Tryphoninus, Disputations, Book XXI. Where a slave is appointed an heir with the grant of his freedom, but conditionally, by the will of his master; and while the condition is still pending, he discovers the murderers of his master, and the Prætor decides that he deserves his freedom, even though the condition of the will should afterwards be complied with, the said slave will become free, for another reason, that is to say, he will be liberated by way of reward, and not on account of the will. Hence, he is not the necessary heir of his master, although he can enter upon the estate if he desires to do so.

Tryphoninus, Disputations, Book XXI. A testator, who had two minor children, substituted Titius for the one who might die first. Both of them perished at the same time in a shipwreck. The question arose whether the estate would pass to the substitute, and to which one of the two minors he was to be considered the heir. I said that if the brothers had died in the ordinary course of nature, the brother of the one that died first would become his heir ab intestato, and the substitute would succeed to the second one; nevertheless, he would be entitled to the estate of the one that died first, as it was included in that of the other. In the question proposed, however, where both of them perished at once, and as neither brother survived the other, should it be held that both of them died last, or that neither of them died last, because the decision as to which died last was dependent upon the fact that one of them died first? The former opinion, however, namely, that the substitute is the heir of both the minors, should prevail. For where a testator, who has only one son, appoints a substitute for the one that dies last, he is not considered to have made an invalid substitution; just as the next of kin is understood where there is but one who does not precede anyone else, and in this instance, as neither one of the brothers survived the other, both of them are considered to have died first and last. 1Where a son and his father lost their lives in war, and the mother claimed the estate of her son on the ground of his having died last, and the relatives of her father declared that the son died first, the Divine Hadrian decided that the father died first. 2If a freedman should die at the same time as his son, the estate passes by operation of law to the patron of the intestate freedman, unless it is proved that the son survived his father. We hold that this is the case on account of the respect attaching to the right of patronage. 3Where a husband and a wife die at the same time, and a stipulation with reference to the dowry was entered into providing that it should belong to the husband, if the woman died during marriage, this will take effect, if it is not proved that she survived her husband. 4If Lucius Titius should lose his life at the same time as his son who had reached the age of puberty, and whom he had appointed his sole heir by his will, the son is understood to have survived the father, and will be his heir under the will, and the estate of the son will pass to the successors of the latter, unless the contrary can be proved by the heirs of the father. If, however, the son, who perished with the father, had not reached the age of puberty, it is held that his father survived him, unless the contrary can be proved.