Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XX. Where anyone bequeaths money to be paid by his minor son, who is appointed his heir, “When he arrives at puberty,” and he also charges the heir whom he substitutes with the payment of the same, and the son dies before reaching puberty, the substituted heir will not owe the legacy. Sextus and Pomponius, however, do not think that this is correct, where the repetition of the legacy has been stated as follows, for instance: “Let my heir pay upon the same day the legacy with which I have charged my son, and which I have ordered him to pay if he shall become my heir.” If, however, the repetition was made as follows, “Let my heir pay the legacies, with the payment of which I have charged my son;” the legacies appear to have been repeated unconditionally, and the designation of them has only been made by the testator. Therefore, this very legacy with reference to which inquiry is made will be due me. 1Where anyone has several slaves named Stichus, and bequeaths Stichus, and it is not evident which Stichus he meant, the heir must deliver the slave chosen by the legatee. 2If anything should be left to a portion of the people of a town, which is for the ornament or benefit of the entire community, it undoubtedly will be due.

The Same, On Sabinus, Book XX. Where the words, “my female slave, or slaves,” are inserted in a will, those are held to be indicated whom the testator included in the number of such slaves as belonged to him.

Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XX. By the expression “his slaves or female slaves,” we understand those to be meant who belonged to the testator by a perfect title, and that those in whom he enjoyed only the usufruct are not included. 1Where freemen serve the testator in good faith as slaves, the better opinion is that they are included under the term “his own;” provided he intended that those who belonged to him, as well as those whom he regarded as being his property, should be included in this appellation. 2There is no doubt that those slaves whom a debtor has given in pledge should be held to have been bequeathed as his own; but this, under no circumstances, applies to the creditor. 3Therefore, if anyone has slaves of his own whose services he has leased to others, either as bakers or players, or for any other employment; should he be held to have also bequeathed them under the name of slaves? This must be presumed, unless the intention of the testator appears to be otherwise. 4I think that where a party pursues the calling of a slave trader, his slaves cannot properly be included among those which belong to his household, unless it was clear that this was his intention with reference to them; for where anyone purchases slaves in order immediately to sell them, he should be considered to hold them rather as merchandise, than as his slaves. 5Pomponius states in the Fifth Book that slaves belonging to other slaves are not included in this category.

Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XX. Where coins, in general, are bequeathed, it is understood that those of the smallest denominations are included; unless it appears from the terms of the will that the intention was to depart from the custom of the testator, or of the neighborhood.

The Same, On Sabinus, Book XX. Whenever the choice of selection of a slave is bequeathed, the legatee can choose anyone that he wishes. 1When a slave is bequeathed in general terms, the right of selection also belongs to the legatee. 2Therefore, where an option is given, and the legatee chooses a slave belonging to another, or a freeman, it should be considered whether he has lost his right of selection. I think that he has not done so. 3Where a legatee, to whom has been left the choice of a hundred measures of wine, selects vinegar, he is not, by doing so, considered to have lost his right of selection, if the testator did not include vinegar under the head of wine.

Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XX. Where wine is bequeathed, any vinegar which the head of the household kept with his wine is also included.

Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XX. Sabinus says clearly in his works on Vitellius that everything is included in the equipment of land which is used for procuring, gathering, and preserving the crops. For instance, in order to procure the latter some slaves are employed to cultivate the soil, and others are placed in charge of them to compel them to labor, and among the latter are the stewards and overseers, and, in addition, are oxen, broken to work, and flocks provided for manuring the ground, and implements and utensils for cultivation, such as plows, hoes, weeding hooks, pruning knives, forks, and other tools of this kind. For the purpose of gathering the crops, implements such as presses, baskets, sickles for cutting grain, scythes for mowing hay, baskets in which grapes are picked and carried, are included. For preserving the crops, casks, for example, even though they may not be buried in the ground, and vats, are used. 1In some districts, for instance, if a farmhouse is of the better class, there are added, as accessories, slaves who are porters, and floor-cleaners; and if there are pleasure-gardens, gardeners. If the land has woods and pastures, droves of cattle and their shepherds and foresters are included.

Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XX. If the income of the land also consists of honey, the bees and their hives will be included.

Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XX. The question arose whether grain which was intended for the support of slaves who cultivated the land would form part of the equipment of the latter. The greater number of authorities do not think that it would, because it is to be consumed; as the equipment in general includes everything which is intended to remain on the land for a considerable time, and without which the possession of it cannot be maintained. Food prepared for the support of the slaves is considered as accessory, rather than as something destined to promote cultivation. I think, however, that grain and wine intended for food should be included in the equipment, and the pupils of Servius state that this was also his opinion. Likewise, it is held by some authorities that grain reserved for seed is included in the equipment, and I believe this to be correct, because it has reference to the cultivation of the soil, and is consumed in such a way that it is always replaced. Grain reserved for seed differs in no respect from that intended for the food of slaves. 1We have mentioned granaries, for the reason that the crops are kept therein, and earthen vessels, and bins in which they are arranged, as belonging to the class of things used for the preservation of crops. Whatever is intended for the transportation of the crops is also included in the equipment of the land, for example, beasts of burden, vehicles, ships, barrels, and sacks. 2Alfenus, however, says that if the testator should make a bequest of certain slaves who were not attached to the land, those who were attached to it will not be included in the equipment of the same, because he is of the opinion that no animal is an implement. This is not correct, for it is well established that the slaves who are on the land for the purpose of cultivating it are included in its equipment. 3The question arose whether a slave who was a tenant on land is included in a devise as an implement. Labeo and Pegasus very properly hold that he is not, because he is not on the premises as an appurtenance to the same, even if he were accustomed to exercise supervision over others employed thereon. 4Labeo thinks that a forester who has been appointed to see to the preservation of the crops is included in the legacy, but that one who is charged with the maintenance of boundaries is not. Neratius, however, holds that he is. The latter opinion, at present, prevails, so that all foresters are included. 5Trebatius goes still farther, and thinks that the baker and the barber who are employed for the benefit of the slaves of rustic estates are included, as well as the mason whose duty it is to repair the buildings, and the female slaves who bake the bread, and take care of the house, and likewise the millers employed on the estate and the cook and stewardess, provided they assist any male slave by their service; and also women who are spinners and weavers, and make clothing for the slaves and prepare their food. 6The question, however, arises whether any accessories to the equipment are included in a legacy of the latter; for slaves employed for the benefit of the farmers, such as spinners, weavers, barbers, fullers, and cooks do not, properly speaking, form part of the equipment of the land, but are they accessory to the same? I think that cooks are included as well as spinners and weavers, together with the others above enumerated, and the pupils of Servius assert that this was also his opinion. 7It must be held that the testator intended that the wives and children of those above mentioned, and who were members of the same household, should be included in the legacy; for it is incredible that he would have directed such a cruel separation to take place. 8Where flocks are pastured for a part of the year upon the land, and food is purchased for them during the remainder; or where the land is cultivated for a portion of the year by the slaves, and they are hired out for pay during the remaining portion, they will, nevertheless, be included in the equipment. 9It is well established that the steward also (that is to say the slave who is charged with seeing that the accounts are properly rendered), as well as the porter and the muleteer, are also included in the equipment. 10The millstones, machinery, hay, straw, the ass used to turn the wheel and all the apparatus of the mill are included; the brazen cauldron in which the juice of the grape is boiled and spiced, and those which contain water intended for drinking and washing by the slaves are also part of the equipment, as well as the hand-barrows and carts used for the transportation of manure. 11Cassius says that anything attached to the soil does not constitute any part of the equipment of the land, as reeds and osiers before they are cut, because the land cannot be an equipment of itself. If, however, they should be cut, I think that they will be included, because they serve for the production of crops. The same rule applies to stakes. 12If there is game on the land, I think that the slaves who are hunters and trackers, as well as the dogs, and everything else necessary for hunting, are included in the equipment, especially if the land derives an income from this source. 13Likewise, if an income is derived from bird-catching, the slaves who are fowlers and their nets, and any other apparatus used for this purpose, are included in the equipment. This is not extraordinary, as Sabinus and Cassius think that birds themselves are included in the equipment of the land, for instance, such as have been domesticated. 14Where a man uses the same implements on different tracts of land, the question arises, to which one will they belong as equipment? I think that if the intention of the testator is plain as to which tract of land he intended them to belong, they will be accessory thereto, for the other tracts have, as it were, borrowed the said implements from this one. If his intention is not clear, they will be accessory to none of them, for we cannot divide implements proportionally. 15Any furniture, or other articles found on the land, which the owner intended to be placed in better order, will not be included in the equipment of the same. 16It should be considered what comes under the head of household equipment, where the latter is bequeathed. Pegasus says that the equipment of a house includes everything used for protection against the weather, or for the prevention of fire; but not what is employed for purposes of pleasure; and therefore neither the glass screens nor awnings which are kept in the house to provide against cold or to furnish shade are due. This was the opinion of Cassius, who was accustomed to say that a great difference existed between utensils and ornaments, as utensils are articles which are employed for the protection of the house, and ornaments are things which contribute to the pleasure of the owner, as for instance, paintings. 17Cassius thinks that the hair-cloth curtains used to prevent buildings from being affected by wind or rain belong to the equipment of a house. 18Pegasus and many other authorities say that vinegar kept for the purpose of extinguishing fire, mops made of rags, siphons, poles, ladders, mats, sponges, buckets and brooms are included. 19If the owner should have obtained any tiles or beams for his house, they will be included in the equipment of the same, if they were intended for this use, and were not employed in any other. Hence, if he had a scaffold required for this purpose, it would also be included in the equipment of the building. 20Celsus says with reference to curtains extending over the thresholds and window sills, and also concerning such as are suspended from columns, that they should rather be classed as furniture; and Sabinus and Cassius are of the same opinion. 21Pipes and grappling hooks are also included in the term equipment. 22Likewise, long rods used for removing spider webs, sponges with which columns, floors, and the feet of furniture are cleansed, and ladders employed for the purpose of washing ceilings, are utensils, because they render the house cleaner. 23Papinianus says, in the Seventh Book of Opinions, that ornamental plaster work, and statues fastened to the walls, are not included in the equipment of a house, but are part of the house itself; and, indeed, where they are not attached to it, they are not included, for they come under the head of furniture; with the exception of brass clocks which are not fastened to the walls; for he thinks that these, like the cloth curtains suspended before a house, form part of its equipment. 24Pipes, gutters and basins, as well as other things required for fountains, together with locks and keys, rather constitute a part of the house itself than accessories thereof. 25Panes of glass, attached to a house, I incline to believe belong to it, for when a house is bought, the panes and the shelves are included in the purchase; whether they are in the building at the time, or have been temporarily removed. If, however, they have not been replaced, but are, nevertheless, kept to be restored to their original position, they will be embraced in the equipment. 26I think that lattices should be included under the head of equipment. 27Where a tract of land is not devised with its equipment, but in order that it may be furnished with it, the question arose whether more is included than if the land had been merely left together with its equipment. Sabinus stated in his works on Vitellius, that it must be confessed that more is left where land is devised to be provided with the means of cultivation than where it is devised furnished with them, which opinion we see is increasing in importance and validity every day. Therefore let us consider in what respect this legacy is more advantageous than the other. Sabinus lays down the rule, and Cassius, in a note on Vitellius, says that everything that has been brought upon the land in order that the owner of the same may be better prepared for cultivating it is included; that is to say, whatever he has there in order that he may be more abundantly supplied. Thus, by such a legacy he is held to have left not the implements which belong to the land, but those that constitute his own private property. 28Hence, if land already provided with the necessary implements is devised, and the furniture which was there for the use of the testator himself is included, together with clothing, not only outer garments, but also those which the testator was accustomed to wear while there, and tables of ivory or of any other material, vessels of glass, gold, and silver, as well as wines, if there were any intended for his own use, and any other utensils; they will also be included. 29Where, however, the testator had collected certain articles, not for his own use but for safe-keeping, they will not be included. Wines contained in warehouses are also not included. We have adopted this rule so that whatever the head of the household has collected there, as, for instance, in a granary, may not be embraced in the legacy. 30Celsus also states, in the Nineteenth Book of the Digest, that where fruits are collected on the premises in order to be sold, or for any other purpose than for the use or benefit of the land itself, they will not be included among the equipment of the same. 31Celsus also says, in the same Book, that slaves who have care of the furniture and other slaves of this kind are included; that is to say, household slaves, who are employed on the land, with the exception of those who have received their freedom, and who are accustomed to reside in the country. 32If a testator should devise land already provided with the means of cultivation, young slaves who are being instructed in the service of the table, and whom the testator was accustomed to have there, whenever he came, are embraced in the legacy. 33The members of the slaves’ families, that is, their wives and children, are undoubtedly included in the devise of land with its equipment. 34Where land with its equipment is devised, it is well established that the library, and any books upon the premises, which the head of the household made use of whenever he came, are included. If, however, a warehouse should be used for the storage of the books, the contrary opinion must be held. 35Neratius, also, in replying to Rufinus, stated, in the Fourth Book of the Epistles, that the devise of a tract of land with its equipment includes the furniture, the wines, and the slaves, not only those employed in the cultivation of the soil, and the care of the same, but also those attached to the personal service of the head of the household. 36Only such pictures are considered to have been bequeathed as were used for the adornment of the country-house. 37Papinianus holds that where land is devised with its equipment those slaves are not included who were there only temporarily, and who had not been brought by the testator either for the purpose of being employed on the land, or for his own service. 38The same authority was of the opinion that where land was devised with its equipment, and the steward who had charge of the same was sent back into the province to resume his former duties, after having transacted the business for which he came, he will be included in the devise of the land, even though he may not yet have returned. 39He also says, where a testator devised his gardens with their equipment, that even the wines which were there for the purpose of having the table of the owner better supplied, are included. It is otherwise, however, if he kept the wines in warehouses, from whence he transported them either to the city, or to other estates. 40He also holds that where a house was devised by Umbrius Primus, under a trust, together with its furniture, to Claudius Hieronianus, a most illustrious man, that the tables and the other furniture which the head of the household, being about to start on a journey to assume the proconsulate of a province, had stored in warehouses in order that they might be in a safer place, were included. 41He also gave it as his opinion that a certain antidote against poison, and other drugs, together with any clothing which he had deposited there on account of his departure, were included in the devise of the land with its equipment. 42He also held, where a house was devised with its equipment and all the legal rights attaching thereto, that the city slaves, as well as those who were skilled workmen, and whose services were also employed on other tracts of land, were not included in the bequest; but he he says that the doorkeeper, the gardeners, those having charge of the rooms, the water-carriers, and slaves who only worked in the house will be included. However, what he states with reference to the skilled workmen is not true, if they were destined for the service of the house, even though they were lent to other estates to be employed thereon. 43He also gives it as his opinion that where a house is devised with its equipment, ivory tables and books are not included. This, however, is false, for everything in the house by means of which the owner may be better provided and rendered more comfortable will be included. No one doubts that the furniture is something which contributes to the convenience of the head of a household. Finally, Neratius, in the Fourth Book of Epistles, informs his brother Marcellus that clothing is included in the devise of a house with its equipment; and he says that this is especially true in the case stated, for it was alleged that the testator who devised the property excepted the silver plate and the accounts, for anyone who excepted these things cannot have had in his mind any other articles which were there. Papinianus himself, however, says in the same Book of Opinions, that where a father who was a merchant and a money-broker, and had two sons and as many daughters, appointed them his heirs as follows, “I do give and bequeath to my sons my house, furnished as it is, and I order it to be delivered to them,” the question may be asked whether the merchandise and pledges are contained in this bequest. It would be easy for the judge to ascertain the intention of the testator by examining his other property. 44Celsus says that where anyone bequeaths the slaves residing on the land, their under-slaves are not included, unless it should be evident that the testator had them also in his mind. 45Papinianus also held, in the Seventh Book of Opinions, that a wife, to whom her husband had left everything that was in his house, could not require his daughter, who was his heir, to surrender the obligations of debtors and the bills of sale of slaves that did not appear to have been bequeathed, unless (he says), it is clear that the testator had had the slaves in his mind, so that he would seem to have bequeathed to his wife the evidences of the transfer of said slaves whom themselves, he intended should belong to her. 46If anyone should devise a tract of land “With its equipment, just as it is,” and should afterwards add, “Together with its furniture, and its slaves, and everything else which was not expressly mentioned,” the question arises whether, by adding this clause, he will diminish the bequest, or not. Papinianus answers that it will not be considered to have been diminished, but rather to have been unnecessarily increased by this superfluous addition. 47Papinianus likewise, in the Seventh Book of Opinions, says, if certain gardens with all their equipment are devised by a mother to a son, and she also bequeaths to her daughter her silverware intended for the use of women, that his opinion is if the said silverware, which she kept in her gardens, was there for her own personal convenience, it will belong to her daughter.

Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XX. When gold or silver is bequeathed, any gold or silver which was left is included in the legacy, whether manufactured or not. It is, however, well established that money, which is coined, is not included in the legacy. 1Hence, if a certain weight of gold or silver is bequeathed, the amount of the same is considered to have been left in bulk, and the legacy to have no reference to vases. 2If, however, a hundred weight of manufactured silver is bequeathed, the legacy is due in manufactured silver. Wherefore it was asked by Celsus whether small vessels should be excluded. He was of the opinion that they could not be excluded, even if the choice of them had been left to the heir. 3Celsus, in the Nineteenth Book of Questions, also asks where a hundred weight of silver is bequeathed, whether the leaden joints must be unsoldered, so that the silver can be weighed. Both Proculus and Celsus say that it must be weighed after the removal of the lead, for silver is delivered to purchasers unsoldered, and the weight of the same is taken into account; which opinion is reasonable. 4It is clear that where small silver vessels, for instance, square plates, are bequeathed, the lead with which they are soldered goes with them. 5Likewise, where silver-ware is bequeathed, the question arises whether any gold ornamentation united with it is included. Pomponius, in the Fifth Book on Sabinus, says that it makes a great deal of difference whether a certain weight of manufactured silver is bequeathed to him, or merely manufactured silver. If a certain weight of silver is bequeathed, it will not be included; if manufactured silver is bequeathed, it will be included, as anything united with any kind of silver-ware is, as it were, an accessory to the same; just as gold braid and purple form part of clothing. Pomponius, in the Books of the Epistles, says that braid is included in a legacy of clothing, even if it is not sewed to it. 6Celsus also states, in the Nineteenth Book of the Digest and the Seventh of the Commentaries, that where gold is bequeathed, neither articles which are gilded, nor gold ornamentation on silver plate will be due. 7Are gold rings included under the term “gold?” is asked. Quintus Saturninus says, in the Tenth Book on the Edict, that they are included. 8It is evident that a silver bed is not included under the term silver-ware, nor any other silver furniture, if the testator did not consider it as such. I know that I decided that this was the case with reference to a silver clasp, because the head of the household did not regard it as part of his silver-ware. And, neither can candelabra, nor silver lamps, nor small images kept in the house, nor silver statues, be included under the term “silver-ware.” Nor are mirrors attached to walls and which women use for their toilet included, provided they do not consider them as part of their silver-ware. 9Where a bequest of silver-ware is made, Quintus Mucius says that silver vessels are included; as, for example, chafing dishes, oil-pots, bowls, basins, and other utensils of this kind which, however, are not classed as furniture. 10Where vases are bequeathed to anyone, not only those are included which are intended for eating and drinking, but also such as are used to support something, as, for instance, saucers and trays. The sideboards in which they are kept are also included, for the term “vases” is a general one, by which we designate vessels to hold wine as well as those employed for refrigerating purposes. 11The expression “unmanufactured silver,” includes raw material, that is to say, such as has not been worked up. But what if some labor has been expended on the silver, but it has not yet been completed? There might be some doubt in this case whether or not it would come under the term “unmanufactured,” but I think that the term “manufactured silver” will be more applicable. It would certainly be manufactured, and be included under that designation, if it was in the hands of the goldsmith to be adorned with gold. Where the gold ornamentation has been begun, should it be included under the term adorned with gold? I think it should be, if the silver ware was bequeathed, and the gold ornamentation had not been finished. 12Where a bequest is made of silver-ware for the table, that only will be due to the legatee which the testator included in his own table service, that is to say such as he used for eating and drinking. Hence, there is some doubt concerning the basin for washing the hands; still, I think it would be included, because it has reference to the service of the table. It is certain that, if the testator had silver pots or caldrons, or kitchen utensils, or any other articles used for cooking purposes, it may be doubted whether these will be included in the legacy. It is my opinion that such things rather belong to the equipment of the kitchen. 13Let us now discuss jewels set in gold and silver. Sabinus says that they are accessory to the gold and silver, as smaller things are accessory to those that are greater. This is correctly stated, for as we are sometimes at a loss to determine which of two articles is accessory, we must consider which one of them is used for the purpose of ornamenting the other, as the accessory follows the principal. Therefore, jewels inserted in drinking cups, or in gold or silver plates, are accessories to the same. 14So far as the crowns of tables are concerned, their jewels are accessory to the crowns, and the latter are accessory to the tables. 15The same rule applies to pearls set in gold, for if the pearls are inserted into the gold for the purpose of ornamenting it, they will be accessory to it; if the contrary is the case, the gold will be accessory to the pearls. 16The same rule applies to jewels set in rings. 17Jewels are of transparent material. Servius distinguished them from precious stones, as Sabinus states in his Books on Vitellius, for the reason that jewels are transparent; as, for instance, emeralds, chrysolites, and amethysts, while precious stones are of a different nature, as, for example, obsidian, and those that are found near Veii. 18Sabinus also says that pearls should neither be classed as jewels nor as precious stones, which has frequently been established, because the shell on which they are found is formed and grows near the Red Sea. 19Moreover, Cassius says that vessels of iridescent glass are not classed as jewels. 20Where gold is bequeathed, vases of that metal are included, and where jewels are bequeathed, vases set with gems constitute part of the legacy. In accordance with this, where gold or silver vases are inlaid with jewels, they are accessory to the gold or silver; as we must consider which of the articles was intended for the ornamentation of the other, and not which of them is the more valuable.

Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XX. Where a husband bequeathed a legacy to his wife payable when she had children, we are accustomed to say that he did not have in his mind those children whom his wife already had at the time when he made his will.

The Same, On Sabinus, Book XX. If a legatee should die after the time when the legacy begins to take effect, he will transmit it to his own heir. 1Therefore, if a legacy is bequeathed absolutely, it begins to become operative from the day of the death of the person who bequeathed it. Where, however, legacies are bequeathed to take effect after a certain date, they begin to vest just as other absolute legacies do; unless something has been bequeathed which does not pass to the heir, for one of this kind will not become operative before the time prescribed; as for instance, where an usufruct is left to take effect after a year. We approve this opinion. 2But where a legacy is bequeathed under a condition, it does not begin to vest before the condition is complied with, provided it is in the power of the legatee to comply with it. 3Where, however, the condition is of such a nature that compliance with it is generally excused by the Prætor, it takes effect at once. 4The same rule applies to a condition which is impossible, because a legacy of this kind is considered to be bequeathed absolutely. 5Likewise, where the condition is such that the legatee is not responsible for non-compliance with it, but it is the fault of the heir, or of some other person who has been ordered to comply with the condition, the legacy will take effect, as the condition is considered to have been fulfilled; as, for instance, if I should be ordered to pay the heir ten aurei, and he refuses to accept them. Where, however, a legacy is bequeathed to me if I marry Seia, and she is unwilling to marry me, it must be said that the legacy commences to vest, because it is not my fault that I do not comply with the condition, but another is to blame for its not being fulfilled. 6A legacy shall be paid to the heir of the legatee at the same times, that is to say, in the same instalments as it is paid to the legatee himself. 7If, when a legacy commences to be due, the legatee is under the control of someone else, it will be payable to those to whose authority he is subject. Hence, if the legacy is left absolutely to a slave, and he becomes free after the day when it is payable, the legacy will belong to his master. If, however, an usufruct is bequeathed, the slave will acquire the legacy for himself, even though he should become free after the death of the testator, and before the estate has been entered upon.

Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XX. The acceptance of the estate by the heir causes the claim for the legacy to be deferred, but does not prevent it from taking effect. 1Hence, whether an heir who was appointed absolutely defers his acceptance of the estate, or, whether, if he was appointed conditionally, he is prevented from accepting it by the condition, the rights of the legatee will be protected. 2If, however, an unborn heir, or a person who is in the hands of the enemy is appointed, in like manner, the rights of the legatee will not be prejudiced, because his legacy has begun to take effect. 3For this reason we say that where a substitute has been charged with a legacy, the legacy will not be affected, if, while the appointed heir is deliberating, the legatee should die; for his rights will not be prejudiced even if the appointed heir should afterwards reject the estate, since the legatee will transmit his claim to his own heir. 4The case is the same where a substitute for a minor is charged with a legacy, for he also will transmit the legacy to his heir. 5If the substitute of a minor is charged to pay a hundred aurei to Seius, and the son should die before reaching the age of puberty; it might be a subject of discussion whether, if Seius should die during the lifetime of the minor, he would transmit the legacy to his heir, just as if the condition upon which the legacy depended had been expressed. The better opinion is that the legacy will pass to the heir. 6Sometimes the acceptance of the estate having been postponed by the heir, it causes the vesting of the legacies also to be postponed; as, for instance, where a slave is manumitted, or is left to someone, and a bequest is made to the slave on this account; for where a legacy is bequeathed to a slave, it never takes effect until the estate has been entered upon.