Ad legem Iuliam libri
Ex libro I
Dig. 40,9,15Paulus libro primo ad legem Iuliam. Quaesitum est, an is, qui maiestatis crimine reus factus sit, manumittere possit, quoniam ante damnationem dominus est. et imperator Antoninus Calpurnio Critoni rescripsit ex eo tempore, quo quis propter facinorum suorum cogitationem iam de poena sua certus esse poterat, multo prius conscientia delictorum, quam damnatione ius dandae libertatis eum amississe. 1Iulianus ait, si postea, quam filio permisit pater manumittere, filius ignorans patrem decessisse manumisit vindicta, non fieri eum liberum. sed et si vivit pater et voluntas mutata erit, non videri volente patre filium manumississe.
Paulus, On the Lex Julia, Book I. The question arose whether anyone accused of the crime of lese majeste could manumit a slave, inasmuch as he was the owner of slaves before his conviction. The Emperor Antoninus stated in a Rescript addressed to Calpurnius Crito that, from the time when the accused party was certain of having the penalty inflicted upon him, he would lose the right of granting freedom rather through his consciousness of guilt, than from his condemnation for crime. 1Julianus says that, after a father has granted his son permission to manumit a slave, and the son, not being aware that his father is dead, manumits the slave, the latter will not become free. If, however, the father is living, and has changed his mind, his son will be considered to have manumitted the slave against the consent of his father.
Ex libro V
Dig. 29,2,80Paulus libro quinto ad legem Iuliam. Si solus heres ex pluribus partibus fuero institutus, unam partem omittere non possum nec interest, in quibusdam habeam substitutum nec ne. 1Idem puto etiam, si aliis mixtus heredibus ex pluribus partibus heres institutus sim, quod et hic adeundo unam portionem omnes adquiro, si tamen delatae sint. 2Item si servus meus ex parte heres institutus sit pure, ex parte sub condicione, dato scilicet coherede, et iussu meo adierit, deinde eo manumisso condicio alterius portionis exstiterit, verius est non mihi esse adquisitam illam portionem, sed ipsum comitari: omnia enim paria permanere debent in id tempus, quo alterius portionis condicio exstet, ut adquiratur ei, cui prior portio adquisita est. 3Ego quidem puto et si adhuc in potestate sit, iterum adeundum esse, si condicio exstiterit, et illud quod dicimus semel adeundum, in eiusdem persona locum habet, non cum per alium adquirenda est hereditas.
Paulus, On the Lex Julia et Papia, Book IV. If I should be appointed sole heir to several shares in an estate, I cannot reject one share, nor does it make any difference whether or not I have a substitute for said share. 1I think that the same rule will apply, even where I have been appointed together with other heirs, or have been appointed heir to several shares, because by the acceptance of one of the shares, I will acquire all of them, if they should be rejected. 2Moreover, if one of my slaves has been absolutely appointed an heir to a portion of an estate, and conditionally appointed to another portion, having, for example, a co-heir, and he enters upon the estate by my direction, and after he has been manumitted, the condition upon which the other portion of the estate depends is fulfilled; the better opinion is that the first portion is not acquired by me but follows the slave himself. For everything should remain in the same state at the time when the condition of the second share was fulfilled, in order that it may be acquired by him who was entitled to the first portion. 3Therefore, I think that if the slave remains under the control of his original master, he must enter upon the estate a second time, if the condition should be fulfilled; and when we stated that the heir should only enter upon the estate but once, this has reference to the heir himself personally, and does not apply where the estate is acquired through the intervention of another.