Digestorum libri
Ex libro VI
Dig. 17,1,62Scaevola libro sexto digestorum. Cum controversia esset de hereditate defunctae inter scriptum heredem et patruum Maevium et amitas, Maevius litteris ad sorores suas factis declaravit commune futurum, quidquid ad eum ex eventu litis hereditariae pervenisset, neque stipulatio litteras secuta est: quaesitum est, cum transegerit idem Maevius cum scripto herede ita, ut praedia et aliae quaedam res ex ea transactione ad eum pervenirent, an ex litteris suis possit a sororibus conveniri. respondit posse. 1Mandavi in haec verba: ‘Lucius Titius Gaio suo salutem. Peto et mando tibi, ut fidem dicas pro Publio Maevio apud Sempronium: quaeque a Publio soluta tibi non fuerint, me repraesentaturum hac epistula manu mea scripta notum tibi facio.’ quaero, si non fideiussisset, sed mandasset creditori et alias egisset quam quod ei mandatum esset, an actione mandati teneretur. respondit teneri.
Scævola, Digest, Book VI. Where a controversy has arisen with reference to the estate of a deceased person between the appointed heir on the one hand, and Mævius, the paternal uncle, and the paternal aunts of the testator on the other; Mævius stated in a letter which he wrote to his sisters that whatever he obtained in case of a favorable judgment, would belong to all of them in common; but no stipulation was entered into in accordance with the terms of the letter. The question arose whether, if Mævius had made an agreement with the heir in such a way that certain real estate and other property would come into his hands as the result of the same, a suit based on his letter could be brought against him by his sisters? The answer was that it could. 1I gave a mandate in the following words: “Lucius Titius to his friend Gaius, Greeting. I beg and direct you to offer yourself as surety to Sempronius in behalf of Publius Mævius, and whatever is not paid to you by Publius I will make good; and I notify you by this letter written with my own hand.” I ask whether, if Gaius should not become surety, but should merely direct the creditor, and act differently from what was set forth in the mandate, he would be liable in an action on mandate? The answer was that he would be liable.
Dig. 20,2,10Scaevola libro sexto digestorum. Tutoris heres cum herede pupilli transactione facta, cum ex ea maiorem partem solvisset, in residuam quantitatem pignus obligavit: quaesitum est, an in veterem contractum iure res obligata esset. respondit secundum ea quae proponerentur obligatam esse.
Scævola, Digest, Book VI. The heir of a guardian entered into an agreement with the heir of the ward, and when he had paid the greater amount of the debt, he gave a pledge for the remainder. The question arose whether the property was legally encumbered under the original contract. The answer was that, in accordance with the facts stated, it was encumbered.
Dig. 20,5,14Scaevola libro sexto digestorum. Arbitri dividundae hereditatis inter heredes cum corpora hereditaria divisissent, nomina quoque communium debitorum separatim diversa singulis in solidum adsignaverunt. quaesitum est an unusquisque eorum, debitore sibi addicto cessante in solutione, pro solido pignus sub eo nomine obligatum vendere possit. respondit potuisse.
Scævola, Digest, Book VI. Arbitrators appointed for the partition of an estate among heirs, having divided the property of the same, assigned certain claims in bulk to the heirs individually, which were due to several heirs to the estate. The question arose; where the share of a debtor which had been assigned to an heir was not paid, whether the said heir could sell the pledge given by the debtor, in order that the price might be credited on the total amount of the claim. I answered that he could do so.
Dig. 20,6,15Scaevola libro sexto digestorum. Primi creditoris, qui pignori praedia acceperat, et posterioris, cui quidam ex isdem fundis dati erant, ad eandem personam hereditas devenerat: debitor offerebat, quantum a posteriore creditore mutuatus fuerat. respondit cogendum accipere salvo iure pignoris prioris contractus.
Scævola, Digest, Book VI. The estate of a first creditor who had received certain land by way of security, and those of a second one to whom also some of the land had been mortgaged, passed by inheritance to the same person. The debtor offered to pay to the said heir the amount which he had borrowed from the second creditor. The opinion was given that he should be compelled to accept the money, his right to the pledge under the first contract remaining unimpaired.
Dig. 33,7,27Scaevola libro sexto digestorum. Praedia maritima cum servis qui ibi erunt et omni instrumento et fructibus qui ibi erunt et reliquis colonorum nutritori suo legavit. quaesitum est, an servi piscatores, qui solebant in ministerio testatoris esse et ubicumque eum sequi et urbicis rationibus expungebantur nec mortis testatoris tempore in praediis legatis deprehensi fuerant, legati esse videantur. respondit secundum ea quae proponerentur non esse legatos. 1Adfini suo ita legavit: ‘fundum Cornelianum Titio ita ut est instructus cum omnibus rebus et mancipiis et reliquis colonorum dari volo’. haec testatrix Romae litis causa ex Africa veniens mancipia quaedam ex fundo supra scripto, quo citius per hiemem operam elegeret, secum abduxit: quaesitum est, an ea mancipia fideicommisso cedant, cum quaedam ex his rusticis officiis ad tempus peregrinationis abducta sunt relictis conservabus et filiis suis et quaedam matribus et patribus. respondit mancipia, de quibus quaereretur, secundum ea quae proponerentur ex causa fideicommissi deberi. 2Idem quaesiit, an fructus eiusdem fundi, qui ibi in diem mortis coacti manserint, fideicommisso cedant, cum plenissima testatoris erga adfinem voluntas ab eo quoque manifestetur, quo reliqua colonorum eiusdem possessionis ad eum pertinere voluerit. respondit in huiusmodi scriptura posse responderi hoc solum quaerendum, an manifeste appareat defuncta id, de quo quaereretur, dari noluisse. 3Liberto, quem heredem in parte rescripsit, fundum per praeceptionem dedit in haec verba: ‘Pamphile liberte, praecipito tibique habeto fundum meum Titianum et agellum Sempronianum cum instrumento et his, quae in eodem erunt cum moriar, familiaque, quae in eo fundo moratur, exceptis quos manumisero’. quaesitum est, cum testator in eo fundo aliquantum vini in doliis habuerit, quod vivus totum vendiderat et partem tertiam pretii pro eo acceperat, an vinum in doliis remanens ad libertum ex causa praeceptionis pertineat. respondit verbis quae proponerentur contineri, nisi manifeste contrariam voluntatem coheredes approbant. in eo fundo instrumenta calendarii et nummos reliquit. responsum est de nummis quoque, ut supra responsum. 4Ita legatum est: ‘Septiciae sorori meae fundi paterni mei Seiani partem dari volo sic ut est, et alteram partem ita, ut in diem mortis fuerit’: quaesitum est, an ex verbis supra scriptis aggeres et praela iam posita parataque, ut immittantur aedificio, item instrumentum urbanum et rusticum cum mancipiis, quae fundi causa erant, ad legatarios pertineant. respondit: potest haec verba ‘sic ut est’ ad instructum referri. 5Fundos legavit in haec verba: ‘Sempronio fratri meo hoc amplius fundos meos ita, ut instructi sunt, Cassianum Nonianum cum suis salictis et silvis’. quaesitum est, cum silvae et salicta non in fundis supra scriptis, sed in adiectis agellis et quos simul testator comparavit nec sine his fundi coli possint, an legato cederent. respondit id tantum cedere legato, quod verbis comprehendisset.
Scævola, Digest, Book VI. A testator left to the man who had reared him his land near the sea, together with the slaves who were thereon, and all the implements and crops belonging to the same, as well as the balances due from his tenants. The question arose whether the slaves, who were fishermen, who were attached to the personal service of the testator, and accustomed to follow him everywhere, and whose names were carried on the accounts in the city, and at the time of the death of the testator were not found on the land which was devised, should be considered to have been bequeathed. The answer was that, in accordance with the facts stated, they were not bequeathed. 1A testatrix made the following bequest to one of her relatives: “I desire the Cornelian Estate, provided that everything, just as it is, together with all the personal property and slaves, and the amounts due from the tenants, to be given to Titius.” This testatrix having come, on account of a lawsuit, to Rome from Africa, brought with her certain slaves belonging to the aforesaid land, in order that she might avail herself of their services during the winter. The question arose whether the said slaves were embraced in the trust, as some of them had been removed from their duties on the farm at the time of the journey, and had left their wives and children, while others had left their fathers and mothers behind them. The answer was that, in accordance with the facts stated, the slaves which were the subject of the inquiry should be delivered under the terms of the trust. 2It was also asked whether the crops of the same tract of land which had already been gathered and remained there at the time of the death of the testatrix were included in the trust; since it was evidently her intention to display the greatest liberality towards her relative, as was proved by her desire that the balance due from the tenants should also belong to him. The answer was that, when a provision of this kind was made, it should only be ascertained whether it was perfectly clear that the deceased intended to bequeath the property with reference to which the inquiry is made. 3A testator devised a tract of land as a preferred legacy to his freedman, whom he had appointed heir to a portion of his estate, as follows: “Pamphilus, my freedman, I desire you to have, as a preferred legacy my Titian Estate, together with my small Sempronian Estate, with all their appurtenances, and the personal property which shall be there at the time of my death, together with the slaves who reside on said land, with the exception of those whom I shall hereafter manumit.” As the testator had a certain quantity of wine in casks on the said land, all of which he had sold during his lifetime, and the third part of the price of which he had received, the question arose whether the wine which remained in the casks would belong to the freedman under the terms of the preferred legacy. The answer was that, in accordance with the facts stated, it would be included, unless the co-heirs could prove that the intention of the testator was otherwise. The testator also left the claims in his account-book, and the money which was on said land. The opinion with reference to the money was the same as that above given. 4A devise was made as follows: “I desire half of the Seian Estate, which came to me from my father, to be given to my sister Septitia, just as it is at present, and the other half in the condition in which it may be found at the time of my death.” The question arose whether, under the words above quoted, the beams and joists already in position and prepared to be inserted into the building, as well as the urban and rustic equipment, and the slaves employed on the land would belong to the legatee. The answer was that the following words, “Just as it is,” can have reference to the equipment of the land. 5A testator devised certain lands as follows: “I also leave to my brother, Sempronius, my Cassian and Novian Estates, equipped just as they are, together with their willow-groves and woods.” As the woods and willow-groves did not form part of the aforesaid land, but were in small tracts adjacent to the same, which the testator had purchased at the same time and without which the former lands could not be cultivated, the question arose whether they were included in the legacy. The answer was that that property only formed part of the legacy which was specifically designated by the testator.
Dig. 46,1,45Scaevola libro sexto digestorum. Fideiussor pro venditore fundorum duorum altero evicto conventus ab emptore condemnatus est certam quantitatem: quaesitum est, an cum herede venditoris ante diem, quo iudicatum facere compelleretur, agere possit. respondit agere quidem posse, sed ex iusta causa ad officium iudicis pertinere quo fideiussor aut defendatur aut liberaretur.
Scævola, Digest, Book VI. A surety for the vendor of two tracts of land, one of which was afterwards evicted, having been sued by the purchaser, had judgment rendered against him for a certain amount. The question arose whether he could bring suit against the heir of the vendor before the time when he could be forced to obey the judgment. The answer was that he could do so, but that there was good reason for the court to compel the surety either to be defended, or be released from liability.