Ad Plautium libri
Ex libro VIII
Dig. 5,1,29Idem libro octavo ad Plautium. Qui appellat prior, agit.
The Same, On Plautius, Book VIII. The party who first makes application is the plaintiff.
Dig. 16,1,18Paulus libro octavo ad Plautium. Idem et si pro debitore meo Titius et mulier duo rei intercesserint.
Paulus, On Plautius, Book VIII. The same rule applies where Titius and the woman become sureties, as two debtors, for my debtor.
Dig. 29,3,5Paulus libro octavo ad Plautium. vel negare se signasse: publice enim expedit suprema hominum iudicia exitum habere.
Paulus, On Plautius, Book VIII. Or deny that they have sealed the will; for it is expedient that the last will of men should be carried into effect.
Dig. 31,4Idem libro octavo ad Plautium. Neminem eiusdem rei legatae sibi partem velle, partem nolle verius est.
The Same, On Plautius, Book VIII. The better opinion is that no one can accept a portion of a legacy, and reject the remainder of the same.
Dig. 31,7Idem libro octavo ad Plautium. Si Titio et ei qui capere non potest decem legata sint, quia duobus heres dare damnatur et unus capere non potest, quinque sola Titio dantur.
The Same, On Plautius, Book VIII. If ten aurei are bequeathed to Titius and another party who cannot legally receive them, as the heir is obliged to pay both the legatees, where one cannot receive the legacy, only five aurei shall be paid to Titius.
Dig. 33,5,13Paulus libro octavo ad Plautium. Si optio servi data mihi fuerit et Sticho aliquid testator sine libertate legasset, tunc sequens legatum consistit, cum tota familia ad unum, id est Stichum recciderit, ut quasi pure legato utiliter sit legatum. nec adversatur Catoniana, si voluntarius heres institutus sit, quia potest ante aditam hereditatem, etiamsi statim decesserit, familia minui: quod si necessarius heres institutus sit, sequens legatum propter Catonianam inutile est. 1Pomponius scribit emptore hereditatis postulante, ut is, cui servi optio legata sit, optet, videndum esse, an praetor ut id faciat cogere debeat legatarium, quemadmodum si heres institutus id postularet, quia potest per heredem id emptor consequi: et quare non possit, non video.
Paulus, On Plautius, Book VIII. Where the selection of a slave is left to me, and the testator bequeaths something to Stichus without granting him his freedom, the second legacy will only stand where the entire body of slaves is reduced to one individual, that is to say, Stichus; and the legacy will be valid, just as if it was bequeathed unconditionally. The opinion of Cato cannot be quoted in opposition to this, if a voluntary heir has been appointed, for the reason that the body of slaves may be diminished before the estate is entered upon, even if the testator should die immediately. Where, however, a necessary heir is appointed, the second legacy will be void in accordance with the rule of Cato. 1Pomponius says that where the purchaser of an estate asks that the party to whom the choice of slaves has been bequeathed shall make his selection, it should be considered whether the Prætor must compel the legatee to do so, just as if the appointed heir should make such a demand, for the reason that the purchaser can accomplish this by applying to the heir. I do not see why it cannot be done.
Dig. 34,2,7Paulus libro octavo ad Plautium. Si ita esset legatum: ‘vestem meam, argentum meum damnas esto dare’, id legatum videtur, quod testamenti tempore fuisset, quia praesens tempus semper intellegeretur, si aliud comprehensum non esset: nam cum dicit ‘vestem meam’, ‘argentum meum’, hac demonstratione ‘meum’ praesens, non futurum tempus ostendit. idem est et si quis ita legaverit ‘servos meos’.
Paulus, On Plautius, Book VIII. When a bequest is made as follows, “Let my heir be charged to give my clothing and silver plate,” whatever belonged to the testator when he executed his will will be considered to have been bequeathed; for the reason that the present time is always understood to have been meant, where something else is not included; for when he says, “My clothing and silver plate,” by the pronoun “my” he indicates the present and not the future. The same rule will apply where anyone makes a bequest of “My slaves.”
Dig. 35,1,43Paulus libro octavo ad Plautium. Plautius. Rogatus est heres a liberto testatore, ut perceptis sibi decem totam hereditatem revenderet: postea patronus defuncti bonorum possessionem contra tabulas petierat et partem hereditatis, quae debebatur, abstulerat. Proculus Cassius fideicommissarium pro rata quod solvit repetere debere aiunt. Paulus. Hoc iure utimur: nam quemadmodum praestatione fideicommissorum et legatorum heres exoneratur per praetorem, ita etiam ipse partem consequi debet. 1Diversum est, si Falcidia interveniat et minuat legatum: nam his casibus nihil repetetur, quia in solidum condicioni paretur. 2Item scinditur ius dandi, si is cui legatum est non potest partem hereditatis sibi relictam totam capere: nam verius est partem eum praestare debere, partem illos, qui auferunt ab eo, quod plus relictum est, quam a lege conceditur. 3Neratius libro primo responsorum scribit, ex duobus scriptis heredibus si unus rogatus sit tibi hereditatem restituere, tu Titio certam summam dare, et beneficio legis Falcidiae in restituendo heres utatur, quanto minus tibi praestiterit, tanto minus te Titio praestare non esse iniquum.
Paulus, On Plautius, Book VIII. Plautius: An heir was charged by the testator, who was a freedman, to sell the entire estate and reserve ten aurei for himself. The patron of the deceased subsequently claimed possession of the estate in opposition to the will, and took that portion of the same to which he was entitled by law. Proculus and Cassius say that the beneficiary can recover from the heir a sum in proportion to what he himself has paid. Paulus: This is the present practice, for as an heir, through the payment of trusts and legacies, is discharged from liability by the Prætor, so also he should receive his share of the same. 1The case is different where the Falcidian Law applies, and reduces the amount of the legacies, since in instances of this kind nothing can be recovered, because the condition has been entirely complied with. 2Likewise, the right of payment is restricted where the party to whom the bequest was made cannot take the entire share of the estate which may be left to him, for the better opinion is that he should pay a part, and that those also should pay a part whose shares have been increased by the amount taken from him to whom more had been left than is allowed by law. 3Neratius, in the First Book of Opinions, states that where two heirs have been appointed, and one of them is requested to deliver the estate to you, and you are asked to pay a certain sum to Titius, and the heir avails himself of the benefit of the Falcidian Law in delivering the property, it is not inequitable that you should pay as much less to Titius as the heir ought to pay to you.
Dig. 37,1,8Paulus libro octavo ad Plautium. Tutor autem bonorum possessionem pupillo competentem repudiare non potest, quia tutori petere permissum est, non etiam repudiare.
Paulus, On Plautius, Book VIII. Moreover, a guardian cannot reject the prætorian possession of an estate to which his ward is entitled, because a guardian is permitted to claim it, but not to reject it.
Dig. 37,11,10Paulus libro octavo ad Plautium. Si servus sub condicione heres institutus sit, an bonorum possessionem accipere potest, dubitatur. et Scaevola noster probat posse.
Paulus, On Plautius, Book VIII. When a slave is appointed an heir conditionally, there is some doubt as to whether he can obtain prætorian possession of the estate, or not. Our Scævola holds that he can obtain it.
Dig. 37,12,3Paulus libro octavo ad Plautium. Paconius ait: si turpes personas, veluti meretricem, a parente emancipatus et manumissus heredes fecisset, totorum bonorum contra tabulas possessio parenti datur: aut constitutae partis, si non turpis heres esset institutus. 1Si filius emancipatus testamento suo patrem suum praeterierit sive heredem instituerit, fideicommissa non cogetur pater praestare ex sua parte, quae ei debetur, etiamsi adierit hereditatem. sed et si filia vel neptis manumissa sit et pater vel avus praeteritus petat bonorum possessionem, eadem quae in filio dicenda sunt.
Paulus, On Plautius, Book VIII. Paconius says that if a son who had been emancipated and manumitted by his father should appoint some disreputable persons his heirs (as, for instance, prostitutes), possession of his entire estate contrary to the provisions of the will shall be given to his father; otherwise he would be entitled to only half of the estate, if a disreputable heir had not been appointed. 1If an emancipated son should pass his father over in his will, or should appoint him his heir, the father will not be obliged to execute any trust, so far as the share of the estate to which he is entitled is concerned, even if he enters upon it. Where, however, a daughter or a granddaughter is manumitted, and the father or grandfather, having been passed over in the will, demands prætorian possession of the estate, the same rule will apply as in the case of a son.
Dig. 39,2,21Paulus libro octavo ad Plautium. Si filius familias inquilinus sit, videamus, an damni infecti nomine in possessionem aedium vicinarum mittendus sit (quaeritur enim, an filius familias non videtur damnum pati, si res peculiares sint) et pater possit stipulari, si quid ei damni fiat. et placet utrumque eorum in possessionem mitti, nisi sic filius conduxerat, ut eius periculo aedes essent: tunc enim, quia solus tenetur ex locato, recte dicetur ipsum mittendum in possessionem, nisi ei caveatur.
Paulus, On Plautius, Book VIII. Where a son under paternal control is a tenant, let us see whether he can be placed in possession of a neighboring house on account of threatened injury; for the question arises whether a son under paternal control is not considered to sustain damage, when his property consists of his peculium, and his father can enter into a stipulation to provide against any damage which he may suffer. It is established that both of them should be placed in possession, unless the son, when he rented the house, agreed that it should be at his risk; for then, as he alone is liable under the lease, it is very properly held that he himself should be placed in possession, if security is not given him.
Dig. 42,4,11Paulus libro octavo ad Plautium. Si filio familias legatum vel fideicommissum sub condicione relictum sit, dicendum est tam ipsum quam patrem in possessionem mittendos esse, quia ambo spem commodi habent.
Paulus, On Plautius, Book VIII. Where a legacy or a trust has been conditionally bequeathed to a son under paternal control, it must be said that he himself, as well as his father, ought to be placed in possession, for the reason that both of them anticipate a benefit.
Dig. 45,2,17Paulus libro octavo ad Plautium. Sive a certis personis heredum nominatim legatum esset, sive ab omnibus excepto aliquo, Atilicinus Sabinus Cassius pro hereditariis partibus totum eos legatum debituros aiunt, quia hereditas eos obligat. idem est, cum omnes heredes nominantur.
Ad Dig. 45,2,17Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. III, § 626, Note 11.Paulus, On Plautius, Book VIII. Where certain heirs are specifically charged with a legacy, or all are charged excepting one, Atilicinus, Sabinus and Cassius say that they are all liable for the legacy in proportion to their respective shares of the estate, because the estate binds them. The same rule applies where all the heirs are mentioned.
Dig. 45,3,31Idem libro octavo ad Plautium. Si iussu fructuarii aut bonae fidei possessoris servus stipuletur, ex quibus causis non solet iis adquiri, domino adquirit. non idem dicetur, si nomen ipsorum in stipulatione positum sit.
The Same, On Plautius, Book VIII. If a slave stipulates by order of an usufructuary, or a bona fide possessor, under such circumstances that he cannot acquire for them, he will acquire for his master. The same rule does not apply if their names are inserted in the stipulation.
Dig. 46,3,62Idem libro octavo ad Plautium. Dispensatorem meum testamento liberum esse iussi et peculium ei legavi: is post mortem meam a debitoribus pecunias exegit: an heres meus retinere ex peculio eius quod exegit possit, quaeritur. et si quidem post aditam hereditatem exegerit pecuniam, dubitari non debet, quin de peculio eo nomine retineri nihil debeat, quia liber factus incipit debere, si liberantur solutione debitores. cum vero ante aditam hereditatem pecuniam accepit dispensator, si quidem liberantur debitores ipsa solutione, non est dubium, quin de peculio id retinendum sit, quia incipit debere hic heredi quasi negotiorum gestorum vel mandati actione. si vero non liberantur, illa quaestio est: cum negotium meum gerens a debitoribus meis acceperis, deinde ego ratum non habuero et mox agere velim negotiorum gestorum actione, an utiliter agam, si caveam te indemnem futurum. quod quidem ego non puto: nam sublata est negotiorum gestorum actio eo, quod ratum non habui: et per hoc debitor mihi constituitur.
The Same, On Plautius, Book VIII. I directed my steward to be free by my will, and I bequeathed him his peculium. After my death, he collected money from my debtors. The question arises whether my heir can withhold what he collected from his peculium. If he collected the money after the estate had been entered upon, there can be no duobt that he cannot deduct it from his peculium on this account; because, having been made free, he will become liable himself if the debtors of the estate are released by payment. But if the steward received the money before the estate was entered upon, and the debtors were released by the payment of the same, the amount unquestionably can be deducted from the peculium, because the steward begins to be indebted to the heir by having transacted his business, or complied with his mandate. If, however, the debtors are not released, and, in transacting my business, you were paid by them, and I did not afterwards ratify your act, and then, if I wish to bring an action on the ground of voluntary agency, the question arises whether I can do so properly if I give security to indemnify you against loss. I do not think that this is the case, for suit on the ground of voluntary agency cannot be brought, for the reason that I have not ratified the transaction, and hence the debtors remain liable, to me.
Dig. 50,17,174Idem libro octavo ad Plautium. Qui potest facere, ut possit condicioni parere, iam posse videtur. 1Quod quis si velit habere non potest, id repudiare non potest.
The Same, On Plautius, Book VIII. He can act who already appears able to comply with the condition. 1Anything which a person cannot have, even if he wishes it, he cannot reject.