Digestorum libri
Ex libro XXIII
Dig. 33,7,28Scaevola libro vicesimo tertio digestorum. Lucius Titius fundum, uti erat instructus, legaverat. quaesitum est, fundus instructus quemadmodum dari debeat, utrum sic ut instructus fuit mortis patris familiae tempore, ut quae medio tempore adgnata aut in fundum illata sunt heredis sint? an vero instructus fundus eo tempore inspici debeat, quo factum est testamentum? an vero eo tempore, quo fundus peti coeperit, ut quidquid eo tempore instrumenti deprehendatur, legatario proficiat? respondit ea quibus instructus sit fundus secundum verba legati quae sint in eadem causa, cum dies legati cedat, instrumento contineri.
The Same, Digest, Book XXIII. Lucius Titius devised a tract of land with all its equipment. The question arose how it should be delivered, whether as it was equipped at the time of the death of the testator, so that any slaves born, or taken to the land in the meantime should belong to the heir; or whether as it was equipped at the time that the will was executed; or whether it should be delivered in the condition it was when the land was claimed, so that any of the equipment found there at the time would be for the benefit of the legatee. The answer was that, in accordance with the terms of the legacy, the property found on the land at the time the devise was made, and which was in the same condition when the will was opened, would be included in the equipment.
Dig. 40,4,29Scaevola libro vicensimo tertio digestorum. Uxorem praegnatem repudiaverat et aliam duxerat: prior enixa filium exposuit: hic sublatus ab alio educatus est nomine patris vocitatus usque: ad vitae tempus patris tam ab eo quam a matre, an vivorum numero esset, ignorabatur: mortuo patre testamentoque eius, quo filius neque exheredatus neque heres institutus sit, recitato filius et a matre et ab avia paterna adgnitus hereditatem patris ab intestato quasi legitimus possidet. quaesitum est, hi qui testamento libertatem acceperunt utrum liberi an servi sint. respondit filium quidem nihil praeiudicii passum fuisse, si pater eum ignoravit, et ideo, cum in potestate et ignorantis patris esset, testamentum non valere. servi autem manumissi si per quinquennium in libertate morati sunt, semel datam libertatem infirmari contrarium studium favore libertatis est.
Scævola, Digest, Book XXIII. A man repudiated his wife, who was pregnant, and married another. The first one, having had a son, exposed it, and it was taken away and brought up by another, and bore the name of its father; but both the father and mother during their lives remained ignorant that it was living. The father died, and his will having been read, it was held that the son was neither disinherited nor appointed an heir by the will, and he, having been recognized by his mother and his paternal grandmother, obtained the estate of his father on the ground of intestacy, as the heir at law. The question arose whether the slaves who obtained their freedom under the will were free, or not. The answer was that the son should not suffer any wrong, if his father did not know that he was living, and therefore, as he was under the control of his father, who was not aware of the fact, the will was not valid. But if manumitted slaves remain for five years in a state of freedom, the favor with which liberty is regarded does not permit that when it has once been granted them it shall be revoked.
Dig. 40,4,59Scaevola libro vicensimo tertio digestorum. Titia servis quibusdam et ancillis nominatim directas libertates dedit, deinde ita scripsit: ‘et pedisequas omnes, quarum nomina in rationibus meis scripta sunt, liberas esse volo’. quaesitum est, an Eutychia, quae testamenti facti tempore inter pedisequas libertatem acceperat, mortis autem tempore inveniatur actori in contubernio tradita, ex generali capite pedisequarum libertatem consequi posset. respondit nihil impediri libertatem pedisequae, quod mortis demum tempore pedisequa esse desiit. 1Puram et directam domini sui testamento libertatem Stichus acceperat et ex hereditate multa per fraudem amovisse dicitur: quaesitum est, an non ante in libertatem proclamare debeat, quam ea, quae ex hereditate amovisse probari poterit, heredibus restitueret. respondit secundum ea, quae proponerentur, eum de quo quaereretur liberum esse. Claudius: videtur absolvisse et id de quo quaeritur: nam heredibus satis consultum est edicto de furtis. 2Lucius Titius testamento suo ita cavit: ‘Onesiphore, nisi diligenter rationem excusseris, liber ne esto’: quaero, an Onesiphorus ex his verbis libertatem sibi vindicare possit. respondit verbis, quae proponerentur, libertatem adimi potius quam dari.
Scævola, Digest, Book XXIII. Titia bequeathed freedom directly to certain of her male and female slaves, and then inserted the following provision in her will, “And I wish all the slaves attached to my personal service, whose names are inscribed in my registers, to be free.” The question arose whether Eutychia who, along with the other personal slaves, was emancipated at the time when the will was executed, and who, when the testatrix died, was married to a steward who was a slave, would obtain her freedom under the general head of “Slaves attached to my personal service.” The answer was that there was nothing to prevent her obtaining her freedom, even though at the time of the death of the testatrix she had ceased to be one of her attendants. 1Stichus received his freedom directly by the will of his master, and was accused of having fraudulently secreted much of the property of the estate. The question arose if, before he could demand his freedom, he should not restore to the heirs the property which he was proved to have taken. The answer was that, according to the facts stated, the slave in question should be free. Claudius: The point raised seems to have been finally disposed of, for the interest of the heirs will be sufficiently consulted by having recourse to the Edict concerning thefts. 2Lucius Titius provided by his will, “Onesiphorus shall not be free unless he renders an exact account of his administration.” I ask whether Onesiphorus can demand his freedom by virtue of these words? The answer was that, in accordance with what is stated, he is rather deprived of freedom than granted it.
Dig. 40,5,18Scaevola libro vicensimo tertio digestorum. Testamento ita cavit: ‘Pamphilus, si bene se gesserit rationibus meis, liber esto’: quaesitum est, cum manente eodem testamento post aliquot annos decesserit nec ullae querellae locus de Pamphilo circa rationes patroni sit, an ex testamento libertatem sit consecutus. respondit nihil proponi, cur non sit consecutus.
Scævola, Digest, Book XXIII. The following provision was inserted in a will, “Let Pamphilus be free, if he transacts my business properly.” As the testator died some years after making this will, and there was no ground for complaint of the conduct of Pamphilus, so far as his patron was concerned, the question arose whether he was entitled to his freedom under the will. The answer was that there was nothing in the case stated to prevent him from obtaining it.