Ad Dig. 2,1,15ROHGE, Bd. 10 (1874), S. 328: Voraussetzung der stillschweigenden Prorogation des Gerichtsstandes.The Same, On All Tribunals, Book II. If, through error, anyone appears before one Prætor while intending to appear before another, none of the proceedings which have been instituted will be valid, for no one is permitted to say that they agreed upon the judge; since, as Julianus stated, those who are in error do not agree. For what is so contrary to agreement as error, which always reveals ignorance?

Ulpianus, On All Tribunals, Book II. Julianus states in the Sixteenth Book of the Digest that a husband cannot lose any servitude attaching to the land, or impose any new ones upon it.

The Same, Concerning All Tribunals, Book II. Where one person enjoys the ownership of land, and another the usufruct of the same, the better opinion is that that portion of the decree which relates to the division of property does not apply, for there is no real community of interest.

The Same, On All Tribunals, Book II. There is no doubt that persons who are not legal guardians or curators, but transact business while acting as such, cannot in this capacity dispose of the property of wards or minors. 1It should be considered whether a sale will be valid by the ancient law under these circumstances, or whether this decree is applicable to the case of a curator of an insane person, or of anyone else who is not a minor. Because the Emperor refers to wards, and the duties of curators are understood to be connected with those of guardians, I think that the same rule must be held to apply to all of them, in accordance with the intent of the decree. 2The question arises whether common property, in which the ward has an interest, can be encumbered. And I do not think that this can be done without a judicial decision; for what is excepted in the decree merely has reference to the extinguishment of the common ownership, and not to the increase of its difficulties.

Ulpianus, On All Tribunals, Book II. If the creditors of an estate consider the heir to be suspicious, they can require him to give security for the payment of what is due to them, and the Prætor should take cognizance of the case. He ought not, however, without proper examination, to subject the heir to the necessity of furnishing security, unless after proper cause has been shown, he should decide to protect the interests of those who consider the heir as liable to suspicion. 1An heir is not considered suspicious in the same sense that a guardian is; for fraudulent acts or deceitful conduct with reference to the affairs of his ward render a guardian liable to suspicion, and not his want of means, while the latter alone will render an heir suspicious. 2It is clear that those who accuse an heir of being suspicious should only be heard within a short time after his acceptance of the estate. If, however, it is proved that they suffered him to remain in possession of the estate for a considerable period, and can accuse him of nothing criminal, as, for example, that he has been guilty of some fraudulent act, he should not, after a long time has elapsed, be reduced to the necessity of giving security. 3If the heir who is ordered to furnish security on the ground of being liable to suspicion does not obey the decree of the Prætor, the latter shall then order possession to be taken of the property of the estate, and permit it to be sold in conformity with the Edict. 4It is evident that if it should be ascertained that nothing belonging to the estate has been sold, and that no other objection can justly be raised against the heir except his poverty, the Prætor must be content to order him to take nothing from the estate. 5If the creditors cannot prove that the heir is suffering from poverty, they will be liable to him in an action on the ground of injury sustained.

The Same, On All Tribunals, Book II. We understand by the term “urban estates” not only all buildings which are situated in towns, but also inns, and such houses as are used for trade in the suburbs, and in villages, as well as palaces intended only for pleasure; but the materials, and not the location, are what constitute an urban estate. Hence, if there are any gardens attached to these buildings, it must be said that they are included under the term “urban estates.” It is clear that if these gardens afford more revenue than they do pleasure, that is to say, if they contain vines or olive trees, they should not be designated “urban estates.”