Pandectarum libri
Ex libro VI
Dig. 16,2,1Modestinus libro sexto pandectarum. Compensatio est debiti et crediti inter se contributio.
Ad Dig. 16,2,1ROHGE, Bd. 8 (1873), S. 43: Zulässigkeit der Compensation von Gegenforderungen, obschon über letztere bereits quittirt ist, sofern die Quittung die Art der Tilgung nicht ergibt und behauptet wird, daß dieselbe nicht durch Zahlung, sondern durch Aufrechnung geschehen ist.Modestinus, Pandects, Book VI. Set-off is a contribution made between a debt and a credit.
Dig. 37,4,21Modestinus libro sexto pandectarum. Si is, qui filium et ex eo nepotem in potestatem habebat, filium in adoptionem dedit nepote retento in potestate, postea filius emancipatus a patre adoptivo decessit extraneis heredibus institutis: filius huius, qui in potestate avi remansit, contra tabulas patris sui bonorum possessionem petere poterit, quamvis numquam in potestate huius fuerit. ideo nec debuisse in potestate esse videtur. nam, si aliter observatur, nec si emancipatus filius fuerit, nepos ex eo, qui in potestate avi remansit, bonorum possessionem contra tabulas petere poterit. 1Idemque iuris est, si emancipato filio nepos ex eo in potestate avi remanserit et postea patri suo in adoptionem datus fuerit: id est contra tabulas avi bonorum possessionem petere poterit, quia per adoptionem in aliena familia non fuerit. 2Sed si emancipatus filius meus adoptaverit extraneum filium, is qui adoptatus est filius contra tabulas meas bonorum possessionem petere non poterit, quia numquam nepotis loco apud me fuit.
Modestinus, Pandects, Book VI. Where a man has a son, and by him a grandson under his control, and gives his son in adoption, but retains his grandson under his authority, and his son, having subsequently been emancipated by his adoptive father, dies, after appointing foreign heirs, the son of the one who remained under the control of his grandfather can demand prætorian possession of the estate of his father, although he may never have been under his control. Hence it is held that it is not indispensable for him to have been under his control; for if it is decided otherwise, and the son should not be emancipated, the grandson of him who remained under the control of his grandfather can demand prætorian possession of the estate contrary to the provisions of the will. 1The same rule of law applies where a son, having been emancipated, a grandson by him remains under the control of his grandfather, and is afterwards given in adoption to his father; that is to say, he can demand prætorian possession of the estate of his grandfather in opposition to the terms of his will, because by this adoption he does not become a member of another family. 2If, however, my emancipated son should adopt a stranger as his son, the said adoptive son cannot demand prætorian possession of my estate contrary to the provisions of my will, for the reason that he never sustained the relation of grandson to me.
Dig. 37,8,4Modestinus libro sexto pandectarum. Emancipato quis filio retinuit ex eo nepotes in potestate: filius emancipatus susceptis postea liberis decessit. placuit in avi potestate manentes simul cum his, qui post emancipationem nati sunt, decreto bonorum possessionem accipere, manente eo, ut, si velit avus sibi per nepotes adquiri, bona sua conferat aut nepotes emancipet, ut sibi emolumentum paternae hereditatis adquirant: idque ita divus Marcus rescripsit.
Modestinus, Pandects, Book XVI. A certain man, having emancipated his son, retained the children of the latter under his control. The emancipated son, having had children, afterwards died. It was decided that those grandchildren who remained under the control of their grandfather, were, by virtue of a special decree, entitled to prætorian possession of the estate of the latter, together with those who were born after the emancipation, with the exception that, if the grandfather desired to obtain the estate of his son, by means of his grandchildren, he could place his property in collation, or he could emancipate them, in order that they might obtain for themselves the benefit of their father’s estate. This the Divine Marcus stated in a Rescript.
Dig. 38,1,32Idem libro sexto pandectarum. Is qui onerandae libertatis causa pecuniam patrono repromiserit, non tenetur: vel patronus, si pecuniam exegerit, bonorum possessionem contra tabulas eius non potest petere.
The Same, Pandects, Book VI. A freedman who promised money to his patron, which the latter demanded of him for the purpose of rendering his freedom oppressive, will not be liable; and if the patron should exact the money, he cannot obtain possession of his estate contrary to the provisions of the will of the freedman.
Dig. 38,15,1Modestinus libro sexto pandectarum. Intestati hi gradus vocantur: primum sui heredes, secundo legitimi, tertio proximi cognati, deinde vir et uxor. 1Sive tabulae testamenti non exstent, sive exstent, si secundum eas vel contra eas bonorum possessionem nemo accepit, intestati detur bonorum possessio. 2Intestati patris liberis bonorum possessio datur non tantum his, qui in potestatem parentis usque in mortis tempus fuerunt, sed emancipatis.
Modestinus, Pandects, Book VI. The following are the degrees of prætorian possession on the ground of intestacy: first, that of the proper heirs; second, that of the heirs at law; third, that of the next of kin; finally that of husband and wife. 1Prætorian possession on the ground of intestacy is granted where there is no will, or where there is one and no application is made for possession of the estate either in accordance with the provisions of the will, or in opposition to them. 2Prætorian possession of the estate of a father dying intestate is granted to his children; not only to such as were under his control at the time of his death, but also to those who have been emancipated.
Dig. 50,16,110Idem libro sexto pandectarum. ‘Sequester’ dicitur, apud quem plures eandem rem, de qua controversia est, deposuerunt: dictus ab eo, quod occurrenti aut quasi sequenti eos qui contendunt committitur.