Scævola, Digest, Book XXIX. A woman who left a legitimate son appointed her father heir to her entire estate, he having been manumitted at the same time as herself, and charged him, at the time of his death, to transfer to his grandson, a son of the testatrix, all of her estate which might come into her hands, and added the following words, “I forbid any security to be required of my father Seius.” As the said Seius had squandered all his property, and the father of the beneficiary of the trust was apprehensive that it would become of no effect, the question arose whether he could compel the father of the deceased to furnish security for the execution of the trust. The answer was that, according to the facts stated, he could not be compelled to give security. 1The testatrix having deposited certain property with her husband, the father of the boy to whom she made the bequest, without requiring from him a bond for the deposit, it was also asked whether the said property should be delivered to the heir who was the father of the testatrix; or whether, as the entire estate must eventually revert to the son of the deceased, the property in question should remain in the hands of the husband, who had a right to the possession of the dowry. The answer was that all the property belonging to the woman which remained and was not included in her dowry must be delivered to the heir. 2A guardian, who was also the co-heir of his ward, during the absence of the latter, and after having been notified by the legatees, himself gave security on account of the trust for the entire amount left under the same. The question arose whether a prætorian action should be granted against the ward when he grew up. The answer was that it should be granted.

The Same, Digest, Book XXIX. A creditor provided as follows with reference to several of his claims and notes: “I, Titius Mævius, acknowledge to have received and to have in my hands (for which I have given a release to Gaius Titius) all the balance on account, after a calculation has been made of the money for which Stichus, the slave of Gaius Titius, gave me a note.” The question arose whether suit could be brought to collect other notes which were not signed by Stichus, but only by the debtor himself. The answer was that only that obligation had been extinguished on which it was stated payment had been made. 1Lucius Titius wrote to Seius, who owed him four hundred sesterces on two notes, one of which was for a hundred, and the other for three hundred, to send him the amount of the note for a hundred by Mævius and Septicius. I ask whether Seius would be released, if he alleged that he also paid to Mævius and Septicius the amount of the note for three hundred sesterces? The answer was that if the creditor did not direct him to pay the note for three hundred sesterces, or did not ratify the payment after it had been made, that he would not be released. 2Lucius Titius, in two different stipulations, one calling for fifteen aurei at a high rate of interest, the other for twenty at a lower rate, bound Seius on the same date, in such a way that the note for twenty aurei should be paid first, that is to say, on the Ides of September. The debtor, after the time for payment of both stipulations had elapsed, paid twenty-six aurei, and it was not stated by the creditor under which stipulation payment was made. I ask whether what had been paid discharged the obligation which was first due; that is to say, whether the principal of twenty aurei should be considered to be paid, and the remaining six paid by way of interest. I answered that it is customary to understand it in this way.