The Same, Questions, Book XXI. A slave was ordered to be free if he paid ten aurei to the heir. The heir manumitted the slave, and afterwards died. In this instance, the money should not be paid to the heir of the heir; for when it was decided that he must pay the heir of the heir, you will remember that this applied where the first heir who was to receive the money was the master of the slave; which rendered the condition (so to speak), ambulatory. There are, in fact, two reasons for which the condition should be complied with so far as the first heir is concerned; the first one is the ownership, and the second the designation of the person. The first reason applies to every successor to whom the slave may pass through the continuation of the ownership which is transferred; but the second one only has reference to the person who is especially designated. 1The Emperor Antoninus stated in a Rescript that where a slave was ordered to render his accounts and become free, if the heir should delay in receiving the accounts, the slave will, nevertheless, become free. This rescript should be understood to apply where the slave will become free if he does not defer the payment of the balance in his hands, but if he delays to do so, it will only become operative if he tenders the amount which should be refunded in good faith; for it will not be sufficient for the heir to be in default to enable the slave to be manumitted where nothing was done by him which would have contributed to his freedom, if the heir had not been in default. But what if a slave was manumitted as follows, “Let Damas be free, if he goes to Spain next year to gather the harvest,” and the heir retains him at Rome, and will not suffer him to depart? Can we say that he will immediately be free before the crops are gathered? For if a stipulation is made at Rome, as follows: “Do you promise to pay me a hundred aurei in Spain?” The time during which you may be able to reach Spain is included in the stipulation, and it has been decided that legal proceedings cannot be instituted until this time has elapsed. If, however, the heir, after having allowed the accounts, and calculated the balance due from the slave, declares publicly that he donates the amount to the latter, because he has nothing to pay it with, or if he states this openly in a letter sent to him; the condition upon which his freedom is dependent is held to have been complied with. But what course should be pursued if the slave should deny that he has delayed payment of the balance, and therefore, because the heir is to blame for not receiving his accounts, he should become free, and the heir maintains that he was not responsible for delay, and that the slave should pay over the balance in his hands? It shall be determined by the magistrate who has jurisdiction of the case whether the condition was complied with or not, and it is part of his duty to investigate the alleged default, as well as to cast up the accounts, and if he should ascertain that payment of the balance was delayed, to decide that the slave is not free. If, however, the slave never denied that a balance was due, and should sue the heir in order to be able to render his accounts, and it was established that he was prepared to pay any balance that might remain, and offered a good surety for the payment of the money, and the heir was found to be in default, judgment must be given in favor of freedom.