Ad legem Aeliam Sentiam libri
Ex libro IV
Dig. 40,9,30Ulpianus libro quarto ad legem Aeliam Sentiam. Si quis hac lege servum emerit, ut manumittat, et non manumittente eo servus ad libertatem pervenerit ex constitutione divi marci, an possit ut ingratum accusare, videamus. et dici potest, cum non sit manumissor, hoc ius eum non habere. 1Si filius meus ex voluntate mea manumiserit, an ut ingratum eum accusandi ius habeam, dubitari poterit idcirco, quia non manumisi: sed pro eo habendus sum, ac si manumississem. 2Sed si castrensem servum filius meus manumittat, dubio procul hoc ius non habebo, quia non ipse manumisi: ipse plane filius accusare poterit. 3Tamdiu autem accusare quis poterit, quamdiu perseverat patronus. 4Quotiens autem patroni libertum volunt accusare, utrum omnium consensus necessarius sit an vero et unus possit, videamus. et est verius, si saltem in unum hoc commiserit, eum ut ingratum accusari, sed omnium consensum necessarium, si sint eiusdem gradus. 5Si pater libertum uni ex filiis adsignaverit, solum eum accusare posse Iulianus scripsit: solum enim patronum esse.
Ulpianus, On the Lex Ælia Sentia, Book IV. If anyone should purchase a slave under the condition of manumitting him, and, not having done so, the slave obtains his freedom under the Constitution of the Divine Marcus, let us see whether he can be accused of ingratitude. It may be said that, as the purchaser did not manumit him, he is not entitled to this right of action. 1If my son should manumit my slave with my consent, it may be doubted whether I have the right to accuse him of ingratitude for the reason that I did not manumit him. I should, however, be considered as having manumitted him. 2But if my son manumits a slave forming part of his castrense peculium, there is no doubt that I will not have this right, because I, myself, did not manumit him. It is clear that my son himself can accuse him. 3Anyone can accuse a freedman of ingratitude as long as he remains his patron. 4If, however, several patrons desire to accuse their freedman of ingratitude, let us see whether the consent of all of them will be necessary, or whether only one can do so. The better opinion is that, if the freedman displayed ingratitude against only one of his patrons, he can accuse him; but the consent of all of them will be necessary, if they are all in the same degree. 5If a father should assign a freedman to one of his children, Julianus says he alone can accuse him of ingratitude, for he alone is his patron.