Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XV. And therefore the dowry is liable for this debt.

Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XV. Where anyone appoints a guardian for his daughters or his sons, he is held also to have appointed him for a posthumous daughter, because the term “posthumous” is included in the term daughter.

Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XV. Where any words have undesignedly been erased or blotted in a will, so that they can still be read, they will, nevertheless, be valid; but this is not the case where it has been done purposely. Where anything has been obliterated or erased without the order of the testator, it is of no effect. The term “read” must be understood to mean not that the sense can be ascertained, but that what has been written can be perceived by the eyes. But where the meaning can be gathered from some other source, the words are not held to be legible. It is sufficient, however, for them to be legible where they have been thoughtlessly erased, either by the testator or by someone else, against his will. The word “blotted” must be understood to signify that the words are obscured. 1Hence, where anything of this kind has been done unintentionally and the writing can be read, it is just as if it had not been done at all. Therefore, if at the end of the will (as is customary) there was written: “I, myself, have made all the erasures, insertions, and changes herein contained”; it is not held that this has reference to anything which may have been erased accidentally; for if a testator should write that he had made the erasures unintentionally, the words will remain, and if he has rendered them illegible, they will not be considered to be so. 2Where words of this kind cannot be read, and have been unintentionally erased, it must be held that nothing is granted by them; provided, however, that this was done before the completion of the will. 3Where, however, words have been intentionally erased, parties claiming under them will be barred by an exception, but if this was done undesignedly, they will not be barred, whether the words can, or cannot be read; since if the entire will does not exist, it is established that everything therein contained will be valid. If indeed the testator mutilated the will, actions will be denied to parties mentioned in it; this, however, will not be the case where the mutilations were made against the consent of the testator. 4When the heir has been deprived of a portion of the estate, or of all of it, and a substitute has been appointed, the act will be held to be legally performed; but the estate will not be considered to have been taken away from the heir, but never to have been given to him, as where an estate has once been granted it is not easily taken away. 5Where anyone confirmed his codicils by a will, and added something in a codicil which he afterwards erased, but which is still legible; will any obligation be incurred by it? Pomponius says that a codicil which has been erased is void.

Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XV. Where it was inserted in a will that, “If I should make a bequest twice to a certain individual, my heir shall only pay him one legacy;” or “One legacy only shall be due;” and he bequeaths to the said party two separate sums of money, or two separate tracts of land, will both of them be due? Aristo says that it appears but one legacy will be due, for whatever is taken away is not held to have been given, according to the opinion of Celsus and Marcellus; which is correct. 1Papinianus, however, says, in the Nineteenth Book of Questions, that if a testator, after having left several legacies to the same person, asserts that he expects only one of them to be paid, and does this before completing his will, the other legacies should be considered as annulled by operation of law. Which one, however, should be considered to have been taken away, for this is not apparent? And he says it can be held that the smallest one should be paid.

Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XV. Where a person made a bequest to his daughters and mentioned a posthumous daughter in some part of his will, he is held to have had the posthumous daughter in his mind at the time he made the bequest. 1Where anyone makes a bequest as follows: “If a daughter should be born to me, let my heir give her a hundred aurei,” and several daughters should be born, it is held that each one of them is entitled to the same bequest, which must be understood in this way, unless it is clear that the intention of the testator was otherwise. 2Where the bequest is made to one of several heirs, it is evident that the judge must award it as due in an action brought for partition; and it is established that even if the party should reject the estate, he will be entitled to recover a legacy of this kind.

Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XV. Papinianus holds in the Book of Questions that where legacies have been left in such a way as to be of no effect, they can be confirmed by repetition; that is to say, by the following clause subsequently inserted in a codicil: “Let my heir pay him this, in addition;” and where something different is afterwards stated: “Let my heir be charged with the payment of the money which I have bequeathed, on the days which I have fixed, and not at the end of one, two, and three years;” for the testator did not do this for the purpose of confirming the bequests which were void, but merely to prolong the time of payment for those which were valid. 1The same authority states in the same place, with reference to a substitute appointed for a child under the age of puberty, that if the said child should be improperly charged with the payment of a legacy, his substitute must pay it, if anything more has been left in his charge, and the heir should die without becoming the successor of his father. 2Where property is bequeathed to several persons, and the shares are not designated, all will inherit equally.

Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XV. If a flock of sheep was left, any increase which subsequently takes place will belong to the legatee.

The Same, On Sabinus, Book XV. In the transfer of an estate under the terms of a trust, it is settled that the profits are not included unless the heir is in default, or was especially charged to transfer them. 1Ad Dig. 36,1,19,1Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. III, § 652, Note 20.It is clear that the profits should be included in the fourth, as was stated in the Rescript. 2Whenever anyone is asked to transfer an estate, he is considered to have been asked to transfer everything belonging to it; the profits, however, are not considered to have been derived from the estate itself, but from the property belonging to the same. 3Where a legacy is left to an heir, and he is asked to transfer his share of the estate, he must not only transfer any legacy which he has received from his co-heir, but whatever he himself is charged with is included in the trust. This was established by a Decree of the Divine Marcus.

Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XV. Where the legacy of an usufruct, or use, or the right of habitation is bequeathed, it does not take effect until the estate is entered upon, and an action for its recovery does not pass to the heir. The same rule applies where an usufruct is bequeathed to begin at a certain time.

Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XV. Where an unborn child is placed in possession of an estate, what is taken from the estate for its support should be deducted as a debt.

Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XV. If anyone should stipulate for services to be rendered for the benefit of himself and his children, the stipulation will also apply to his posthumous heirs.

Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XV. There is no question that the word “daughters” includes posthumous children, while it is certain that the term “posthumous” is not applicable to a daughter who is already born. 1The word “share” does not always mean the half, but the part which is indicated by it; for anyone can be directed to have the largest share, or the twentieth, or the third, or as much as the testator pleases. If nothing is mentioned but the share, half of the estate will be due. 2The expressions “To have,” and “To come into one’s hands,” should be understood to mean legal possession.

Ad Dig. 50,17,9BOHGE, Bd. 1 (1871), S. 22: Auslegung zum Nachtheile des Contrahenten, welcher aus dem Vertrage ein Recht auf eine ihm vortheilhaftere Auslegung herleitet.ROHGE, Bd. 7 (1873), S. 1: Auslegung zum Nachtheile des Contrahenten, welcher aus dem Vertrage ein Recht auf eine ihm vortheilhaftere Auslegung herleitet.Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XV. In matters which are obscure, we always follow the one which is the least ambiguous.