Paulus, Questions, Book XII. When anyone appoints himself the heir in a will by which he is directed to deliver the estate to someone else, the trust with its burden will still remain imposed upon him, even though what he has done will be considered as not having been written. The same rule also applies to the will of a soldier.

Paulus, Questions, Book XII. Where a ward who has borrowed ten aurei without the authority of his guardian receives a legacy from his creditor on condition that lie will pay his heir the ten aurei which he borrowed, and he does so in one payment, he will both comply with the condition and be released from a natural obligation, so that the Falcidian Law will also apply to the money paid to the heir; although this would not be the case if it had been paid only for the purpose of complying with the condition. Moreover, this is considered a payment to such an extent that if the legacy should be rejected, or the slave Stichus, who was bequeathed, should die, the ward cannot recover anything. 1If my slave and myself are appointed heirs to unequal shares of an estate, and the three-fourths of the share of the slave are not exhausted by the payment of legacies, those legatees in whose favor I am charged will be benefited, in opposition to the Falcidian Law, by the amount which will come into my hands out of the share of the slave in excess of the Falcidian portion of his share. On the other hand, if a slave is bequeathed to my slave, and ten aurei are bequeathed to me, the Falcidian portion of the slave will not, in conformity with the Falcidian Law, be deducted from the ten aurei bequeathed to me, for I shall retain the fourth of the person of the slave, even though my share of the bequest may not be exhausted.

Paulus, Questions, Book XII. A father sent a letter from a province to his son, whom he knew to be at Rome, by which he permitted him to liberate before a magistrate any slave whom he might select out of those whom he had with him for his personal service, and the son subsequently manumitted Stichus in the presence of the Prætor. I ask whether he rendered him free? The answer was, why should we not believe that the father could authorize his son to manumit any slaves which he had for his personal service? For he only granted his son the privilege of making a choice, and, as for the rest, he himself manumitted the slave.

Paulus, Questions, Book XII. Freedom cannot be granted for a certain time.

Paulus, Questions, Book XII. The Emperors to Missenius Fronto. Freedom having been granted by the will of a soldier in the following terms, “I wish or I order my slave Stephen to be free,” the slave can obtain his freedom whenever the estate is entered upon. Therefore, when the following words were added, “Provided, nevertheless, that he remains with my heir as long as he is a young man, but if he refuses to do so, or treats my proposal with contempt, let him continue to be held as a slave,” they do not have the effect of revoking the freedom to which the slave was entitled. The same rule is observed with reference to the wills of civilians.

Paulus, Questions, Book XII. “Licinnius Rufinus, to Julius Paulus: A slave who was entitled to freedom under the terms of a trust, permitted himself to be sold after having reached his twentieth year. I ask whether he shall be forbidden to demand his freedom.” The example of a man who is free causes me some difficulty; for if the slave should have permitted himself to be sold after having obtained his freedom, he would be refused permission to demand it; nor should he be understood to be in a better position when, being in slavery, he permitted himself to be sold, than if he had done so after having obtained his freedom. On the other hand, however, a difficulty arises, because in the case in question the sale is valid and the man can be sold, but in the case of a freeman the sale is void, and there is nothing to be sold. Therefore, I ask that you give me the most complete information on this point. The answer was that the sale of a slave as well as that of a man who is free can be contracted for, and a stipulation providing against eviction can be entered into. For, in this instance, we do not refer to anyone who knowingly purchases a man who is free, as a right to demand his freedom is not refused him as against the purchaser. He, however, who is still a slave, can be sold even against his own consent, although he is acting fraudulently when he conceals his condition, as it is in his power immediately to obtain his freedom, but he cannot be blamed when he is not yet entitled to be free. Suppose that a slave, who is to be free conditionally, suffers himself to be sold; no one will say that he has not the right to demand his freedom, in case the condition, which is not in his power, should be fulfilled; and, indeed, I think that the same rule will apply if it was in his power to comply with it. In the case proposed, it will be better to adopt the opinion that he should not be permitted to demand his freedom, if he could have done so, and preferred to let himself be sold; because he is unworthy of the aid of the Prætor having jurisdiction over trusts.