Quaestionum libri
Ex libro XXXI
Dig. 1,5,9Idem libro trigensimo primo quaestionum. In multis iuris nostri articulis deterior est condicio feminarum quam masculorum.
Dig. 1,7,32Papinianus libro trigensimo primo quaestionum. Nonnumquam autem impubes qui adoptatus est audiendus erit, si pubes factus emancipari desideret, idque causa cognita per iudicem statuendum erit. 1Imperator Titus Antoninus rescripsit privignum suum tutori adoptare permittendum.
Papinianus, Questions, Book XXXI. However, a boy who is under puberty and has been adopted, should sometimes be heard if, having arrived at puberty, he desires to be emancipated; and this must be determined by the judge after the case has been stated. 1The Emperor Titius Antoninus decided in a Rescript that it was permissible for a man to adopt his stepson of whom he was guardian.
Dig. 49,15,11Papinianus libro trigensimo primo quaestionum. Quod si filius ante moriatur in civitate, nihil est quod de secundis tabulis tractari possit, sive quoniam vivo patre filius familias mori intellegitur, sive quoniam non reverso eo exinde sui iuris videtur fuisse, ex quo pater hostium potitus est. 1Sed si ambo apud hostes et prior pater decedat, sufficiat lex Cornelia substituto non alias, quam si apud hostes patre defuncto postea filius in civitate decessisset.
The Same, Questions, Book XXXI. If the son should die first at home, there is no reason for discussing the pupillary substitution, either because the son under paternal control is understood to have died during the lifetime of his father; or because his father not having returned, the son, on this account, is considered to have become his own master from the very moment when his father was taken by the enemy. 1If, however, both of them should be in captivity, and the father dies first, the Cornelian Law will suffice to establish the pupillary substitution, just as if the son should die at home after the father had expired in the hands of the enemy.
Dig. 50,17,78Idem libro trigensimo primo quaestionum. Generaliter cum de fraude disputatur, non quid non habeat actor, sed quid per adversarium habere non potuerit, considerandum est.