The Same, Questions, Book XIV. For although parents have no right to succeed to the estate of their children, still, on account of the wishes of the parents and their natural affection for their children, when the regular order of mortality is disturbed, an estate ought to be left on the ground of affection no less to parents than to children. 1Where a party after having brought suit to declare a will inofficious changes his mind, and then dies, a complaint on the ground of inofficiousness will not be granted his heir, as it is not sufficient for proceedings to be instituted if the plaintiff does not continue to carry them on. 2Where a son brings suit on the ground of an inofficious will against two heirs, and obtains different decisions from the judges defeating one heir and being defeated by the other, he can sue the debtors of the estate, and he himself may be sued by the creditors to the extent of his share in the same, and he can recover property and divide the estate; for it is true that he is entitled to an action for partition, as we think that he becomes an heir at law for a share of the inheritance, and therefore a portion of it remains subject to the terms of the will, and it does not seem absurd that the testator should be considered to have died partly intestate.

Papinianus, Questions, Book XIV. The execution of a will is not a private right, but a matter of public law.

Paulus, Questions, Book XIV. The Divine Hadrian stated in a Rescript that the will of a soldier who preferred to die rather than to suffer pain, or the annoyances of life, was valid, and that his estate could be claimed by those entitled to it by law if he died intestate. 1A soldier who had been discharged began a will within the year but was unable to finish it. It can be said that, by this act, the will which he executed while in the army was rendered void, if it was drawn up in accordance with military law; otherwise it would not be legally rescinded if it was valid at Common Law. 2This distinction does not apply to the will of a soldier executed while in the service, for in whatever way he may make a will, it is rendered inoperative by a following one, as the wish of a soldier, however expressed, is a testament.

The Same, Questions, Book XIV. Where one of several heirs is charged to pay a debt of the estate, and the application of the Falcidian Law is considered, those who have received bequests shall not take any account of the said debt which the heir alone is to pay.

The Same, Questions, Book XIV. An appointed heir, against whom a minor son who is said to be supposititious demands prætorian possession under the First Section of the Edict, as in the case of an heir at law, cannot, in the meantime, obtain possession in accordance with the provisions of the will. If, however, in the interim, either the appointed heir, or he who is entitled to possession as the heir at law, should die, relief must be granted to his heirs. For what if they had not been able to enter upon the estate, because the law prevented them from doing so, or on account of the decision of the controversy being doubtful?

The Same, Questions, Book XIV. Where a patron, having been appointed a substitute for Titius (who himself had been appointed heir to half of the estate), while the latter was deliberating whether he would accept, or not, obtained prætorian possession of the estate of a freedman contrary to the testamentary provisions, and Titius should afterwards accept the estate, Julianus thinks that he has not been deprived of anything, any more than if he had been appointed under a condition. Therefore, as long as Titius deliberates, it will be uncertain whether half the estate will come into possession of the patron under the substitution, or, whether, if Titius should accept, the heirs will be compelled to contribute from their shares the amount legally due to the patron.

Papinianus, Questions, Book XIV. A father who gives his son, who is a soldier, in adoption, does not take from him the peculium which he has already acquired by the right of military service. For which reason, he does not deprive his son of his peculium by emancipating him, since he cannot take it from him even if he remains in his family.