Responsorum libri
Ex libro XII
Dig. 28,2,25Idem libro duodecimo responsorum. Titius testamento heredem instituit et filium habens sic exheredationem posuit: ‘ceteri omnes filii filiaeque meae exheredes sunto’. Paulus respondit filium recte exheredatum videri. postea consultus, an videatur exheredatus, quem pater putavit decessisse, respondit filios et filias nominatim exheredatos proponi: de errore autem patris, qui intercessisse proponitur, apud iudicem agi oportere. 1Lucius Titius cum suprema sua ordinaret in civitate et haberet neptem ex filia praegnatem rure agentem, scripsit id quod in utero haberet ex parte heredem: quaero, cum ipsa die, qua Titius ordinaret testamentum in civitate hora diei sexta, eodem die albescente caelo rure sit enixa Maevia masculum, an institutio heredis valeat, cum, quo tempore scriberetur testamentum, iam editus esset partus. Paulus respondit verba quidem testamenti ad eum pronepotem directa videri, qui post testamentum factum nasceretur: sed si, ut proponitur, eadem die qua testamentum factum est neptis testatoris antequam testamentum scriberetur enixa esset, licet ignorante testatore, tamen institutionem iure factum videri recte responderi.
The Same, Opinions, Book XII. Titius appointed an heir by will, and having a son disinherited him, as follows: “Let all my other sons and daughters be disinherited.” Paulus was of the opinion that the son seemed to have been legally disinherited. Afterwards, having been asked whether a son whom his father believed to be dead could have been held to have been disinherited, he answered that, in accordance with the case stated, the sons and daughters were specifically disinherited, but, with reference to the case of the father who was mistaken with reference to the death of his son, the point should be determined in court. 1Lucius Titius, while drawing up his last will in the City, had a granddaughter by his daughter who was at that time in the country, and pregnant, stated that her unborn child should be heir to a portion of his estate. I ask, if on the very day when Titius drew up his will in town, about the sixth hour, his granddaughter Mævia brought forth a male child in the country; whether such an appointment was valid, since at the time when the will was drawn up the child had already been born? Paulus answered that the terms of the will seemed to have reference to a great-grandchild to be born after the execution of the will; but if, as in the case stated, the granddaughter of the testator was born upon the same day on which the will was executed, and before it was drawn up, even though the testator may have been ignorant of the fact, still, the appointment must be held to have been legally made; and this opinion is in accordance with law.
Dig. 28,6,45Idem libro duodecimo responsorum. Lucius Titius legitimum filium et alterum naturalem heredes instituit eosque invicem substituit: Titianus legitimus filius, quem pater anniculum reliquit, post patris mortem impubes decessit superstite matre et fratre naturali, quem etiam coheredem habebat: quaero an hereditas eius ad Titium naturalem fratrem ex causa substitutionis pertineat an vero ad matrem. respondi ad primum casum non existentium heredum substitutionem de qua quaeritur pertinere, non ad sequentem, si quis eorum postea decessisset intra pubertatem, cum in naturalis filii persona duplex substitutio locum habere non poterit: et ideo ad matrem legitimi filii hereditas ab intestato pertinet. 1Paulus respondit, si omnes instituti heredes omnibus invicem substituti essent, eius portionem, qui quibusdam defunctis postea portionem suam repudiavit, ad eum solum, qui eo tempore supervixit, ex substitutione pertinere.
The Same, Opinions, Book XII. Lucius Titius appointed as his heirs his legitimate son and a natural son, and substituted them for one another. The legitimate son, Titius, whom his father left only a year old, died after the death of his father without reaching the age of puberty, being survived by his mother, and his natural brother who was also his co-heir. I ask whether his estate will belong to his natural brother, by virtue of the substitution, or will it go to his mother. I answered that the substitution in question relates to the first case where the parties appointed are not heirs, and not to the second where one of the heirs died subsequently under the age of puberty; because double substitution cannot exist in the person of the natural son, and therefore the estate will belong to the mother of the legitimate son ab intestato. 1Paulus gave it as his opinion that, “If all the appointed heirs were substituted for one another, the portion of one of them who, after some of his co-heirs have died, rejected his share, will, by virtue of the substitution, belong to the heir alone who was living at the time”.
Dig. 29,2,90Paulus libro duodecimo responsorum. Respondit per curatorem hereditatem adquiri non posse. 1Idem respondit, si iussu avi nepos patris, qui de castrensi peculio testamentum fecit, hereditatem adisset, adquisisse ei ea de quibus pater testari potest, quia castrensia esse mutatione personae desierint.
Paulus, Opinions, Book XII. Ad Dig. 29,2,90 pr.Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. III, § 596, Note 11.Paulus holds that an estate cannot be acquired through the intervention of a curator. 1He also gives it as his opinion that if a grandson should enter upon the estate of his father who made a will disposing of his castrense peculium by the order of his grandfather, he will acquire for the benefit of his grandfather all that his father was able to dispose of by will; because castrensial property ceases to be such by the change of persons.
Dig. 35,1,83Paulus libro duodecimo responsorum. Lucius Titius ita testamentum fecit: ‘Aurelius Claudius natus ex illa muliere, si filium meum se esse iudici probaverit, heres mihi esto’. Paulus respondit filium de quo quaereretur non sub ea condicione institutum videri, quae in potestate eius est, et ideo testamentum nullius esse momenti.
Paulus, Opinions, Book XII. Lucius Titius made a will as follows, “Let Aurelius Claudius, the son of such-and-such a woman, be my heir, if he proves in court that he is my son.” Paulus gave it as his opinion that the son in question did not appear to have been appointed under any condition which it was in his power to comply with, and therefore that the will was of no force or effect.