The Same, On Inventions. Where a principal desires to relieve his agent, who is absent, from the necessity of giving security, he should send a letter to his adversary, and state therein that he has appointed a certain party to act against him, (mentioning in what case,) and promise that he will ratify all the acts performed by said agent; and, in this instance, if the letter is approved, it is understood that the party referred to appears as the agent of the principals as if he were present. Therefore, if afterwards, having changed his mind, he is not willing that the party should act as his agent, the proceedings, nevertheless, shall be considered valid.

Ad Dig. 16,1,25Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 482, Note 12.Modestinus, On Undertakings. Where a woman orders credit to be given to her slave, she will be liable to a prætorian action. 1If she has given security for him, and suit has been brought against her, she can protect herself by means of the exception under the Velleian Decree of the Senate, unless she did this on account of some affair of her own.

The Same, On Discoveries. When a stipulation for the return of a dowry is made by a stranger, it becomes operative the moment the divorce takes place, and the right of action obtained by the stipulator is not extinguished if the marriage should be renewed. Therefore, if the woman has no dowry at the time of the second marriage, the stipulator must again consent for the constitution of the dowry; provided that the said dowry which another party stipulated for with her permission is not derived from the woman herself, for then his consent will not be necessary.

Modestinus, On Discoveries. Where a dotal slave is appointed heir by anyone, he can either enter upon the estate, or reject it, by order of the husband. But in order to avoid the husband from being liable to an action on dowry, either through too readily rejecting an estate, or rashly accepting it, when its condition is unknown, it is advised that the woman should be asked, in the presence of witnesses, whether she wishes to reject or accept the estate. If she should say that she rejects it, the slave can very readily repudiate it, by the order of her husband. If, however, she prefers to accept it, the slave must be restored by the husband to the wife under the condition that when, by her order, he enters upon the estate, he shall again be transferred to her husband. In this way provision is made for any anxiety the husband may experience, and the wish of the wife will be complied with.

Modestinus, Inventions. Where a guardian is connected with his ward by some tie of relationship or affinity, or where a patron is administering the guardianship of his enfranchised ward, and is about to be removed from the office, the best course is for a curator to be joined with him, rather than to have him removed with blemished character and reputation.

The Same, Concerning Inventions. At the present time, we are governed by the Constitution of the Divine Marcus and Verus, which provides that whenever a father makes a substitution for his child under the age of puberty instead of another, where there are two, he will be understood to have made the substitution in both instances; that is, where his son was not his heir, or was his heir but died before attaining the age of puberty. 1It is held that this privilege should also be extended to the third kind of substitution. For if a father should appoint, as his heirs, his two sons who are under the age of puberty, he substitutes them for one another, and the Divine Pius decreed that it should be held that the substitution was reciprocal in both cases. 2Where, however, two children, one of whom has reached the age of puberty, and the other has not, are reciprocally substituted by the ordinary formula: “I substitute them each for the other”; the Emperors Severus and Antoninus decided that in this instance only the ordinary substitution should be held to have been made; for it seemed to have been inconsistent that the double substitution should take place with reference to one of the heirs, but that, so far as the other was concerned, only the ordinary substitution should be provided; therefore, in this case, the father ought to have made a substitution for each one separately, so that if the child who had arrived at puberty should not be his heir, the one who had not reached puberty should be substituted for him; but if the one who had not reached puberty should be his heir, and die before attaining that age, his brother might be substituted for the share of his co-heir. Under these circumstances, the brother will be held to have been substituted in both ways; as, if he were not substituted in the ordinary way for the heir who had not arrived at puberty, the question would arise as to the intention of the father, and whether he was understood to have had in mind but one substitution for both his children, since one substitution is only understood to be included in the other, where the wishes of the parent are not opposed; or if, for the particular purpose of avoiding a dispute, he should, in any event, substitute the brother for the child who had not arrived at puberty, as follows: “Whether he does not become my heir, or whether he does, but dies under the age of puberty.”

Modestinus, On Inventions. Where a guardian by a letter orders the slave of his ward to enter upon an estate, and dies after having signed it, before the slave has entered upon the estate in obedience to the letter, no one can say that the ward will subsequently be liable for the debts of the estate.

Ad Dig. 33,2,19Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. III, § 656, Note 6.The Same, Concerning Inventions. If a testator should leave a tract of land to one person, and the usufruct of the same to another; and he did this on purpose in order that the former should only have the mere ownership, he committed an error, for he ought to have left the ownership of the property, with the reservation of the usufruct, as follows, “I devise such-and-such a tract of land to Titius, with the reservation of the usufruct;” or “Let my heir give the usufruct of said land to Seius;” as unless he expressed himself in this way the usufruct will be shared between them, for the reason that sometimes what is written is of more effect than what is intended.

The Same, On Inventions. Where anyone directs a slave to be free if he renders accounts to the heir, and he should afterwards forbid him to do so; he grants him his freedom as it were, absolutely, and he will be entitled to it by virtue of the will.

Modestinus, On Inventions. Where an heir was asked to transfer an entire estate, and declines to retain the fourth because he desires to carry out the wishes of the deceased with greater exactitude, he should voluntarily enter upon the estate as intending to transfer it under the Trebellian Decree of the Senate. I would also advise him, if he regards the estate as insolvent to reject it, in order that he may be compelled by the Prætor to transfer it; for in this instance he is considered to transfer it under the Trebellian Decree of the Senate; and where the heir has manifested fear of being liable to the indebtedness of the estate, all the rights of action will pass to the person who receives it.