Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XLIII. Where anyone, in making a sale, puts a price on the property which he does not expect to demand, because he intends to donate said property, he is not held to have sold it.

Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XLIII. We are accustomed both to purchase and sell claims due from debtors under certain conditions, or which are payable within a certain time; for this is property which can be purchased and sold.

Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XLIII. Where there are two necessary heirs, one of whom refuses to accept his share of the estate, and the other, after the refusal of the first, busies himself with its affairs; it must be held that he cannot decline to assume all the liabilities of the estate; for he either knew, or could have ascertained, that when the other refused he would be liable for the indebtedness, and he is held to have entered upon the estate under this condition.

Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XLIII. If the children of a freedman should be appointed heirs to only a small portion of his estate, the patron cannot demand prætorian possession contrary to the provisions of the will; for Marcellus, in the Ninth Book of the Digest, says that no matter to how small a share of the estate of a freedman his son may be appointed heir, the patron will be excluded. 1Where the daughter of a patron was appointed heir by the freedman of her father, and the will by which she was appointed was alleged to be forged, and an appeal was taken, and before it was heard the daughter died, the Divine Marcus came to the relief of the heirs, and decided that they should have whatever the daughter would have been entitled to if she had lived. 2If the son of the freedman, who had been appointed his heir, should reject the estate, although he will retain the name of heir, the patron can acquire prætorian possession. 3If the son should meddle with the estate of his father, or the heir who had entered upon it should obtain complete restitution of his rights, after having rejected the estate, the patron can be admitted to the succession. 4If the patron and his children should enter upon the estate of the freedman in accordance with the will of the deceased, or should prefer to claim a legacy or a trust bequeathed to them, they shall not be permitted to obtain prætorian possession in opposition to the provisions of the will.

Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XLIII. If, however, the demand of the patron has had no effect, I think that there is no reason why relief should not be granted him. And, indeed, if he has entered upon the estate, under the impression that he had been appointed heir to the share to which he was legally entitled, and it should afterwards appear that he has obtained a smaller share than he had a right to expect, it is perfectly just that relief should be granted him. If, however, he notified the heir in the presence of witnesses to pay him his legacy, and should afterwards change his mind, I think that he is entitled to relief. 1Where a patron has received the legacy bequeathed to him, and afterwards has been evicted, he will have a right to demand his lawful share of the estate, because he did not receive what he expected to have. If, however, he is not deprived of the entire legacy by eviction, but obtains less than he had a right to expect, he will be entitled to relief. 2If a patron has received a legacy bequeathed to his slave, or to his son, he will be excluded from prætorian possession of the estate contrary to the provisions of the will, just as if he had accepted a legacy bequeathed to himself. 3And if he has received a donation mortis causa, it must be held that he is excluded from prætorian possession in opposition to the provisions of the will, just as if he had received it after the death of the freedman. Moreover, if the freedman, during his lifetime, had given it to him, and he had accepted it, he will not, for this reason, be excluded from prætorian possession in opposition to the provisions of the will, because it may be said that he expected that some additional favor would be shown to him by the will of the freedman, and he should be permitted to reject what he has received, or the share to which he was entitled should be given to him pro rata. 4Therefore, it is said that if, for the purpose of complying with a condition, something has been given to the patron after the death of the freedman, the former will be excluded from prætorian possession of the estate in opposition to the terms of the will, as having, so to speak, accepted it.

The Same, On the Edict, Book XLIII. Everything which was fraudulently alienated by a freedman is revoked by the Favian Action. 1Where there are several patrons, each will have an equal share, but if some of them do not claim their shares, they will accrue to the others. What I have stated with reference to patrons also applies to the children of a patron; but they have no right to share at the same time, but only where the patrons are not in existence.

Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXXIII. The same difference exists between a gift and a present as exists between genus and species; for Labeo says that a gift is a genus, and is derived from the verb “to give,” and that a present is a species, for it is a gift bestowed for some reason, for instance, on account of a birth, or a marriage.