Paulus, On the Rights of the Treasury. After a legacy has once been accepted, it will still be lawful to prove that the will was forged, and it will also be proper to claim that it is void; but no allegation as to its being inofficious will be permitted. 1He who contends that a will is void and loses his case is not excluded from any provision made in his favor. Therefore, anyone who, having obtained a legacy, afterwards alleges that the will was forged, must lose what he received under it. However, with reference to him who received the legacy, and denies that the will is valid, the Divine Pius made the following statement in a Rescript: “Although the relatives of Sophro have received their legacies from the duly appointed heir, still, if they have good reason to suppose that the heir is not entitled to the estate, and that it belongs to them by the law of intestacy, they can claim it under said law. It shall be determined by the court, after proper examination, whether they should be excluded from the estate or not, after due consideration of their persons, their rank, and their ages.” 2It has been well established that where a guardian has been appointed, and excuses himself from administering his trust, he will lose whatever he was entitled to under the terms of the will. If, however, he has already obtained it, he will not be allowed to excuse himself. I think that this rule will not apply to one who has only received a legacy, and having been requested by the mother of the minor to become his guardian, prefers to excuse himself; for, in this instance, he did nothing contrary to the will of the deceased. But the legacy which was refused to the guardian will not pass to the Treasury, but will be left to the son whose interests have been abandoned by the legatee. 3If a father or a master should attack a will, an action will be denied him, where the legacy is left either to his son or his slave, if they would obtain any advantage from the same. A different opinion must be given where the said legatee has received the sole benefit of the bequest. 4Where anyone entitled to a legacy is requested to manumit his slave, and anything is given to the slave by the will, it must be said that the act of the master will not prejudice the slave; and he should be purchased by the Treasury in order to be manumitted, provided the master is willing to sell him; but one who has refused to take under the will cannot be compelled to do this. 5If a son under paternal control alleges that the will is forged, let us consider whether an action should be refused his father. I think that if he made the accusation against the will of his father, an action should not be denied the latter. 6If anyone to whom I am charged to pay a legacy under a trust should say that the will is forged, I will be obliged to pay the legacy to the Treasury. 7Where anyone who alleges that a will is forged becomes the heir of the legatee, or of the heir who is appointed, it must be held that his statements will not prejudice him. 8The case is similar where a person alleges that a will is inofficious. 9Indulgence must be shown to the person who makes the accusation on account of his age, and especially if his guardian or curator desires to prove that the will is either forged, or inofficious. This the Emperors Severus and Antoninus stated in a Rescript. 10An action should be refused to those who have given testimony in favor of a party who alleged that the will was forged. This was decreed by the Divine Severus. 11Some authorities think, and very properly, that those should be refused an action who aided the accuser, or became sureties for him. 12Some authorities think that a Governor who declared a will to be forged is unworthy, if the heir who was appointed under it gains the case on appeal. 13In every instance, the requirements of his office will be sufficient excuse for the Advocate of the Treasury who has given assistance to the designs of the accuser. 14Where anyone attacks the principal will, he ought to be excluded from the benefits of the second, as well as from those granted by a codicil subsequently executed, even though they may not be confirmed by it. The same rule should not be followed where the party attacks the second will or the codicil, because, in this instance, he is not considered to have impugned the validity of both instruments. 15Let us consider whether a slave who attempted to break the will by his testimony should be deprived of the freedom granted him by the said will. He is not worthy to obtain the benefit of the trust, and so far as his liberty is concerned, the Divine Pius decided that he should be deprived of it. 16Where a party is appointed a guardian, he cannot, by alleging that the will was forged, be excused from serving in that capacity, but he can be excluded from the benefit of the legacy. 17Ad Dig. 34,9,5,17Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. III, § 676, Note 12.Anyone who received from a testator a donation mortis causa does not, in this respect, resemble a legatee. 18The case is different with him who, under the terms of a will, is directed to receive something from a legatee, or a slave who is to be liberated conditionally, for he can be excluded as being unworthy. 19The Divine Pius and Marcus decided that under such circumstances the appointed heir should be excluded from the benefit of the Falcidian Law. 20All those who are rejected as being unworthy shall be excluded from participating in the reward which, according to the Edict of the Divine Trajan, should be given to those who accuse themselves.