The Same, Digest, Book XXIV. The following provision was inserted in a will, “I wish that a thousand solidi be given to Eudo, for the reason that he is the first child born after his mother obtained her freedom.” If Eudo cannot prove that he was born after the manumission of his mother, I ask whether he can obtain his freedom by virtue of these words of the will. The answer was that this inquiry should not prejudice him.

The Same, Digest, Book XXIV. A woman, having appointed her husband her heir, liberated her slaves by a trust, among whom was Stichus, the steward of her husband. The slaves having appeared before the Governor of the province for the purpose of obtaining their freedom, during the absence of their master who had a good reason for being away, and the Governor of the province having decided that the slaves were entitled to their freedom, the question arose whether proceedings could be instituted against Stichus to compel him to render an account of his administration as steward. The answer was that this could not be done. 1A man bequeathed a dowry and considerable other property to his wife, and charged her to manumit Aquilinus, her own slave, before the tribunal. The woman refused to do so, because the slave was her individual property. I ask whether he was entitled to his freedom. The answer was that if the wife had accepted not only her dowry, but also the other property left to her by the will, she could be compelled to manumit Aquilinus by virtue of the trust, and that, when he became free, he could demand anything that had been bequeathed to him.

Scævola, Digest, Book XXIV. Freedom was granted to Stichus as follows, “I request my heirs, and I charge them to manumit Stichus, after he renders his accounts.” As the slave had collected a great deal of money after the death of the testator, which remained in his hands, and had not included in his own accounts certain sums paid by tenants; and had despoiled the estate by secretly opening warehouses and stealing furniture and clothing, and exhausting cellars of their contents, the question arose whether freedom under the trust should be granted him before he accounted for what fraudulently remained in his hands, and returned what he had stolen. The answer was that freedom should not be granted him under the terms of the trust until he had made restitution of the balance remaining in his hands, and everything which had been lost by his agency. 1“Let Pamphilus be free, if he gives all of his peculium to my heirs.” As the slave owed more to his master than there was in the peculium, and had transferred everything belonging to his peculium in good faith to the heirs, the question arose whether he was entitled to freedom under the terms of the will. The answer was that there was nothing in the case stated to show that he was not entitled to it. 2A testator bequeathed his slave Stichus as a preferred legacy to his freedman, Pamphilus, whom he had appointed heir to a portion of his estate; and he bequeathed freedom to Stichus, as follows: “You will manumit him if, during the five continuous years from the day of my death, he pays you sixty sesterces every month.” Pamphilus, having died before the expiration of five years, and having appointed his son and his wife his heirs, made the following testamentary provision with reference to Stichus: “I direct that my slave, Stichus, who was bequeathed to me under a certain condition by the will of my patron, shall give and pay to my son and to my wife, without any dispute, the amount for which he is liable, and if this is done, they shall manumit him after the prescribed time has elapsed.” If Stichus should not pay the sixty sesterces every month, the question arose whether he would be entitled to his freedom under the trust, after the five years had expired. The answer was that unless he made the payments he would not be entitled to the freedom granted to him under the terms of the trust. 3A slave was manumitted by a will as follows: “Let Stichus, my slave, who is also my steward, be free, if he renders an account of his entire administration to my heir, and satisfies him in this respect; and when he becomes free, I wish twenty aurei and his peculium to be given to him.” The question arose, if the slave was prepared to render accounts of his administration for the many years during which he had conducted it without the signature of the testator approving them whether he would become free under the will, as the testator had not been able to sign the accounts because of his serious illness, but could, nevertheless, sign his will. The answer was that the slave would become free if his accounts were rendered in good faith, and the balance remaining in his hands was paid. 4I also ask whether any sums collected by the assistants of the slave, which either were not entered upon his register at all, or were entered fraudulently, will render him liable, as he was placed over his assistants. The answer was, if the matter was one for which he could be held accountable, the necessity for his rendering a statement of the same should be taken into consideration. 5I also ask if an account should be rendered of the rents which he had not collected from the lessees of land, or from tenants, over and above any sums which he may have advanced to them. The answer was that this has already been decided. 6I also ask whether he will be liable on the ground that he had removed all his property, that is to say, his peculium, before rendering his account. The answer was that this was no impediment to the performance of the condition, provided the account was rendered. 7Titius bequeathed to different persons by will each of the slaves employed by his steward, on condition that they should render their accounts to his heir. Then, in another clause of his will, he said: “I wish all the stewards whom I have bequeathed, or may manumit, to render their accounts within four months after my death, to their owners to whom they have been bequeathed by me.” He then, lower down, ordered others of his stewards to be free, adding, “If they render their accounts to my heir.” As it was the fault of the heir that their accounts were not rendered, I also ask whether the slaves ceased to be free under the condition; or whether they could, nevertheless, obtain their freedom under the will, by rendering their accounts and paying the balances remaining in their hands. The answer was that the legacies and grants of freedom would not take effect, unless the accounts were rendered, or if it was the fault of the heir that this was not done; but that it must be determined by the court whether time seemed to be included in the condition under which the legacies and the grants of freedom were to become operative; or whether the four months were added by the testator for the purpose of preventing further delay and to afford abundance of time for the rendering of the accounts to the heirs. It is, however, better to hold that the presumption is in favor of the slaves. 8The collector of a banker, almost all of whose fortune consisted of claims, gave freedom to his agents, who were his slaves, as follows: “No matter who may be my heir, if Damas, my slave, renders an account to him of the administration which he has carried on in his own name, and in that of Pamphilus, his fellow-slave, I wish both of them to be placed on an equal footing, and to become free within six months.” The question arose if the words, “to be placed on an equal footing,” applied to all the claims except the bad debts, so that the meaning of it was if they collected all that was due from all the debtors, and paid the heir, or satisfied him in some other way, and if they did not collect the claims within six months, whether they would not be entitled to their freedom. The answer was, that it was clear that the condition was inserted in the above-mentioned clause of the will, and therefore that the slaves would be free if they complied with it, or the heir was responsible for their not doing so.