Ad legem Fufiam Caniniam liber singularis
Dig. 35,1,37Paulus libro singulari ad legem Fufiam Caniniam. Si quis eum, quem ipse manumittere non poterat, legaverit ita, ut eum legatarius manumitteret, etsi a legato non repellatur, non est compellendus, ut manumittat, quoniam totiens secundum voluntatem testatoris facere compellitur, quotiens contra legem nihil sit futurum. idque Neratius scribsit, et tamen a legato non esse eum repellendum, quoniam magis legatarium aliquid commodum testator in hoc servo quam heredem habere voluisset.
Paulus, On the Lex Fufia Caninia. If anyone should make a bequest to a slave, whom he himself could not manumit, under the condition that “his legatee should manumit him,” the legatee will not be excluded from receiving the legacy, but he cannot be compelled to manumit the slave, as one is only obliged to execute the will of the testator, when, by its terms, nothing is to be done contrary to law; and this opinion was stated by Neratius. The legatee will not be deprived of the legacy, as the testator preferred that he should obtain the benefit of the slave rather than that his own heir should have him.
Dig. 50,16,215Paulus libro singulari ad legem Fufiam Caniniam. ‘Potestatis’ verbo plura significantur: in persona magistratuum imperium: in persona liberorum patria potestas: in persona servi dominium. at cum agimus de noxae deditione cum eo qui servum non defendit, praesentis corporis copiam facultatemque significamus. in lege Atinia in potestatem domini rem furtivam venisse videri, et si eius vindicandae potestatem habuerit, Sabinus et Cassius aiunt.
Paulus, On the Lex Fufia Caninia. The word “power” has several meanings: with reference to magistrates, it signifies jurisdiction; with reference to children, it signifies paternal control; with reference to slaves, it signifies the authority of a master. But when we bring suit for the surrender of a slave by way of reparation for damage committed by him, against his master who does not defend him, we mean the body of the slave and the authority over him. Sabinus and Cassius say that, under the Atinian Law, stolen property is considered to have come under the control of the master, if he should have the power to recover it.