Terentius Clemens, On the Lex Julia et Papia, Book IX. It has been decided that a patron who has accused his freedman of a capital crime is excluded from prætorian possession of his estate contrary to the provisions of the will. Labeo thinks that the accusation of a capital crime should include both those which involve the penalty of death, and those punished by exile. An accuser is understood to be one who gave the name of the alleged guilty person, unless he asks that he receive immunity. Servilius says that this was also the opinion of Proculus.

Terentius Clemens, On the Lex Julia et Papia, Book IX. When a son has been disinherited by his father, the question arises whether the grandsons by said son are excluded from prætorian possession of the estate of a freedman of their grandfather. This point must be disposed of by deciding that as long as the son is living, and his children remain under his control, they cannot be admitted to prætorian possession of the freedman’s estate to prevent those who are excluded from obtaining possession in their own names, or from acquiring it through the intervention of others. If, however, they have been emancipated by their father, or have become their own masters in any other way, they can obtain prætorian possession of the estate of the freedman without encountering any obstacle. 1If the son of the freedman rejects the estate of his father, it will be to the advantage of the patron.

Terentius Clemens, On the Lex Julia et Papia, Book IX. If anyone who has creditors should manumit several slaves, the grants of freedom to all of them will not be void, but only the first ones emancipated will become free; provided enough remains to satisfy the claims of the creditors. This rule was frequently stated by Julianus. For instance, where two slaves are manumitted, and the creditors will be defrauded by granting freedom to both, but not by granting it to either, one of them will not obtain his freedom; and this is generally he who is manumitted second, unless the first one designated is of greater value; and it will not be necessary to reduce the second to slavery if the value of the first will discharge the indebtedness, for, in this instance, the one which is mentioned in the second place will alone be entitled to his liberty.