1Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXXIV. Where possession is demanded by a woman in the name of her unborn child, and the oath having been tendered by the heir she swears that she is pregnant, the oath must be upheld, and she will not be liable on the ground that she has obtained possession through a false statement, nor shall any compulsion be applied to her after she has been sworn. If, however, she should bring forth a child, an inquiry can be made as to whether it is true that she was pregnant by her husband; for where an oath is taken between two persons, it cannot profit a third party, nor prejudice the rights of the others. Nor, under such circumstances, will the rights of the child be prejudiced. 1This Edict is based upon the same principle as the former one, for the Prætor, as it is easy to grant the woman possession of the estate in the name of her unborn child, should not fail to punish her false statement. 2A woman is held to have obtained possession fraudulently, who attempts to obtain possession being well aware that she is not pregnant. 3The Prætor promises this action within the available year, but not beyond it, because it is of the nature of a penal one. 4In like manner, in this instance the Prætor promises an action for the recovery of the amount of the interest of the plaintiff. 5The Prætor also promises this action against the father of the woman, provided it was by his act that she fraudulently obtained possession. 6This action can be brought by anyone whose interest it is that a woman should not be placed in possession of the estate; as, for example, either by a co-heir, who is waiting for a child to be born, or a person who has been substituted, or one who would inherit ab intestato if the woman should die. 7The interest of the plaintiff is, first of all, held to have reference to the maintenance which is claimed by the woman on the ground of her pregnancy; for nothing can be recovered on this account, unless the woman obtained possession of the estate through fraudulent representation. If, however, there was no fraudulent representation, she will not be compelled to pay anything, because she obtained support, without any reason, under the pretext of her pregnancy. 8Sometimes, the amount of the interest is increased, where, for instance, the heir being in doubt as to the woman’s pregnancy, is excluded from the estate. For Julianus says that this action should be granted to the heir who is excluded, if it was to his interest that the woman should not fraudulently obtain possession; because if this were not the case, the appointed heir, by entering upon the estate, would leave a more valuable inheritance to his own heir. The woman could also be blamed for the diminution of the value of the estate, as the heir did not accept it on account of the prospect of the birth of a child. 9Julianus also says in the Nineteenth Book of the Digest, that if an heir, who has been substituted, should die while the woman is in possession of the estate, his heir can collect its value from the woman by means of the same action. 10But it should be considered whether the legacies and other charges of the estate should be relinquished by the woman; and it seems to me that it can be held that the legatees have a right to avail themselves of this action against her, because it is to their interest that the estate should be entered upon. 11It is clear that relief must be given to slaves who have been liberated, as against the party who has brought this action in behalf of the estate; that is to say, that he shall be compelled to discharge the trust, as he has received their value. I think, however, that the Prætor should come to the relief of those who have been directly manumitted, and by his intervention should maintain their freedom. 12Where fraud exists on the part of a woman under paternal control, and her father has participated in it, he will be liable in his own name.