Notae ad Iuliani Digestorum libros
Ex libro XLII
Dig. 40,2,4Iulianus libro quadragensimo secundo digestorum. Si pater filio permiserit servum manumittere et interim decesserit intestato, deinde filius ignorans patrem suum mortuum libertatem imposuerit, libertas servo favore libertatis contingit, cum non appareat mutata esse domini voluntas. sin autem ignorante filio vetuisset pater per nuntium et antequam filius certior fieret, servum manumississet, liber non fit. nam ut filio manumittente servus ad libertatem perveniat, durare oportet patris voluntatem: nam si mutata fuerit, non erit verum volente patre filium manumississe. 1Quotiens dominus servum manumittat, quamvis existimet alienum esse eum, nihilo minus verum est voluntate domini servum manumissum et ideo liber erit. et ex contrario si se Stichus non putaret manumittentis esse, nihilo minus libertatem contingere. plus enim in re est, quam in existimatione et utroque casu verum est Stichum voluntate domini manumissum esse. idemque iuris est et si dominus et servus in eo errore essent, ut neque ille se dominum nec hic se servum eius putaret. 2Minor viginti annis dominus nec communem quidem servum sine consilio recte manumittit. Paulus notat: sed si pignori obligatum sibi minor viginti annis manumitti patiatur, recte manumittitur, quia non tam manumittere is quam non impedire manumittentem intellegitur.
Julianus, Digest, Book XLII. If a father should permit his son to manumit his slave, and, in the meantime, should die intestate, and his son, not being aware that his father was dead, should grant the slave his freedom, the slave will become free through the favor conceded to liberty, as it does not appear that the master changed his mind. If, however, the father had, by means of a messenger, forbidden his son to liberate the slave, and the son did not know this, and, before ascertaining it, he should manumit the slave, the latter will not become free; for in order that a slave may obtain his freedom through the manumission of a son, the intention of the father must continue to exist; since, if he should change his mind, it would not be true that the son had manumitted the slave with his father’s consent. 1Whenever a master manumits his slave, even though he may think he belongs to another, it is, nevertheless, true that the slave is manumitted with the consent of his master, and therefore he will become free. And, on the other hand, if Stichus does not think that he belongs to the person who manumits him, he will, nevertheless, obtain his freedom, for there is more in the fact itself than in opinion; and, in both cases, it is true that Stichus was manumitted with the consent of his master. The same rule of law will apply where both the master and the slave are mistaken, and one of them thinks that he is not the master, and the other believes that he is not his slave. 2A minor of twenty years of age, who is a master, cannot legally manumit without appearing before the proper authority. Paulus says that if a minor of twenty years of age permits a slave over whom he has the right of pledge to be manumitted, the manumission is legal; because he is not understood to have actually liberated him, but only not to have interfered with his manumission.