The Same, Digest, Book XXV. The usufruct of a tract of land was left to Stichus, who was manumitted by the will, and after he had ceased to enjoy it, the testator left it to his heirs in trust, to be delivered to Lucius Titius. Stichus, however, by his will, left the ownership of said land to his grandchildren, and the heirs of Stichus, in accordance with the terms of his will, transferred the said land to his grandchildren, who were his legatees. The said grandchildren, not being aware of the condition under which the land was devised by the former will, and having possessed it for a longer time than that provided by law to give title by prescription, the question arose whether they acquired the ownership of the land for themselves. The answer was that, in accordance with the facts stated, the legatees had acquired it. 1It was also asked, if, in any event, the legatees should be deprived of the land, whether an action in favor of the grandsons would lie for the recovery of the same against the heirs of Stichus. The answer was that, according to the opinion previously rendered where the property for some reason had not been acquired, if Stichus had made a will after the death of those to whom it was left, he would have been held to have intended to bequeath something which he thought belonged to him, rather than to have burdened his heirs.

The Same, Digest, Book XXV. The estate of a sister, who died intestate, passed to her two brothers, one of whom was absent and the other present. The one who was present acted for the absent one, and sold to Lucius Titius, a bona fide purchaser, an entire tract of land in his own name and in that of his brother. The question arose whether the purchaser, knowing that half of the land belonged to the absent heir, could acquire the entire tract by prescription. The answer was that he could do so, if he believed that it had been sold by the authority of the brother who was absent.

Scævola, Digest, Book XXV. Two daughters became the heirs of their father who died intestate, and each one of them gave slaves belonging to them in common by way of dowry, and then, some years after the death of their father, they brought suit in partition. As the husbands had for many years held possession of the slaves given by way of dowry as dotal slaves, the question arose whether they could be held to have acquired them by usucaption, if they believed that they belonged to those who had given them as dowry. The answer was that there was nothing in the case stated to prevent them from being acquired by usucaption.

Scævola, Digest, Book XXV. A certain man employed in transacting the business of others having had judgment rendered against him, appealed, and the case was not disposed of for a long time. The appeal, having been held to have been taken on insufficient grounds, and the execution of the judgment prolonged, the question arose whether interest should be calculated for the time of the original judgment until the appeal was decided. The answer was that, according to the facts stated, a prætorian action should be granted.

Scævola, Digest, Book XXV. A creditor who had brought suit against the sureties was not present at the trial of the case, after issue had been joined, and when the sureties were discharged his slave appealed. The question was asked whether the appeal which the slave interposed in behalf of his master was of any force or effect. The answer was that such an appeal should not receive any attention. 1A man having been ordered by a judge to appear in court, in accordance with the command of the Governor of the province, and produce certain accounts which he alleged were in his possession, did not do so, even after delay had been granted him for this purpose; and therefore, after the constitution had been read to him, for the reason that through obstinacy he had failed to produce the documents demanded, and the plaintiff proved the amount of his interest in having them produced, by taking an oath, the defendant was convicted. The question arose whether he could file an appeal after the oath had been taken. The answer was that nothing had been stated to show why the benefit of an appeal should be denied him. 2Guardians who had been substituted in the place of a legal guardian, having brought an action on guardianship against him, the arbitrator appointed condemned him unjustly, and because the equity of the case required it, they appealed from his decision. While the appeal was pending, the young men grew up. As the entire procedure had reference to persons who were grown, and they were in a condition to protect their own interests, the question arose whether the demand of those against whom the appeal had been taken, who alleged that the ground of the appeal must be stated by those who first brought the suit, should be admitted. The answer was, that if those whose guardianship had been administered desired to proceed with the case, they ought to be prevented from doing so. The same rule should be observed with reference to curators, if, in the meantime, the youth should arrive at lawful age.