Corpus iurisprudentiae Romanae

Repertorium zu den Quellen des römischen Rechts

Digesta Iustiniani Augusti

Recognovit Mommsen (1870) et retractavit Krüger (1928)
Convertit in Anglica lingua Scott (1932)
Pomp.fideic.
Fideicommissorum lib.Pomponii Fideicommissorum libri

Fideicommissorum libri

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50

Ex libro I

Dig. 32,16Pom­po­nius li­bro pri­mo fi­dei­com­mis­so­rum. Sae­pe le­ga­tum ple­nius re­sti­tue­tur fi­dei­com­mis­sa­rio quam es­set re­lic­tum, vel­uti si al­lu­vio­ne ager auc­tus es­set vel et­iam in­su­lae na­tae.

Ad Dig. 32,16Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 188, Note 2.Pomponius, Trusts, Book I. The property left under a trust is very frequently delivered to the beneficiary in a better condition than it was when bequeathed; as for instance, where a field has been increased by alluvial deposit, or where an island has arisen.

Dig. 32,18Pom­po­nius li­bro pri­mo fi­dei­com­mis­so­rum. Si iu­re tes­ta­men­to fac­to fi­dei­com­mis­sum ti­bi re­li­que­ro, de­in­de post­ea aliud fe­ce­ro non iu­re, in quo fi­dei­com­mis­sum re­lic­tum ti­bi vel aliud quam quod prio­re tes­ta­men­to vel om­ni­no non sit re­lic­tum, vi­den­dum est, mens mea haec fue­rit fa­cien­tis post­ea tes­ta­men­tum, ut no­lim ra­tum ti­bi sit prio­re tes­ta­men­to re­lic­tum, quia nu­da vo­lun­ta­te fi­dei­com­mis­sa in­fir­ma­ren­tur. sed vix id op­ti­ne­re pot­est, for­tas­sis id­eo, quod ita de­mum a prio­re tes­ta­men­to ve­lim re­ce­di, si pos­te­rius va­li­tu­rum sit et nunc ex pos­te­rio­re tes­ta­men­to fi­dei­com­mis­sum ei non de­be­tur, et­iam­si idem he­redes utro­que tes­ta­men­to in­sti­tu­ti ex prio­re ex­sti­te­runt.

Pomponius, Trusts, Book I. If, having executed a will according to law, I leave you a trust, and then afterwards I make another will without observing the required formalities, by which I do not leave you a trust, or if I do, I leave you one entirely different from that included in the first will; it must be considered whether it was my intention, when I made my second will, to deprive you of what was bequeathed by the first, because trusts are annulled by the mere intention. This, however, is difficult to establish as perhaps I may not have intended to revoke the first will, unless the second should be valid, and now the trust in the second will will not be valid, even though the same heirs were appointed by both wills, and entered upon the estate under the first one.

Dig. 33,7,21Pom­po­nius li­bro pri­mo fi­dei­com­mis­so­rum. Cum fun­dus si­ne in­stru­men­to le­ga­tus sit, do­lia mo­lae oli­va­riae et prae­lum et quae­cum­que in­fi­xa in­ae­di­fi­ca­ta­que sunt fun­do le­ga­to con­ti­nen­tur, nul­la au­tem ex his re­bus quae mo­ve­ri pos­sunt pau­cis ex­cep­tis fun­di ap­pel­la­tio­ne con­ti­nen­tur. de mo­lis tum quae­ri so­let, cum ita ad­fi­xae ita­ve in­ae­di­fi­ca­tae sint, ut par­tes ae­di­fi­cio­rum es­se vi­dean­tur.

Pomponius, Trusts, Book I. Where a tract of land is devised without its equipment, the casks, olive-mills, presses, and everything else fastened to or built upon the land, are included in the devise; but none of these things which can be moved are, with very few exceptions, included under the designation real-property. Where any question arises concerning mills attached to the land, or erected upon it, they are considered as parts of the buildings.

Ex libro II

Dig. 35,2,31Pom­po­nius li­bro se­cun­do fi­dei­com­mis­so­rum. Is cui fi­dei­com­mis­sum sol­vi­tur sic­ut is cui le­ga­tum est sa­tis­da­re de­bet, quod am­plius ce­pe­rit, quam per le­gem Fal­ci­diam ei li­cue­rit, red­di: vel­uti cum prop­ter con­di­cio­nem alio­rum fi­dei­com­mis­so­rum vel le­ga­to­rum le­gis Fal­ci­diae cau­sa pen­de­bit. sed et se­cun­dum Cas­sii et ve­te­rum opi­nio­nem, si a pu­pil­lo fi­dei­com­mis­sa ca­piun­tur, prop­ter ea, quae a sub­sti­tu­to erunt re­lic­ta, ca­ve­re de­be­bit is cui sol­va­tur. nam quam­vis re­pe­ti­tio sit eo­rum, quae fi­dei­com­mis­si no­mi­ne non de­bi­ta sol­ven­tur, ta­men sa­tis­da­to cau­tum de­bet es­se ei, a quo pe­cu­nia pro­fi­cis­ce­re­tur, ne dam­num sen­tiat de­fi­cien­te eo, cui so­lu­tum erit.

Pomponius, Trusts, Book II. The person to whom payment is made in compliance with the terms of a trust, just as one to whom a legacy is bequeathed, is obliged to give security to return anything which he receives in excess of what he is entitled to under the Falcidian Law; as, for example, where the amount due under the Falcidian Law is still in suspense, on account of the condition upon which other trusts or legacies are dependent not having yet been fulfilled. But, according to the opinion of Cassius and the ancient authorities, where a minor is charged with a trust, he to whom the amount is paid should furnish security with reference to the property with which the substitute was charged; for although there may be a repetition of what has been paid under the provisions of the trust, which really is not due, still it is more satisfactory for security to be given to him by whom the money is paid, so that he may not sustain any loss through the party who receives it becoming insolvent.

Dig. 36,1,72Pom­po­nius li­bro se­cun­do fi­dei­com­mis­so­rum. Si he­res in­sti­tu­tus Ti­tio ro­ga­tus fue­rit re­sti­tue­re he­redi­ta­tem et rur­sus Ti­tius he­redi post tem­pus, suf­fi­ciunt di­rec­tae ac­tio­nes he­redi. 1Si he­res an­te­quam fi­dei­com­mis­sam he­redi­ta­tem re­sti­tue­ret, alie­na­ve­rit quid ex he­redi­ta­te aut ser­vum he­redi­ta­rium ma­nu­mi­se­rit aut ru­pe­rit quid vel fre­ge­rit vel us­se­rit, non com­pe­tit in eum ul­la ci­vi­lis ac­tio re­sti­tu­ta post­ea he­redi­ta­te ex Tre­bel­lia­no se­na­tus con­sul­to, sed ex fi­dei­com­mis­si cau­sa erit hoc quod de­per­ie­rit per­se­quen­dum. sin ve­ro post re­sti­tu­tam he­redi­ta­tem ho­rum quid ad­mi­se­rit he­res, di­cen­dum est le­ge Aqui­lia cum eo agi pos­se, si ser­vum for­te he­redi­ta­rium aut vul­ne­ra­ve­rit aut oc­ci­de­rit. 2Si tem­po­ra­lis ac­tio in he­redi­ta­te re­lic­ta fue­rit, tem­pus, quo he­res ex­per­i­ri an­te re­sti­tu­tam he­redi­ta­tem po­tuit, im­pu­ta­bi­tur ei cui re­sti­tu­ta fue­rit.

Pomponius, Trusts, Book II. If an appointed heir is asked to transfer the estate to Titius, and Titius is asked to return it to the heir after a certain time, direct actions will be sufficient to establish the rights of the heir. 1If the heir, before he transfers the estate left in trust, alienates any portion of the same, or manumits a slave belonging to the estate, or destroys, breaks, or burns any of the property, no civil action can be brought against him, if he transfers the estate afterwards under the Trebellian Decree of the Senate, but suit can be brought against him under the trust, on account of the property which has been destroyed. If, however, the heir has committed any of these offences after the estate has been delivered, it must be held that he can be sued under the Aquilian Law; for instance, if he has either wounded or killed a slave belonging to the estate. 2If a temporary right of action is bequeathed to the estate, the time in which the heir could have brought it before transferring the estate will be charged against the person to whom the estate was transferred.

Ex libro III

Dig. 40,5,34Pom­po­nius li­bro ter­tio fi­dei­com­mis­so­rum. In­vi­tus is, cui fi­dei­com­mis­so li­ber­tas re­lic­ta est, non est tra­den­dus alii, ut ab eo ma­nu­mit­ta­tur et fiat al­te­rius li­ber­tus, quam qui ro­ga­tus est ma­nu­mit­te­re. 1Cam­pa­nus ait, si mi­nor an­nis vi­gin­ti ro­ga­ve­rit he­redem, ut pro­prium ser­vum ma­nu­mit­tat, prae­stan­dam ei li­ber­ta­tem, quia hic lex Ae­lia Sen­tia lo­cum non ha­bet. 2Ser­vus le­ga­tus erat Cal­pur­nio Flac­co is­que ro­ga­tus erat eum ma­nu­mit­te­re et, si non ma­nu­mis­sis­set, idem ser­vus Ti­tio le­ga­tus erat et is ae­que ro­ga­tus erat, ut eum ma­nu­mit­te­ret: si non ma­nu­mis­sis­set, li­ber es­se ius­sus erat. Sa­b­inus di­cit in­uti­li­ter le­ga­tum fo­re et ex tes­ta­men­to eum con­ti­nuo li­be­rum fu­tu­rum.

Pomponius, Trusts, Book III. When the person to whom a slave is left to be liberated under a trust is unwilling, the slave should not be delivered to him in order to be manumitted; but he can become the freedman of another than the one who was requested to emancipate him. 1Campanus says that if a minor of twenty years of age should ask his heir to manumit a slave who belongs to him, his freedom must be granted; because, in this instance, the Lex Ælia Sentia does not apply. 2A slave was bequeathed to Calpurnius Flaccus, who was charged to manumit him, and if he refused, the same slave was bequeathed to Titius, who was also charged to manumit him; and if he should fail to do so, the slave was ordered to be free. Sabinus says that the legacy is void, and that the slave will become free immediately by the terms of the will.

Ex libro IV

Dig. 36,1,74Pom­po­nius li­bro quar­to fi­dei­com­mis­so­rum. He­res prae­cep­to fun­do ro­ga­tus erat he­redi­ta­tem re­sti­tue­re: fun­dus alie­nus erat. Aris­to aie­bat vi­den­dum, utrum om­ni­mo­do pe­nes he­redem fun­dum es­se vo­luit tes­ta­tor an ita de­mum, si ip­sius est: sed si­bi su­pe­rius pla­ce­re: id­eo­que aes­ti­ma­tio eius re­ti­nen­da est.

Pomponius, Trusts, Book IV. When an heir was charged to transfer an estate, after reserving a certain tract of land which belonged to someone else, Aristo says that it should be ascertained whether the testator intended that the said land should belong absolutely to the heir, or only in case it was ascertained to belong to himself. He holds that the former opinion should be adopted, and therefore that the estimated value of the land should be reserved from the estate.