Fideicommissorum libri
Ex libro III
Dig. 36,1,1Ulpianus libro tertio fideicommissorum. Explicito tractatu, qui ad fideicommissa singularum rerum pertinet, transeamus nunc ad interpretationem senatus consulti Trebelliani. 1Factum est enim senatus consultum temporibus Neronis octavo calendas Septembres Annaeo Seneca et Trebellio Maximo consulibus, cuius verba haec sunt: 2‘Cum esset aequissimum in omnibus fideicommissariis hereditatibus, si qua de his bonis iudicia penderent, ex his eos subire, in quos ius fructusque transferretur, potius quam cuique periculosum esse fidem suam: placet, ut actiones, quae in heredem heredibusque dari solent, eas neque in eos neque his dari, qui fidei suae commissum sic, uti rogati essent, restituissent, sed his et in eos, quibus ex testamento fideicommissum restitutum fuisset, quo magis in reliquum confirmentur supremae defunctorum voluntates’. 3Sublata est hoc senatus consulto dubitatio eorum, qui adire hereditatem recusare seu metu litium seu praetextu metus censuerunt. 4Quamquam autem senatus subventum voluit heredibus, subvenit tamen et fideicommissario: nam in eo, quod heredes, si conveniantur, exceptione uti possunt, heredibus subventum est: in eo vero, quod, si agant heredes, repelluntur per exceptionem quodque agendi facultas fideicommissariis competit, procul dubio consultum est fideicommissariis. 5Hoc autem senatus consultum locum habet, sive ex testamento quis heres esset sive ab intestato rogatusque sit restituere hereditatem. 6In filii quoque familias militis iudicio, qui de castrensi peculio vel quasi castrensi testari potest, senatus consultum locum habet. 7Bonorum quoque possessores vel alii successores ex Trebelliano restituere potuerunt hereditatem. 8De illo quaeritur, an is, cui ex causa fideicommissi restituta est hereditas ex Trebelliano senatus consulto, ipse quoque restituendo ex eodem senatus consulto transferat actiones: et Iulianus scribit etiam ipsum transferre actiones, quod et Maecianus probat et nobis placet. 9Sed et quotiens quis rogatus duobus restituere hereditatem, alteri pure vel in diem, alteri sub condicione, suspectam dicit: ei, cui erat rogatus pure vel in diem restituere, interim universam hereditatem restitui senatus censuit, cum autem exstiterit condicio, si velit alius fideicommissarius partem suam suscipere, transire ad eum ipso iure actiones. 10Si filio vel servo herede instituto rogatoque restituere hereditatem dominus vel pater restituat, ex Trebelliano transferuntur actiones: quod est etiam, si suo nomine rogati sunt restituere. 11Idem est et si ipsi filio pater rogatus sit restituere hereditatem. 12Sed et si tutor vel curator adulescentis vel furiosi rogatus sit restituere hereditatem, sine dubio Trebelliano locus erit. 13Fuit quaesitum, si ipsi tutori rogatus sit restituere pupillus, an ipso auctore restitutionem facere possit? et est decretum a divo Severo non posse tutori se auctore restituere hereditatem, quia in rem suam auctor esse non potest. 14Curatori tamen adulescentis ab adulescente poterit restitui hereditas, quoniam necessaria non est auctoritas ad restitutionem. 15Si autem collegium vel corpus sit, quod rogatum est restituere decreto eorum cui, qui sunt in collegio vel corpore, in singulis inspecta eorum persona restitutionem valere: nec enim ipse sibi videtur quis horum restituere. 16Si heres praecepto fundo rogatus sit hereditatem restituere, ex Trebelliano senatus consulto restituet hereditatem. nec multum facit, si fundus pignori datus est: neque enim aeris alieni personalis actio fundum sequitur, sed eum, cui hereditas ex Trebelliano senatus consulto restituta est. sed cavendum est heredi a fideicommissario, ut, si forte fundus fuerit evictus a creditore, habeat heres cautum. Iulianus autem cavendum non putat, sed aestimandum fundum, quanti valet sine hac cautione, hoc est quanti vendere potest sine cautione: et si potest tanti vendere non interposita cautione, quantum facit quarta pars bonorum, ex Trebelliano transituras actiones: si minoris, retento eo quod deest similiter ex Trebelliano restitutionem fieri: quae sententia multas quaestiones dirimit. 17Si is, qui quadringenta in bonis habeat, trecenta legaverit et deductis ducentis rogaverit heredem Seio restituere hereditatem, an trecentorum onus fideicommissarius subeat an vero hactenus, quatenus ad eum ex hereditate pervenit? Iulianus ait competere quidem adversus eum trecentorum petitionem, non autem amplius quam in ducentis actionem adversus fideicommissarium daturum, in heredem autem centum. et mihi videtur vera esse Iuliani sententia, ne damnum fideicommissarius sentiat ultra, quam ad eum ex hereditate quid pervenit: neminem enim oportere plus legati nomine praestare, quam ad eum ex hereditate pervenit, quamvis Falcidia cesset, ut rescripto divi Pii continetur. 18Denique nec ex militis testamento plus legatorum nomine praestatur, quam quantitas est hereditatis aere alieno deducto. nec tamen quartam retinere fideicommissario permittitur. 19Inde Neratius scribit, si heres rogatus restituere totam hereditatem non deducta Falcidia rogato et ipsi, ut alii restituat, non utique debere eum detrahere fideicommissario secundo quartam, nisi liberalitatem tantum ad priorem fideicommissarium heres voluit pertinere. 20Sed si quadringenta habens ducenta legaverit Titio et partem dimidiam hereditatis Sempronio restituere rogaverit, ex Trebelliano restitutionem faciendam Iulianus ait et legatorum petitionem scindi sic, ut centum quidem petantur ab herede, centum vero alia legatarius a fideicommissario petat. quod idcirco dicit Iulianus, quoniam secundum hanc rationem integram quartam habet, id est centum integra. 21Idem Iulianus scribit, si is, qui quadringenta in bonis habeat, trecenta legasset et deductis centum rogasset heredem, ut hereditatem Sempronio restituat, debere dici deductis centum restituta hereditate legatorum actionem in fideicommissarium dari.
Ulpianus, Trusts, Book III. Ad Dig. 36,1,1 pr.Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 426, Note 14.After having discussed matters relating to trusts of different kinds of property, let us now pass to the interpretation of the Trebellian Decree of the Senate. 1This Decree of the Senate was enacted in the time of Nero, on the eighth of the Kalends of September, during the Consulate of Anneus Seneca and Trebellius Maximus. 2The words of the Decree are as follows: “As it is perfectly just that, with reference to all trusts involving estates where anything is to be paid out of property, recourse should be had to those to whom the rights and profits of the estate are transferred, rather than that the heirs should incur any risk on account of the faith reposed in them, it is hereby decreed that actions which are usually granted for and against the heirs shall not be allowed where the latter have transferred the property under the terms of a trust, as they were charged to do; but that in these instances actions shall be granted for and against those to whom the property has been transferred under the trust created by the will, in order that the last wishes of deceased persons may be more thoroughly executed, so far as the remainder of the estate is concerned.” 3By this Decree of the Senate, the doubts of those who have determined to refuse to accept the estate, either through apprehension of litigation or on account of fear are removed. 4But, although the Senate intended to come to the relief of heirs, it also comes to the relief of the beneficiary of the trust. For it is granted to the heirs, since they can avail themselves of an exception if suit is brought against them; and if the heirs bring suit they can be barred by an exception which the beneficiaries of the trust have a right to avail themselves of, hence there is no doubt that their interests have likewise been consulted. 5This Decree of the Senate applies whether anyone who is either a testamentary heir, or the heir-at-law, was charged to transfer the estate. 6It also applies to the case of the will of a soldier who is under paternal control, and who has the right to dispose of his castrense peculium or his quasi castrense peculium. 7The possessors of property under the Prætorian Law, or any other successors, can transfer an estate by virtue of the Trebellian Decree of the Senate. 8The question arises whether he to whom an estate has been transferred by the terms of a trust under the Trebellian Decree of the Senate can himself assign his rights of action by the same Decree of the Senate, where he has been charged to transfer the estate. Julianus says that he also can assign his rights of action. This opinion Marcianus also approves, and we ourselves adopt it. 9Where, however, anyone has been charged to transfer an estate to two persons, to one of them absolutely or within a certain time, and to the other under a condition, and he alleges that the estate is probably insolvent, the Senate decreed that the entire estate should be transferred to the party to whom the heir was asked to transfer it absolutely, or within a certain time. If, however, the condition should be fulfilled, and the other beneficiary should desire to accept his share, the rights of action will pass to him by operation of law. 10Where a son or a slave is appointed an heir, and is charged to transfer the estate, and the master or father should transfer it, the rights of action will pass to the beneficiary of the trust, by virtue of the Trebellian Decree of the Senate. This will be the case even if the parties are charged to transfer the property in their own names. 11The same rule applies where a father is charged to transfer the estate by the son himself. 12Where the guardian or curator of a minor or an insane person is charged to transfer an estate, the Trebellian Decree of the Senate will undoubtedly apply. 13Where a minor was charged to transfer the estate to the guardian himself, the question arose whether he could do so by the authority of his guardian. It was decided by the Divine Severus that he could not transfer the estate to his guardian by the authority of the latter, because no one can act as judge in his own case. 14Still, the estate of a minor can be transferred by him to his curator, as the authority of the latter is not necessary to render the transfer legal. 15Ad Dig. 36,1,1,15Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 58, Note 4.Moreover, where an association or a corporate body is charged to transfer an estate, the transfer will be valid where it is made to each of the different members individually, by the vote of those who belong to said association or corporate body; for, in this instance, each one of them is considered to have made the transfer to himself. 16Where the heir is asked to transfer the estate, after having reserved a tract of land for himself, he can do so under the Trebellian Decree of the Senate; nor does it make much difference if the land given to him has been pledged, as a personal action for the recovery of the money loaned will not follow the land; but he will be liable to whom the estate has been transferred under the Trebellian Decree of the Senate. Security must be furnished by the beneficiary of the trust to the heir so that the heir will be indemnified if the land should happen to be evicted by the creditor. Julianus, however, does not think that security should be given, but that an estimate ought to be made of the value of the land without the security, that is to say, how much it will sell for if security were not furnished; and il, where no bond had been given, it will sell for as much as the fourth part of the property would amount to, the rights of action will pass by the terms of the Trebellian Decree of the Senate; but if it would bring less, then, the deficiency having been reserved, a transfer of the remainder should likewise be made, in accordance with the Trebellian Decree of the Senate. This opinion disposes of many questions. 17Where a man who had an estate of four hundred aurei bequeathed three hundred, and, having deducted two hundred, charged his heir to transfer the estate to Seius, will the beneficiary of the trust be liable for the three hundred aurei, or will he only be liable in proportion to the amount of the estate which came into his hands? Julianus says that a demand for three hundred aurei can be made upon him, but that an action will not be granted against the beneficiary of the trust for more than two hundred, and for a hundred against the heir. This opinion of Julianus seems to me to be correct, in order that the beneficiary may not be liable for any more than the amount which he received from the estate. For no one is obliged to pay more of a legacy than the amount which came into his hands from the estate, even though the Falcidian Law may not apply, as is stated in a Rescript of the Divine Pius. 18Finally, no more shall be paid as legacies under the will of a soldier than his estate amounts to, after deducting the indebtedness; and still the beneficiary of the trust will not be permitted to reserve the fourth. 19Hence Neratius says that if the heir is charged to transfer the entire estate without deducting the Falcidian portion, and he who is entitled to receive it is charged to transfer it to a third party, the heir cannot deduct the fourth from what the second beneficiary receives, as the testator only intended that the first beneficiary of the trust should enjoy his liberality. 20Where a testator, having property worth four hundred aurei, left two hundred to Titius, and charged his heir to transfer half the estate to Sempronius, Julianus says that the transfer should be made according to the terms of the Trebellian Decree of the Senate, and that the action of the legatee should be divided so that he can bring one suit against the heir for a hundred aurei, and one against the beneficiary of the trust for the other hundred. Therefore, Julianus holds that in this way the heir will obtain his fourth unimpaired, that is, the hundred aurei without deduction. 21Julianus also says that if anyone who has an estate of four hundred aurei should bequeath three hundred, and, having deducted a hundred, should charge his heir to transfer the estate to Sempronius, it must be said that if the estate is transferred after the deduction of the hundred aurei, an action to recover the legacy will be granted against the beneficiary of the trust.
Dig. 36,1,3Ulpianus libro tertio fideicommissorum. Marcellus autem apud Iulianum in hac specie ita scribit: si ad heredis onus esse testator legata dixerit et heres sponte adiit hereditatem, ita debere computationem Falcidiae iniri, ac si quadringenta per fideicommissum essent relicta, trecenta vero legata, ut in septem partes trecenta dividantur et ferat quattuor partes fideicommissarius, tres partes legatarius. quod si suspecta dicta sit hereditas et non sponte heres adiit et restituit, centum quidem de quadringentis, quae habiturus esset heres, resident apud fideicommissarium, in reliquis autem trecentis eadem distributio fiet, ut ex his quattuor partes habeat fideicommissarius, reliquas tres legatarius: nam iniquissimum est plus ferre legatarium ideo, quia suspecta dicta est hereditas, quam laturus esset, si sponte adita fuisset. 1Quod autem in suspecta hereditate dictum est, hoc idem dici potest in his testamentis, in quibus lex Falcidia locum non habet, in militis dico et si qui sunt alii. 2Item Pomponius scribit, si deductis legatis restituere quis hereditatem rogatur, quaesitum est, utrum solida legata praestanda sint et quartam ex solo fideicommisso detrahere possit, an vero et ex legatis et ex fideicommisso quartam detrahere possit? et refert Aristonem respondisse ex omnibus detrahendam, hoc est ex legatis et fideicommisso. 3Res, quae ab herede alienatae sunt, in quartam imputantur heredi. 4Quidam liberis suis, ex disparibus partibus institutis, datis praeceptionibus, ut ipse maximam partem patrimonii inter liberos ita divisisset, rogavit eum, qui sine liberis decederet, portionem suam fratribus restituere. imperator noster rescripsit praeceptiones quoque fideicommisso contineri, quia non portionem hereditariam testator commemoravit, sed simpliciter portionem: in portionem autem et praeceptiones videri cecidisse. 5Si is, qui rogatus fuerit hereditatem restituere, ante quaestionem de familia habitam vel tabulas aperuerit vel hereditatem adierit vel quid eorum quae senatus consulto prohibentur fecerit ac per hoc publicata fuerit hereditas, fiscus cum suis oneribus hereditatem adquirit. quare commodum quartae, quod erat habiturus heres institutus, id ad fiscum pertinet et ex Trebelliano actiones transeunt. sed et si prohibuerit testamentarium introducere vel testes convenire vel mortem testatoris non defendit vel ex alia causa hereditas fisco vindicata est, aeque quartae quidem commodum ad fiscum pertinebit, dodrans vero fideicommissario restitueretur.
Ulpianus, Trusts, Book III. Ad Dig. 36,1,3 pr.Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. III, § 667, Note 10.Moreover, Marcellus, on Julianus, states with reference to this case that, if the testator had said that the heir should be charged with the legacies, and the latter voluntarily entered upon the estate, the calculation of the Falcidian portion must be made just as if four hundred aurei had been bequeathed under the trust, and three hundred had been left as a legacy; so that the three hundred ought to be divided into seven parts, to four of which the beneficiary of the trust would be entitled, and the other three would go to the legatee. If, however, the estate should be alleged to be insolvent, and the heir did not voluntarily accept and transfer it, a hundred aurei out of the four hundred to which the latter would have been entitled can be retained by the beneficiary of the trust, and the same distribution should be made of the remaining three hundred, so that the beneficiary may receive four-sevenths and the legatee the remaining three; for it would be extremely unjust for the legatee, merely because the estate was suspected of being insolvent, to have more than he would have obtained if the heir had voluntarily entered upon it. 1Again, what has been said with reference to an estate suspected of being insolvent is also applicable to wills to which the Falcidian Law does not apply. I refer to military wills and others of the same description. 2Pomponius also says that where anyone is charged to transfer an estate after the legacies have been deducted, the question arises whether the legacies should be paid in full, and whether the heir can deduct his fourth from what is left under the trust alone, or can deduct it from the legacies as well as the trust. He asserts that Aristo was of the opinion that it should be deducted from everything bequeathed by the testator, that is to say, from both the legacies and the trust. 3Any property forming part of an estate which has been alienated by the heir shall be included in his fourth. 4A certain man, having appointed his children his heirs to unequal portions of his estate, and having left them preferred legacies in such a way as to divide the larger part of his property among them, charged any one of them who might die without issue to leave his share to his brothers. Our Emperor stated in a Rescript that the preferred legacies were included in the trust, because the testator did not mention his share of the estate, but merely his share, and the preferred legacies were held to have been included in his share. 5If anyone should be asked to deliver an estate before he has put the slaves to the torture, or opened the will, or entered on the estate, or done any of those things which are forbidden by the Decree of the Senate, and for this reason the estate should be confiscated, the Treasury will acquire it with all its burdens. Therefore, the benefit of the fourth to which the appointed heir was entitled will be transferred to the Treasury, and all rights of action belonging to the estate will pass to it under the Trebellian Decree of the Senate. If, however, the heir should have prevented anyone from drawing up the will, or should not have permitted the witnesses to assemble, or should have neglected to avenge the death of the testator, or if the estate had been claimed by the Treasury for any other reason, the benefit of the fourth will also belong to the Treasury, and the remaining three-fourths of the estate will be transferred to the beneficiary of the trust.