Corpus iurisprudentiae Romanae

Repertorium zu den Quellen des römischen Rechts

Digesta Iustiniani Augusti

Recognovit Mommsen (1870) et retractavit Krüger (1928)
Convertit in Anglica lingua Scott (1932)
Dig. XXXIII6,
De tritico vino vel oleo legato
Liber trigesimus tertius
VI.

De tritico vino vel oleo legato

(Concerning Bequests of Wheat, Wine, and Oil.)

1Ul­pia­nus li­bro vi­ce­si­mo ad Sa­binum. Vi­no le­ga­to ace­tum quo­que con­ti­ne­tur, quod pa­ter fa­mi­lias vi­ni nu­me­ro ha­buit.

1Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XX. Where wine is bequeathed, any vinegar which the head of the household kept with his wine is also included.

2Pom­po­nius li­bro sex­to ad Sa­binum. Cum alii pe­num, alii vi­num le­ga­tum es­set, ex­cep­to vi­no om­ne pe­num ad alium le­ga­ta­rium per­ti­ne­bit. 1Si cen­tum am­pho­rae quas vel­les ti­bi le­ga­tae sint, ex tes­ta­men­to agen­do con­se­qui potes, ut de­gus­ta­re ti­bi li­ceat: aut, quan­ti in­ter­fue­rit li­ce­re ti­bi de­gus­ta­re, ad ex­hi­ben­dum age­re potes.

2Pomponius, On Sabinus, Book VI. Where provisions are left to one person, and wine to another, all the provisions will belong to the first legatee, with the exception of the wine. 1Where a hundred jars of wine are left to you to be selected as you may desire, you can institute proceedings under the will in order to obtain the opportunity to taste the wine; or you can bring suit to compel the wine to be produced, or to recover any damages you may have sustained because you were not permitted to taste it.

3Ul­pia­nus li­bro vi­ce­si­mo ter­tio ad Sa­binum. Si cui vi­num sit le­ga­tum cen­tum am­pho­ra­rum, cum nul­lum vi­num re­li­quis­set, vi­num he­redem emp­tu­rum et prae­sta­tu­rum, non ace­tum, quod vi­ni nu­me­ro fuit. 1Si vi­num le­ga­tum sit, vi­dea­mus, an cum va­sis de­bea­tur. et Cel­sus in­quit vi­no le­ga­to, et­iam­si non sit le­ga­tum cum va­sis, va­sa quo­que le­ga­ta vi­de­ri, non quia pars sunt vi­ni va­sa, quem­ad­mo­dum em­ble­ma­ta ar­gen­ti (scy­pho­rum for­te vel spe­cu­li), sed quia cre­di­bi­le est men­tem tes­tan­tis eam es­se, ut vo­lue­rit ac­ces­sio­ni es­se vi­no am­pho­ras: et sic, in­quit, lo­qui­mur ha­be­re non am­pho­ras mil­le, ad men­su­ram vi­ni re­fe­ren­tes. in do­liis non pu­to ve­rum, ut vi­no le­ga­to et do­lia de­bean­tur, ma­xi­me si de­pres­sa in cel­la vi­na­ria fue­rint aut ea sunt, quae per mag­ni­tu­di­nem dif­fi­ci­le mo­ven­tur. in cup­pis au­tem si­ve cup­pu­lis pu­to ad­mit­ten­dum et ea de­be­ri, ni­si pa­ri mo­do immo­bi­les in agro vel­ut in­stru­men­tum agri erant. vi­no le­ga­to utres non de­be­bun­tur: nec cul­leos qui­dem de­be­ri di­co.

3Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXIII. If a hundred measures of wine should be bequeathed to anyone, leaving none for the estate, the heir can purchase and deliver wine, but he cannot deliver vinegar which was found among the wine of the testator. 1Where wine is bequeathed, let us see whether the legatee is also entitled to the vessels in which it is contained. Celsus says that where wine is bequeathed, even though the vessels may not be included in the legacy, they are held to be bequeathed; not because they are a part of the wine, to the same extent as the chasing constitutes a part of a cup or a mirror, but because it is probable that the intention of the testator was that he wished the vessels to be accessory to the wine; and hence he says it is usual for us to say that we have a thousand jars, referring to the quantity of the wine. I do not think that this opinion is correct with reference to casks, so that where wine is bequeathed, the casks will also be due; especially if they are fastened in the wine cellar, or it is difficult to move them on account of their size. With reference to vats, however, or small receptacles, I think that they are included, and will be due, unless they are likewise fixed immovably in the ground, and are there as utensils belonging to the same. Where wine is bequeathed, I hold that neither leathern bags nor bottles are included.

4Pau­lus li­bro quar­to ad Sa­binum. Cum cer­tum pon­dus olei non ad­iec­ta qua­li­ta­te le­ga­tur, non so­let quae­ri, cu­ius ge­ne­ris oleo uti so­li­tus fue­rit tes­ta­tor aut cu­ius ge­ne­ris oleum is­tius re­gio­nis ho­mi­nes in usu ha­beant: et id­eo li­be­rum est he­redi, cu­ius vel­let ge­ne­ris oleum le­ga­ta­rio sol­ve­re.

4Paulus, On Sabinus, Book IV. Where a certain quantity of oil, without mentioning the quality, is bequeathed, it is not the practice to ask what kind of oil the testator was accustomed to make use of, or what kind of oil men ordinarily use in that neighborhood. Therefore the heir is at liberty to give to the legatee oil of any kind that he may wish.

5Iu­lia­nus li­bro quin­to de­ci­mo di­ges­to­rum. Cum cer­tus nu­me­rus am­pho­ra­rum vi­ni le­ga­tus es­set ex eo, quod in fun­do Sem­pro­nia­no na­tum es­set, et mi­nus na­tum es­set, non am­plius de­be­ri pla­cuit et qua­si ta­xa­tio­nis vi­cem op­ti­ne­re haec ver­ba ‘quod na­tum erit’.

5Julianus, Digest, Book XV. Where a certain number of measures of wine out of that obtained from the Sempronian Estate were bequeathed, and a smaller quantity was obtained, it was decided that more was not due, and that the following words, “That obtained,” operated as a kind of limitation of the legacy.

6Pro­cu­lus li­bro quin­to epis­tu­la­rum. Cui vi­num he­res da­re dam­na­tus est, quod in am­pho­ris et ca­dis dif­fu­sum est da­ri de­bet, et­iam­si va­so­rum men­tio fac­ta non est. item quam­vis cum va­sis ca­dis le­ga­tum est, ta­men id quo­que, quod in do­liis, le­ga­tum es­se vi­de­tur, sic­uti, si ser­vos om­nes cum pe­cu­lio cu­ius­que eo­rum le­gas­set, et­iam eos, qui­bus pe­cu­lii ni­hil es­set, le­gas­se vi­de­re­tur.

6Proculus, Epistles, Book V. Where an heir is charged with the delivery of wine, he will be obliged to deliver whatever is contained in vases or jars, even though no mention was made of vessels. Moreover, although the wine may have been left with the vases and jars, still, that which is contained in casks is held to have also been left; just as where a testator bequeaths all his slaves with their peculium of each of them, those who have no peculium are considered to have likewise been bequeathed.

7Ia­vo­le­nus li­bro se­cun­do ex pos­te­rio­ri­bus La­beo­nis. Qui­dam he­redem dam­na­ve­rat da­re uxo­ri suae vi­num oleum fru­men­tum ace­tum mel­la sal­sa­men­ta. Tre­ba­tius aie­bat ex sin­gu­lis re­bus non am­plius de­be­ri, quam quan­tum he­res mu­lie­ri da­re vo­luis­set, quon­iam non ad­iec­tum es­set, quan­tum ex qua­que re da­re­tur. Ofi­lius Cas­cel­lius Tu­be­ro om­ne, quan­tum pa­ter fa­mi­lias re­li­quis­set, le­ga­tum pu­tant: La­beo id pro­bat id­que ve­rum est. 1‘Lu­cio Ti­tio tri­ti­ci mo­dios cen­tum, qui sin­gu­li pon­do cen­tum pen­deant, he­res da­to’. Ofi­lius ni­hil le­ga­tum es­se, quod et La­beo pro­bat, quon­iam eius­mo­di tri­ti­cum in re­rum na­tu­ra non es­set: quod ve­rum pu­to.

7Javolenus, On the Last Works of Labeo, Book II. A certain individual charged his heir to give to his wife wine, oil, grain, vinegar, honey, and salt-fish. Trebatius said that the heir was not obliged to deliver any more of each article to the woman than he desired, since it was not stated how much of each article was to be given. Ofilius, Cascellius, and Tubero think that the entire amount of the said articles which the testator left was included in the legacy. Labeo approves of this, and it is correct. 1“Let my heir deliver to Lucius Titius a hundred measures of wheat, each of which shall weigh a hundred pounds.” Ofilius holds that nothing is bequeathed, and Labeo agrees with him, as wheat of this kind does not exist; which opinion I think to be true.

8Pom­po­nius li­bro sex­to epis­tu­la­rum. Si he­res dam­na­tus sit da­re vi­num, quod in do­liis es­set, et per le­ga­ta­rium ste­tit, quo mi­nus ac­ci­piat, pe­ri­cu­lo­se he­redem fac­tu­rum, si id vi­num ef­fun­det: sed le­ga­ta­rium pe­ten­tem vi­num ab he­rede do­li ma­li ex­cep­tio­ne pla­cuit sum­mo­ve­ri, si non prae­stet id, quod prop­ter mo­ram eius dam­num pas­sus sit he­res.

8Pomponius, Epistles, Book VI. When an heir is charged with the delivery of wine which is contained in casks, and it is the fault of the legatee that he did not receive it, the heir will assume the responsibility if he pours out the wine; and if the legatee should bring suit to recover the wine from the heir, it was held that he would be barred by an exception on the ground of bad faith, if he does not pay the amount of damage sustained by the heir on account of his delay.

9Ul­pia­nus li­bro vi­ce­si­mo ter­tio ad Sa­binum. Si quis vi­num le­ga­ve­rit, om­ne con­ti­ne­tur, quod ex vi­nea na­tum vi­num per­man­sit. sed si mul­sum sit fac­tum, vi­ni ap­pel­la­tio­ne non con­ti­ne­bi­tur pro­prie, ni­si for­te pa­ter fa­mi­lias et­iam de hoc sen­sit. cer­te zy­thum, quod in qui­bus­dam pro­vin­ciis ex tri­ti­co vel ex hor­deo vel ex pa­ne con­fi­ci­tur, non con­ti­ne­bi­tur: si­mi­li mo­do nec ca­mum nec cer­ve­sia con­ti­ne­bi­tur nec hy­dro­me­li. quid con­di­tum? nec hoc pu­to, ni­si alia mens tes­tan­tis fuit. oe­no­me­li pla­ne id est dul­cis­si­mum vi­num con­ti­ne­bi­tur: et pas­sum, ni­si con­tra­ria sit mens, con­ti­ne­bi­tur: de­fru­tum non con­ti­ne­bi­tur, quod po­tius con­di­tu­rae lo­co fuit. aci­na­ti­cium pla­ne vi­no con­ti­ne­bi­tur. cy­do­neum et si qua alia sunt, quae non ex vi­nea fiunt, vi­ni ap­pel­la­tio­ne non con­ti­ne­bun­tur. item ace­tum vi­ni ap­pel­la­tio­ne non con­ti­ne­bi­tur. haec om­nia ita de­mum vi­ni no­mi­ne non con­ti­nen­tur, si mo­do vi­ni nu­me­ro a tes­ta­to­re non sunt ha­bi­ta: alio­quin Sa­b­inus scri­bit om­nia vi­ni ap­pel­la­tio­ne con­ti­ne­ri, quae vi­ni nu­me­ro pa­ter fa­mi­lias ha­buit: igi­tur et ace­tum, quod vi­ni nu­me­ro pa­ter fa­mi­lias ha­buit, et zy­thum et ca­mum et ce­te­ra, quae pro ho­mi­num af­fec­tio­ne at­que usu vi­ni nu­me­ro ha­be­bun­tur. quod si to­tum vi­num, quod pa­ter fa­mi­lias ha­buit, co­acuit, non ex­stin­gui­tur le­ga­tum. 1Si ace­tum quis le­ga­ve­rit, non con­ti­ne­bi­tur le­ga­to ace­tum quod vi­ni nu­me­ro tes­ta­tor ha­buit: em­bam­ma au­tem con­ti­ne­bi­tur, quia ace­ti nu­me­ro fuit. 2Item si quis vi­num quod ha­buit le­ga­vit, de­in­de hoc co­acuit, li­cet post­ea in ace­ti lo­cum trans­la­tum sit a pa­tre fa­mi­lias, vi­no le­ga­to con­ti­ne­bi­tur, quia id, quod tes­ta­men­ti fac­ti tem­po­re vi­num fuit, de­mons­tra­tum est: et est hoc ve­rum, ni­si vo­lun­tas ad­ver­se­tur. 3Vi­no au­tem pa­ter­no le­ga­to id de­mum le­ga­tum vi­de­tur, quod tes­ta­tor vi­ni nu­me­ro ha­buit, non quod pa­ter. item si pe­cu­lia­re vi­num le­ga­tum sit, id con­ti­ne­bi­tur, quod ser­vi ha­bue­runt. cur tam di­ver­se? quod pa­ter­num vi­num iam coe­pit usus ip­sius tes­ta­to­ris es­se, at pe­cu­lia­re in usu ser­vo­rum re­man­sit. 4Item si vi­num ve­tus sit le­ga­tum,

9Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXIII. Where anyone bequeaths wine, everything is included which, having originated from the vine, retains the nature of wine. If, however, mead is made, it will not properly be included in the term wine, unless the head of the household had this intention. And, in fact, as the beverage called zythum, which is made in some provinces from wheat, barley, or bread, will not be included, so neither beer nor hydromeli is included. But what would be the case with wine mixed with other substances? I do not think that it will be included, unless the intention of the testator was that it should be. It is clear that wine mingled with honey, that is to say, very sweet wine, will be included; and the drink made of raisins will also be, unless the intention was otherwise. New wine, boiled down and spiced, is not included, because it rather resembles a compound. Wine made of water and grapes is evidently included. The beverage of quinces, and any other drinks not derived from the vine, are not embraced in the term wine, likewise vinegar does not come under that category. None of these things will be included in the term wine, if they were not classed as such by the testator. Sabinus, however, stated that everything will be included under the appellation of wine which the testator considered to be such. Therefore, vinegar which the testator considered as wine, as well as zythum, beer, and all other beverages which, according to the taste and use of man, are classed as wine, will be included. If all the wine which the testator possessed had become sour, the legacy will not be extinguished. 1If anyone should bequeath vinegar, that vinegar which the testator kept as wine will not be included. Fruits preserved in vinegar will be included, because they come under the head of vinegar. 2Likewise, where anyone bequeaths wine which he had in his possession, and it should afterwards become sour, even though it may have subsequently been placed with the vinegar by the testator, it will be included with the wine which was bequeathed, because that was designated which was wine at the time when the will was executed. This also is true unless opposed to the intention of the testator. 3Where wine which came from the estate of the testator’s father is bequeathed, that only is held to have been left which the former kept as wine, and not what his father considered to be such. Moreover, where wine belonging to a peculium is bequeathed, that only is included which the slaves regarded as wine. What is the reason for this distinction? It is because the wine of the testator’s father has already begun to belong to him, but that forming part of the peculium remained for the use of the slaves. 4The same rule applies where old wine is bequeathed.

10Her­mo­ge­nia­nus li­bro se­cun­do iu­ris epi­to­ma­rum. ex usu tes­ta­to­ris le­ga­tum aes­ti­ma­bi­tur, id est quot an­no­rum vi­no pro ve­te­re ute­ba­tur. quod si non ap­pa­reat,

10Hermogenianus, Epitomes of Law, Book II. The age of wine when bequeathed is established according to the custom of the testator, that is to say, how many years he considered necessary to render wine old, that is, if this was not known.

11Ul­pia­nus li­bro vi­ce­si­mo ter­tio ad Sa­binum. ve­tus ac­ci­pie­tur, quod non est no­vum: id est et an­ni prio­ris vi­num ap­pel­la­tio­ne ve­te­ris con­ti­ne­bi­tur:

11Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXIII. “Old wine” is understood to be such as is not new, that is to say, wine of the preceding year will be included under the term “old.”

12Pau­lus li­bro quar­to ad Sa­binum. nam ali­ter ob­ser­van­ti­bus quis fi­nis aut quod in­itium ve­te­ris vi­ni su­me­re­tur?

12Paulus, On Sabinus, Book IV. For where persons do not concur in this opinion, any end, or any beginning, can be taken to designate the age of wine.

13Ul­pia­nus li­bro vi­ce­si­mo ter­tio ad Sa­binum. ‘Ex eo vi­no quod in il­lo fun­do nas­ce­tur, he­res meus am­pho­ras de­cem quot­an­nis in an­nos sin­gu­los da­to’. quo an­no na­tum non fuis­set, ex su­pe­rio­re an­no eius fun­di eum nu­me­rum am­pho­ra­rum he­redem da­tu­rum Sa­b­inus ex­is­ti­mat. quae sen­ten­tia, si vo­lun­tas non ad­ver­se­tur, mi­hi quo­que pla­cet.

13Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXIII. “Let my heir give to So-and-So, every year, ten measures of wine out of that obtained from such-and-such an estate.” Sabinus thinks that where no wine was made during one year, the heir must furnish the amount to the legatee from the yield of the preceding year. This opinion I also adopt, if it is not contrary to the intention of the testator.

14Pom­po­nius li­bro sex­to ad Sa­binum. Vi­no le­ga­to ea de­mum va­sa se­quun­tur, quae ita dif­fu­sa sunt, ut non ad per­pe­tuum usum va­sa re­ser­va­ren­tur, vel­uti am­pho­rae et ca­di.

14Pomponius, On Sabinus, Book VI. Where wine is bequeathed, it also includes the vessels, where they are not such as are reserved for constant use, for instance, jars and measures.

15Pro­cu­lus li­bro se­cun­do epis­tu­la­rum. Vi­num cum va­sis le­ga­vit. ne­gat Tre­ba­tius quod in do­liis sit de­be­ri et sen­sum tes­ta­to­ris alium pu­tat es­se, ver­bo­rum alium: ce­te­rum do­lia in va­sis vi­na­riis non es­sent. ego et si do­lia in va­sis vi­na­riis non sunt, ta­men non con­ce­de­rem Tre­ba­tio vi­num quod in do­liis es­set, id est quod in va­sis non es­set, non es­se le­ga­tum. il­lud ve­rum es­se pu­to, cui vi­num cum va­sis le­ga­tum erit, ei am­pho­ras ca­dos, in qui­bus vi­na dif­fu­sa ser­va­mus, le­ga­tos es­se: vi­num enim in am­pho­ras et ca­dos hac men­te dif­fun­di­mus, ut in his sit, do­nec usus cau­sa pro­be­tur, et sci­li­cet id ven­di­mus cum his am­pho­ris et ca­dis: in do­lia au­tem alia men­te co­ici­mus, sci­li­cet ut ex his post­ea vel in am­pho­ras et ca­dos dif­fun­da­mus vel si­ne ip­sis do­liis ven­eat.

15Proculus, Epistles, Book II. A man bequeathed his wine and the vessels containing it. Trebatius denies that any wine, which is in casks, is included; and he holds that the intention of the testator was different from what is expressed in his words, and, moreover, casks are not classed as wine vessels. Although casks are not included in the term “wine vessels,” still, I do not agree with Trebatius in his opinion that the wine included in the casks, that is to say, which is not in vessels, is not bequeathed. I think, however, that it is true where wine is bequeathed to anyone with the vessels, that the measures and jars into which it is drawn are also bequeathed to the legatee; for we pour out wine into jars and measures, in order that it may remain in them, until we require it for use; and, again, we sell it together with said jars and measures. We place it in casks, however, with a different intention, that is to say, in order to draw it out of them into jars and measures, or to sell it without the casks.

16Idem li­bro ter­tio ex pos­te­rio­ri­bus La­beo­nis. Qui vi­num Sur­ren­ti­num in ur­na­li­bus ha­be­bat dif­fu­sum, is ti­bi vi­num le­ga­ve­rat in am­pho­ris om­ne. il­lud quo­que vi­num, quod in ur­na­li­bus fuis­set, le­ga­tum es­se La­beo et Tre­ba­tius re­spon­de­runt. 1Cui dul­cia le­ga­ta es­sent, si ni­hil aliud tes­ta­men­to sig­ni­fi­ce­tur, om­nia haec es­se le­ga­ta: mul­sum pas­sum de­fru­tum et si­mi­les po­tio­nes, item uvas fi­cos pal­mas ca­ri­cas. 2Quod si ita es­set le­ga­tum: ‘vi­num am­pho­ra­rium ami­naeum Grae­cum et dul­cia om­nia’, ni­hil in­ter dul­cia, ni­si quod po­tio­nis fuis­set, le­ga­tum pu­tat La­beo ex col­la­tio­ne vi­ni am­pho­ra­rii: quod non im­pro­bo.

16The Same, On the Last Works of Labeo, Book III. A certain testator kept wine of Surrentum in earthen urns, and he bequeathed it to you in jars. Labeo and Trebatius gave it as their opinion that all the wine contained in the urns was bequeathed. 1Where sweetened wines are bequeathed, and no other designation is contained in the will, all the following are included in the legacy, namely: wine mixed with honey, wine made of raisins, new wine boiled and spiced, and similar beverages, including all those made of grapes, figs, dates, and dried fruits. 2Where a legacy is bequeathed as follows, “I give and bequeath the wine in my jars, my Aminisean and Greek wine, and all my sweet beverages,” Labeo thinks that nothing will be included under the latter term, except the beverages which have been made by mixing other substances with the wine contained in the jars of the testator. This opinion I do not reject.