato is qui in potestate est praeteritus sit, ipse quidem emancipatus si contra tabulas petat, nihil agit, ab intestato autem et suus et emancipatus venient.
Marcianus, Rules, Book II. Where a son has been disinherited after his emancipation, and another, who is under the control of the father, is passed over, and the one who is emancipated contests the will, his act will be void; for both the proper heir and the son who is emancipated will be entitled to the succession ab intestato.
Dig. 28,5,39Marcianus libro secundo regularum. id est partem dimidiam servi et quartam hereditatis.
Dig. 29,2,55Marcianus libro secundo regularum. Cum hereditate patris necessarius heres se abstineat, condicio coheredi sive suo sive extraneo defertur, ut aut totam adgnoscat aut a toto recedat, et ita se abstinere potest propter alium, qui per suam personam non poterat. si tamen creditores dicant se contentos esse eius portione, quia non potest exonerari, nisi deferatur condicio, et alterius parte abstinere se creditores debent, ut eius actiones ei qui convenitur dentur.
Ad Dig. 29,2,55Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. III, § 595, Note 10.Marcianus, Rules, Book II. When a necessary heir rejects the estate of his father, his co-heir whether he be a proper heir, or a stranger, can either accept the entire estate or reject it; and where he cannot reject it himself, he can do so on account of its refusal by his co-heir. If, however, the creditors should say that they will be content with his share because he cannot be discharged from liability unless he be allowed to make his choice, they should relinquish the other’s share in order that the rights of action growing out of it may be assigned to the co-heir who is sued.
Dig. 29,7,7Idem libro secundo regularum. Quaedam non referuntur ad confirmationem codicillorum, veluti si ante captivitatem quis codicillos confirmaverit et in captivitate codicillos scribat: nam non valent. idem est, si aliquo modo ius testamenti faciendi desierit habere. 1Praeterea in illis, quae non iuris, sed facti sunt, non est perinde habendum quod codicillis scribitur, atque si ubi confirmatio scriptum fuisset: veluti si ita in codicillis scriptum erit: ‘vestem quae mea est’, codicillorum tempus spectandum, non quo confirmantur: item ‘si Titius vivus est’ vel ‘si tot annis est’, codicillis legavit Seio, tempus codicillorum, non quo tempore fit testamentum, spectandum.
The Same, Rules, Book II. There are certain dispositions which do not relate to the confirmation of codicils; as, for instance, where anyone confirms a codicil before being taken prisoner, and writes a codicil while in captivity, for such a codicil will not be valid. The same rule applies where a person in some way or other ceases to possess testamentary capacity. 1Moreover, in questions which are rather those of fact than of law, what is included in a codicil is not to be considered as if it had been written at the time when the codicil was confirmed; for example, if it should be stated in the codicil, “That such-and-such a garment which belongs to me is bequeathed”, the time that the codicil was written, and not that when it was confirmed, should be considered. Again, if a bequest is made to Seius by a codicil as follows, “If Titius is living”, or “If he is so many years old”, the date of the codicil, and not that of the will, should be considered.
Dig. 34,5,15Idem libro secundo regularum. Quaedam sunt, in quibus res dubia est, sed ex post facto retro ducitur et apparet, quid actum est. ut ecce si res legata fuerit et deliberante legatario eam rem heres alii tradiderit: nam si quidem voluerit legatarius habere legatum, traditio nulla est, si vero repudiaverit, valet. tantundem est et si pecuniam hereditariam legatam crediderit heres: nam si quidem non repudiaverit legatarius, alienam pecuniam credidit, si vero repudiaverit, suam pecuniam credidisse videtur. quid ergo, si consumpta fuerit pecunia? utique idem erit ex eventu dicendum.
The Same, Rules, Book II. There are certain matters in which at first it is difficult to arrive at a conclusion, but in the end what has been done appears to be clear; as, for instance, where a bequest has been made, and, while the legatee is deliberating as to whether he will accept it or not, the heir transfers the property in question to a third party. In this instance the transfer will be void if the legatee should decide to accept the legacy; but if he should reject it, the transfer will be valid. The case would be the same if the heir should loan money belonging to the estate which was bequeathed; for if the legatee did not reject it, it would be held that the heir had loaned money belonging to someone else, but if the legatee rejected the estate he would be held to have lent his own money. But what if the money was expended? The same rule would apply, in accordance with the circumstances of the case.
Dig. 36,1,35Idem libro secundo regularum. Si eius, qui novissimus ex filiis mortuus est, partem hereditatis propinquo voluit pater restitui et simul fratres diem suum obissent: propinquum, si non ostenderit quis novissimus obisset, ad partem hereditatis non admitti, sed matrem ex Tertulliano senatus consulto ad utriusque hereditatem admitti constat.
The Same, Rules, Book II. Where a father desired that, in case his only surviving son should die, his share of the estate should be delivered to a relative, and the brothers died upon the same day, the said relative will not be entitled to a share in the estate if he cannot prove which one of the brothers died last; but it has been decided that their mother will be entitled to the estates of both of them under the Tertullian Decree of the Senate.
Dig. 39,6,26Idem libro secundo regularum. Si qui invicem sibi mortis causa donaverunt pariter decesserunt, neutrius heres repetet, quia neuter alteri supervixit. idem iuris est, si pariter maritus et uxor sibi donaverunt.
Ad Dig. 39,6,26Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 429, Note 2.The Same, Rules, Book II. Where two persons make reciprocal donations, mortis causa, of the same property, and both of them die, the heir of neither can recover the property, for the reason that neither one survives the other. The same rule of law will apply, if a husband and wife should make reciprocal donations.
Dig. 42,6,7Marcianus libro secundo regularum. Qui iudicium dictaverunt heredi, separationem quasi hereditarii possunt impetrare, quia ex necessitate hoc fecerunt.
Dig. 46,3,44Marcianus libro secundo regularum. In numerationibus aliquando evenit, ut una numeratione duae obligationes tollantur uno momento: veluti si quis pignus pro debito vendiderit creditori: evenit enim, ut et ex vendito tollatur obligatio et debiti. item si pupillo, qui sine tutoris auctoritate mutuam pecuniam accepit, legatum a creditore fuerit sub ea condicione, si eam pecuniam numeraverit, in duas causas videri eum numerasse, et in debitum suum, ut in Falcidiam heredi imputetur, et condicionis gratia, ut legatum consequatur. item si usus fructus pecuniae numeratae legatus fuerit, evenit, ut una numeratione et liberetur heres ex testamento et obliget sibi legatarium. tantundem est et si damnatus fuerit alicui vendere vel locare: nam vendendo vel locando et liberatur ex testamento heres et obligat sibi legatarium.
Marcianus, Rules, Book II. In the payment of money, it sometimes happens that two obligations are discharged by one payment, at the same time; as, for instance, where anyone sells to his creditor the property which has been pledged to secure his debt; for it happens that, by the sale, the obligation of the debt is also extinguished. Again, where a bequest is made by a creditor to a ward who has borrowed money without the authority of his guardian, under the condition that he will pay this money, the ward is held to have paid it for two reasons: first, to discharge his debt, as it will be credited on the Falcidian portion of the heir; and second, in order to comply with the condition to enable him to obtain the legacy. Likewise, if the usufruct of a sum of money has been bequeathed, it happens, that by one payment the heir will be released from the obligation imposed by the will, and will render the legatee liable to himself. The same thing occurs where anyone has been ordered by the court to sell or lease property to another; for, either by selling or leasing, the heir will be freed from liability under the will, and will render the legatee liable to himself.
Dig. 49,16,11Marcianus libro secundo regularum. Ab omni militia servi prohibentur: alioquin capite puniuntur.
Dig. 49,18,3Marcianus libro secundo regularum. Veteranis et liberis veteranorum idem honor habetur, qui et decurionibus: igitur nec in metallum damnabuntur nec in opus publicum vel ad bestias, nec fustibus caeduntur.