Ad Massurium Sabinum libri
Ex libro III
Dig. 1,3,8Ulpianus libro III ad Sabinum. Iura non in singulas personas, sed generaliter constituuntur.
Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book III. Laws are not established for individuals, but for general purposes.
Dig. 24,1,22Idem libro tertio ad Sabinum. Uxori suae quis mortis causa servum donavit eumque cum libertate heredem scripsit: an valeat institutio, quaeritur. et puto, si hoc animo eum scripsit heredem, quod donationis se dixit paenituisse, valere institutionem et necessarium heredem domino servum fieri: ceterum si, posteaquam heredem instituit, donavit, donatio praevalebit, vel si ante donavit, non tamen adimendi animo libertatem adscripsit.
The Same, On Sabinus, Book III. A man gave a slave mortis causa to his wife, and then appointed him his heir with the grant of his freedom. The question arises, is such an appointment valid? I think that if he appointed him his heir because he said that he changed his mind, the appointment will be valid, and the slave will become the necessary heir of his master. But if after he appointed him his heir, he gave him away, the donation will have greater weight; or if he gave him away before he did this, but still did not grant him his liberty with the intention of depriving him of it, the result will be the same.
Dig. 28,2,4Idem libro tertio ad Sabinum. Placet omnem masculum posse postumum heredem scribere, sive iam maritus sit sive nondum uxorem duxerit: nam et maritus repudiare uxorem potest et qui non duxit uxorem, postea maritus effici. nam et cum maritus postumum heredem scribit, non utique is solus postumus scriptus videtur, qui ex ea quam habet uxorem ei natus est, vel is qui tunc in utero est, verum is quoque, qui ex quacumque uxore nascatur:
The Same, On Sabinus, Book III. It is established that every man can appoint a posthumous child his heir, whether he is married or not. For, indeed, a husband can repudiate his wife, and one who has not contracted marriage can subsequently do so; and where a husband appoints a posthumous heir, it is held that this does not only apply to a child who is born of the present wife of the testator, but also to one who is unborn, and indeed may be born of any wife whomsoever.
Dig. 28,2,6Ulpianus libro tertio ad Sabinum. Sed est quaesitum, an is, qui generare facile non possit, postumum heredem facere possit, et scribit Cassius et Iavolenus posse: nam et uxorem ducere et adoptare potest: spadonem quoque posse postumum heredem scribere et Labeo et Cassius scribunt: quoniam nec aetas nec sterilitas ei rei impedimento est. 1Sed si castratus sit, Iulianus Proculi opinionem secutus non putat postumum heredem posse instituere, quo iure utimur. 2Hermaphroditus plane, si in eo virilia praevalebunt, postumum heredem instituere poterit.
Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book III. The question arose whether a man who has not complete power of reproduction can appoint a posthumous heir. Cassius and Javolenus say that he can do so, because he can marry and adopt children. Labeo and Cassius state that one who is temporarily impotent can also appoint a posthumous heir, since in this instance neither age nor sterility can be considered as impediments. 1Where, however, the individual in question has been castrated, Julianus, following the opinion of Proculus, does not think that he can appoint a posthumous heir. This is the modern practice. 2An hermaphrodite can appoint a posthumous heir, if the male organs predominate in his physical conformation.
Dig. 28,3,3Idem libro tertio ad Sabinum. Postumi per virilem sexum descendentes ad similitudinem filiorum nominatim exheredandi sunt, ne testamentum adgnascendo rumpant. 1Postumos autem dicimus eos dumtaxat, qui post mortem parentis nascuntur. sed et hi, qui post testamentum factum in vita nascuntur, ita demum per legem VellaeamaaDie Großausgabe liest Velleam statt Vellaeam. rumpere testamentum prohibentur, si nominatim sint exheredati. 2Unde etiam ante heredis institutionem vel inter medias heredum institutiones vel inter gradus exheredari possunt: nam divus Marcus decrevit idem in postumo quod in filio servandum, nec ratio diversitatis reddi potest. 3Ex his apparet aliam causam esse filiorum superstitum, aliam posteriorum: illi iniustum faciunt, hi rumpunt, illi semper, hi, si nascantur nec inveniant se exheredatos. 4Sed et si sit ante hoc aliud testamentum, a quo postumus exheredatus sit, placet, sive post mortem testatoris nascatur sive vivo testatore, utrumque ruptum esse et superius per inferius et inferius per postumum. 5Nominatim autem exheredatus postumus videtur, sive ita dixerit: ‘quicumque mihi nasceretur’, sive ita: ‘ex Seia’, sive ita: ‘venter exheres esto’. sed et si dixerit: ‘postumus exheres esto’, natus vel post mortem vel vivo testatore non rumpet. 6Licet autem postumus praeteritus adgnascendo rumpat, tamen interdum evenit, ut pars testamenti rumpatur: ut puta si proponas a primo gradu postumum exheredatum, a secundo praeteritum: nam hic primus gradus valet, secundus ruptus est.
The Same, On Sabinus, Book III. Posthumous children who descend through the male sex are disinherited by name, just in the same way as the living children of the testator, unless they break the will by their birth. 1We only style those children “posthumous” who are born after the death of their father; those who are born after the execution of the will are, in accordance with the Lex Velleia, forbidden to break the will, where they are disinherited by name. 2Wherefore, children can be also disinherited either before the appointment of an heir, or between the appointment of several heirs, or between the different degrees of inheritance; for the Divine Marcus decreed that the same rule should be observed with reference to a posthumous child, as in the case of a living one, since no reason for establishing a difference can be given. 3From these matters it is apparent that a difference exists between living children and those subsequently born. The former always render the will illegal, the latter break it, and when they are born do not find themselves disinherited. 4Where a former will by which a posthumous child is disinherited exists, it is established that it is broken, whether the child is born after the death of the testator, or during his lifetime; the first one is broken by the second, and the second by the birth of the posthumous child. 5A posthumous child is also considered to be expressly disinherited where the testator says: “Let any child whosoever that is born to me be disinherited, whether it has been brought forth by Seia, or whether it is still unborn.” If, however, he should say: “Let my posthumous child be disinherited”; and it is born either after the death, or during the life of the testator, it will not break the will. 6However, even though a posthumous child who has been passed over breaks a will by its birth, still, it sometimes happens that only a portion of the will is broken; as, for example, where the posthumous child was disinherited in the first degree, and passed over in the second; for in this instance the appointment in the first degree will be valid, if that in the second is void.
Dig. 28,3,5Idem libro tertio ad Sabinum. Nam et si sub condicione sit heres institutus quis, a quo postumus non est exheredatus, tamen pendente condicione rumpitur gradus, ut et Iulianus scripsit: sed et si sit ei substitutus quis, etiam deficiente condicione primi gradus non admittetur substitutus, a quo scilicet postumus exheredatus non est. puto igitur existente quidem condicione primi gradus postumo potius locum fore: post defectum autem condicionis natus postumus gradum non rumpit, quia nullus est. rumpendo autem testamentum sibi locum facere postumus solet, quamvis filius sequentem gradum, a quo exheredatus est, patiatur valere. sed si a primo gradu praeteritus, a secundo exheredatus sit, si eo tempore nascatur postumus, quo aliquis ex institutis vixit, totum testamentum ruptum est: nam tollendo primum gradum, sibi locum faciet.
The Same, On Sabinus, Book III. Where anyone is appointed an heir under some condition, by which a posthumous child is not disinherited, still, the degree is broken while the condition is pending, as Julianus stated. But when someone is substituted, even where the condition upon which the appointment in the first degree depends is not fulfilled, the substituted heir will not be admitted to the succession from which the posthumous heir has not been disinherited. I think, therefore, that if the condition of the appointment under the first degree is complied with, the posthumous heir will have the preference. However, the birth of the posthumous child, after failure to comply with the condition, does not destroy the appointment in the first degree, because the latter becomes null and void. By breaking the will, the posthumous child makes a place for himself, even though the son causes the second degree from which he was disinherited to become valid. Where, however, the posthumous child who was passed over in the first degree and disinherited in the second is born at the time when one of the appointed heirs is living, the entire will is broken; for, by destroying the first degree, he makes a place for himself in the succession.
Dig. 28,5,3Idem libro tertio ad Sabinum. Servus alienus vel totus vel pro parte sine libertate heres institui potest. 1Si servum meum pure heredem scripsero, sub condicione liberum, differtur institutio in id tempus, quo libertas data est. 2Si quis ita scripserit: ‘si Titius heres erit, Seius heres esto: Titius heres esto’, quasi quaevis condicio exspectatur Titii aditio, ut Seius heres fiat: et sane et Iuliano et Tertulliano hoc videtur. 3Qui fideicommissam libertatem sub condicione accepit, potest ab herede pure cum libertate heres institui et non exspectata condicione libertatem et hereditatem consequitur et erit interim necessarius: et existente condicione voluntarius heres efficietur, ut non desinat heres esse, sed ut ius in eo mutetur successionis. 4Aperturae tabularum dilatio necessarii heredis ius non mutat, ut solemus in substituto impuberis dicere: nam est relatum, si se adrogandum dederit substitutus impuberi defuncti filius, necessarium eum fore.
The Same, On Sabinus, Book III. A slave who belongs entirely, or partly, to another, can be appointed the heir of the testator, without the grant of his freedom. 1If I appoint my slave to be absolutely my heir, but grant him his freedom under a certain condition, his appointment will be deferred until the time when his freedom is granted him. 2Where a party stated in his will: “If Titius shall be my heir, let Seius be my heir and let Titius be my heir”; the acceptance of Titius is awaited as a condition for Seius to become the heir. And, indeed, this is reasonable, and seems so to Julianus and Tertyllianus. 3Where an heir has accepted a trust by which freedom is conditionally granted to a slave, the said slave can be appointed heir by the former, with an absolute grant of his freedom, without waiting for the fulfillment of the condition, and he will obtain both his freedom and the estate. In the meantime, he will be a necessary heir, and will become a voluntary heir when the condition is fulfilled, so that he will not cease to be an heir, but the right of succession will be changed so far as he is concerned. 4Delay in opening a will does not affect the rights of a necessary heir, as we are accustomed to hold where anyone is substituted for a minor. For it has been established that if the substitute gives himself to be arrogated by the minor, as the son of the deceased, he will become his necessary heir.
Dig. 29,2,4Idem libro tertio ad Sabinum. Nolle adire hereditatem non videtur, qui non potest adire.
The Same, On Sabinus, Book III. An heir who has no right to enter upon an estate is not considered to have refused to do so.
Dig. 40,8,4Ulpianus libro tertio ad Sabinum. Ei, qui hac lege emptus sit, ut a vivo emptore manumittatur, statim mortuo eo competit libertas.
Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book III. When a slave is sold under the condition that he shall be manumitted during the lifetime of the purchaser, when the latter dies, he will immediately be entitled to his freedom.
Dig. 40,9,2Idem libro tertio ad Sabinum. Servo competere libertas non potest, si relegatus moratus sit in urbe.
The Same, On Sabinus, Book III. A slave cannot obtain his freedom if, after having been banished, he remains in the City.
Dig. 50,17,3Idem libro tertio ad Sabinum. Eius est nolle, qui potest velle.
The Same, On Sabinus, Book III. He who can consent openly can likewise do so by not refusing.