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. XXXV3,
Si cui plus, quam per legem Falcidiam licuerit, legatum esse dicetur
Liber trigesimus quintus
III.

Si cui plus, quam per legem Falcidiam licuerit, legatum esse dicetur

(Where More is Said to Have Been Bequeathed to Anyone Than is Permitted by the Falcidian Law.)

1Ulpianus libro septuagesimo nono ad edictum. Si cui plus quam licuerit legetur et dubitari iuste possit, utrum lex Falcidia locum habitura est nec ne, subvenit praetor heredi, ut ei legatarius satisdet, ut, si apparuerit eum amplius legatorum nomine cepisse quam e lege Falcidia capere licebit, quanti ea res erit, tantam pecuniam det dolusque malus ab eo afuturus sit. 1Neque interest, utrum in primis tabulis hoc fiat an in pupillaribus an in utrisque: etenim legem Falcidiam semel esse admittendam, etiamsi duplex sit testamentum, iam convenit, contributis legatis tam his, quae ab ipso pupillo quam his, quae a substituto impuberi relicta sunt. 2Si non fuisset interposita stipulatio ex persona pupilli, tutelae actio heredi pupilli adversus tutorem competit. sed ut Pomponius ait, et ipsi pupillo et heredi eius poterit committi stipulatio, ipsi quo casu vivo eo Falcidia incipit locum habere. de tutelae quoque actione idem scribit. 3Marcellus ait: qui quadringenta in bonis habebat, inpuberem filium heredem instituit eique substituit Titium et Seium: nihil a pupillo testator legavit, sed a Titio trecenta: utrum ducenta, inquit, praestabuntur an centum quinquaginta? nam trecenta nullo modo eum praestare. mihi videtur verius non amplius eum parte sua erogare compelli, certe nec minus: secundum quod eveniret, ut non soli committatur stipulatio, sed omnibus heredibus interponenda est, sed causa cognita. 4Falcidiam locum habere et legatorum modus facit et aeris alieni onus. et si quidem evidens aes alienum est vel certum, facilis est computatio: si autem adhuc incertum est, quia forte vel condicio eius pendet vel creditor litem contestatus est et necdum lis finita est, dubitabitur, quantum legatariis debeatur propter incertum. 5Hodie tamen subsimile aliquid fit in fideicommissis. 6Cum dicitur lex Falcidia locum habere, arbiter dari solet ad ineundam quantitatem bonorum, tametsi unus aliquid modicum fideicommissum persequatur: quae computatio praeiudicare non debet ceteris, qui ad arbitrum missi non sunt. solet tamen ab herede etiam ceteris denuntiari fideicommissariis, ut veniant ad arbitrum ibique causam suam agant, plerumque et creditoribus, ut de aere alieno probent. habet tamen rationem in legatariis, item in fideicommissariis, ut, si offerat integrum quod relictum est heres desiderans cavere sibi hac stipulatione, audiatur. 7Si legata quaedam praesenti die relicta sint, quaedam sub condicione, interponenda erit ista stipulatio propter legata condicionalia, dummodo ea legata, quae praesenti sint, integra solvantur. Iulianus denique scribit, si pure et sub condicione legata fuerint ne exsistente condicione lex Falcidia locum habeat, non aliter legatorum, quae pure data sunt, actionem dari debere, quam si cautum fuerit heredi ‘quanto amplius, quam per legem Falcidiam licuerit, ceperit’. 8Idem Iulianus scribit eum, cui quadrans sub condicione et dodrans pure legatus est, cavere debere ‘quanto amplius, quam per legem Falcidiam liceat, ceperit, reddi’. 9Haec stipulatio ideo locum habet, quia, etsi repeti potest id quod solutum est, tamen fieri potest, ut non sit solvendo is cui solutum est ac per hoc pereat quod datum est. 10In mortis causa quoque donationibus potest dici hanc stipulationem esse interponendam. 11Haec verba stipulationis ‘quod amplius legatorum nomine ceperis, quam e lege Falcidia capere licebit’ non tantum eum comprehendunt, qui amplius accepit, quam ei Falcidia permissit, ut reddat partem, habeat partem, verum etiam eum qui totum debet restituere. etenim sciendum est legem Falcidiam interdum partem eius quod datum est, interdum totum revocare. cum enim habita ratione aeris alieni Falcidia ineatur, plerumque evenit, ut emergente debito vel condicione aeris alieni exsistente totum quod legatum est exhauriatur. sed et libertatium condicio interdum exsistens efficiet legatum omnino non deberi, quippe cum habita ratione libertatium et deductis pretiis eorum tunc demum legatorum ineatur ratio. 12In quibusdam autem testamentis Falcidia quidem locum non habet, verumtamen ita observatur, ut, licet quadrantem heres non retineat, tamen hactenus legata debeantur, quatenus patrimonii vires sufficiunt, utique deducto aere alieno, item deductis pretiis eorum, qui libertatem in testamento vel directam vel fideicommissariam acceperunt. 13Sed et legatario cavendum est, a quo fideicommissum relinquitur. 14Interdum non legis Falcidiae, sed etiam alterius legis in hac stipulatione ratio facienda est, ut puta si patronus ex asse heres institutus sit et pure quincunx legatus sit et sub condicione aliquid supra debitam patrono partem: nam in hunc casum ratio facienda est illius legis, quae patronos vocat, non legis Falcidiae. 15Si res, quae legata sit, apud legatarium interierit, probandum est exceptione succurri ei qui promisit,

1Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LXXIX. Where more property is bequeathed to anyone than is permitted by law, and there is good reason to doubt whether the Falcidian Law is applicable or not, the Prætor will come to the relief of the heir, and compel the legatee to furnish him with security that, if it should become apparent that he has received a larger legacy than he is entitled to under the Falcidian Law, he will refund to him an amount equal to the excess, and that no attempt will be made to defraud him. 1It makes no difference whether this occurs in the first will, in the pupillary substitution, or in both, for it has already been decided that the Falcidian Law applies but once, even where there are two wills, and that all the legacies will be subject to contribution, not only those with which the minor himself is charged, but also those which his substitute is obliged to pay. 2Where no stipulation has been entered into with reference to the ward, the heir will be entitled to an action on guardianship against the guardian of the former. But, as Pomponius says, the stipulation can take effect with reference to both the ward himself and his heir, in which case the Falcidian Law will begin to become operative during his lifetime. He also lays down the same rule with reference to the action on guardianship. 3Marcellus says that a man whose estate amounted to four hundred aurei appointed as his heir his son, who had not yet reached the age of puberty, substituted Titius and Seius for him, and did not charge the minor with any legacy, but charged Titius with the payment of three hundred aurei. Marcellus asks whether two hundred or a hundred and fifty aurei should be paid by the substitute, as, under no circumstances, he should be compelled to pay three hundred. It seems to me to be the better opinion that he ought not to be obliged to pay the legatees more than his share, and certainly he ought not to pay them less. It follows, according to this, that the stipulation does not take effect, so far as he alone is concerned, but it should be carried out for the benefit of all the heirs, since the Falcidian Law becomes applicable after proper cause has been shown, and is determined by the amount of the legacies and the debts of the estate. 4If the indebtedness of the estate is evident, or certain, the calculation is easily made. If, however, the indebtedness is still uncertain, either because it is dependent upon some condition, or the creditor has brought an action to collect his claim, and the litigation has not yet been terminated, it will be doubtful how much is payable to the legatee on account of the uncertainty. 5At the present day something very similar to this occurs with reference to trusts. 6When it is said that the Falcidian Law is applicable, an arbiter is usually appointed to appraise the amount of the estate, even though there may be only one person demanding the execution of a very moderate trust. An appraisement of this kind should not prejudice others who have not been summoned before the arbiter. Still, it is usual for the other beneficiaries of the trust to be notified by the heir to appear before the arbiter and state their cases there. The creditors, frequently, are also notified to prove their claims before the arbiter. It is but reasonable that the heir should be heard against the claims of the legatees and beneficiaries of the trust, if he should offer to pay all that is left, and desires to protect himself by a stipulation of this kind. 7Where certain legacies are bequeathed that are payable immediately, and others that are payable under a condition, this stipulation should be entered into with reference to the conditional legacies, provided those which are immediately due are fully paid. Finally, Julianus says that where legacies are bequeathed absolutely and conditionally, in order to prevent the Falcidian Law from taking effect if the condition is complied with, an action will not be granted for the collection of the legacies which have been absolutely bequeathed, unless security is given to the heir to refund anything which has been received in excess of what is permitted by the Falcidian Law. 8Julianus also says that where a fourth of an estate is left to a person under a condition, and three-fourths of it is bequeathed absolutely, security must be given to refund all that has been received above the amount authorized by the Falcidian Law. 9Hence this stipulation also can be exacted, because, although the heir can recover any excess which he has paid, still, the party to whom payment was made may not prove to be solvent, and for this reason what has been paid will be lost. 10It can be said that this stipulation should also be entered into with reference to donations mortis causa. 11These words of the stipulation, “What you may have received as legacies in excess of what is authorized by the Falcidian Law,” not only refer to one who has received more than is permitted by the Falcidian Law, and who must refund a part, and can retain a part of the same, but they also have reference to a person who is obliged to refund his entire legacy, for it should be understood that sometimes the Falcidian Law revokes a portion of the legacy which has been paid, and sometimes revokes all of it. For, as the calculation of the Falcidian portion is made after an account of the indebtedness has been taken, it frequently happens that other indebtedness is discovered, or a condition is fulfilled upon which the payment of a debt depended, and the entire amount of the legacy is exhausted; sometimes, however, a condition is fulfilled upon which the freedom of slaves depends, which renders a legacy not due under any circumstances, since the calculation of the amount of the legacies is not made until that of the slave has been completed, and their value deducted from the assets of the estate. 12Moreover, the Falcidian Law does not apply to certain wills; still, with reference to them, the rule is observed that although the heir may not be entitled to reserve his fourth, yet the legacies would only be payable in case the assets of the estate should be sufficient, of course, after deducting the indebtedness, as well as the value of the slaves who have received their freedom by the will either directly, or under the terms of a trust. 13Security should also be given by the beneficiary of a trust to the legatee who is charged with the execution of the same. 14Sometimes, the agreement set forth in this stipulation has reference not to the Falcidian, but to some other law; as, for instance, where a patron is appointed heir to an entire estate, and is charged absolutely with a legacy of five-twelfths of the same, and is afterwards charged conditionally with another bequest in excess of the amount to which he is entitled as patron; for in this instance recourse must be had to that law which provides for patrons, and not to the Falcidian Law. 15Where property which has been bequeathed is lost while in the hands of the legatee, the better opinion is that relief should be granted, by means of an exception, to the party who made the promise,

2Paulus libro septuagesimo quinto ad edictum. Etiamsi quanti ea res sit promisit,

2Paulus, On the Edict, Book LXXV. Even if he consented to pay the value of the property,

3Ulpianus libro septuagesimo nono ad edictum. nisi si dolo ipsius aliquid factum sit: tunc enim etiam ex doli clausula, quae in ista stipulatione continetur, tenebitur et replicatione repelli poterit. 1Haec cautio, quae propter legem Falcidiam interponitur, fideiussorum habet praestationem. 2Si in plures dies pecunia legata est, cum certum sit legem Falcidiam locum habere, non stipulationi, sed computationi locum esse Pedius ait, ut aestimetur, quanti sit quod in diem legatum est et tantum credatur esse legatum, quantum efficit aestimatio, ut pro modo eius ex omnibus legatis statim legis Falcidiae ratio habeatur. 3Quotiens futurum est, ut palam sit et ante diem venientem iam Falcidiam locum habere, totiens computatio eius fit. nam si condicio in mora est, exspectabimus condicionem, quoad exsistat: si autem dies superest, iam hic intercapedinis temporis habita ratione atque aestimatione sic de Falcidia disputabimus et committi stipulationem dicemus. 4Quamvis autem omnes legatarii et fideicommissarii necesse habeant hac stipulatione cavere, tamen quibusdam remitti divi fratres rescripserunt, ut puta his, quibus minuta alimenta sunt relicta. Pompeiae enim Faustinae rescribserunt sic: ‘non eandem causam esse decem aureorum, quos annuos tibi testamento Pompeiae Crispianae patronae tuae relictos proponis, atque fuit alimentorum et vestiarii libertis relictorum, quibus propterea cautionis onus remittendum existimavimus’. 5Item sciendum est fiscum hanc cautionem non pati, sed perinde conveniri posse, ac si cavisset. ceteros autem, cuiuscumque dignitatis sint, licet iam legata perceperint, compelli debere ad cavendum divus Pius rescribsit: ex quo rescripto etiam illud accipimus, quod etiam post soluta legata voluit stipulationem interponi. 6Si legatarius heredi, qui controversiam hereditatis patitur iam vel sperat, de restituendo legato sibi praestito caverit et evicta hereditas sit, sed neglegentia vel dolo eius qui legatum praestitit, dicemus non committi stipulationem propter viri boni arbitrium, quod inest huic stipulationi. 7Item si ipse, qui praestitit legatum, ex alia causa sibi evicerit, ut puta quia invenitur sequenti testamento heres scriptus, in quo legatum iste legatarius non acceperat, dicemus committi stipulationem propter viri boni arbitrium. 8Et generaliter ubicumque hereditatem vel quantitatem vel emolumentum praestitit is, qui hac stipulatione sibi prospexerat, dicendum est ibi committi eam, si modo culpa abest ab eo, qui stipulatus est. 9Quaesitum est, an saepius committatur. et placet etiam saepius eam committi, si per partes ablata est hereditas. 10Si legatum fuerit praestitum ante interpositam hanc stipulationem, an condici possit, ut cautio ista interponatur? movet quaestionem, quod ea, quae per errorem omissa vel soluta sunt, condici possunt et hic ergo quasi plus solutum videtur ex eo, quod cautio intermissa est. et ait Pomponius condictionem interponendae satisdationis gratia competere et puto hoc probandum quod Pomponius, utilitatis gratia.

3Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LXXIX. Unless some fraudulent act was committed by the legatee himself, for then he will also be liable under the clause relating to bad faith, which is included in this stipulation, and can be opposed by a reply. 1This bond, which is executed on account of the Falcidian Law, has reference to the furnishing of sureties. 2Where legacies are bequeathed which are payable at different times, as it is certain that the Falcidian Law will be applicable, Pedius says that there is no ground for a stipulation, but there is one for a calculation, and that an estimate should be made of the sum payable at different times, and in this way the total amount of the legacies will be established. The result of the estimate is that the amount due under the Falcidian Law will be fixed in proportion to what is to be deducted from all the legacies. 3Whenever it is clear that a legacy will be due and payable even before the time the Falcidian Law will begin to apply, the calculation of the legacy must be made. If, however, fulfillment of the condition upon which it depends is delayed, we must wait until it is complied with. But where the time for its fulfillment has not yet arrived, in this instance, an account should be taken of the profits received during the intermediate time, and an estimate made, so that we can determine the amount under the Falcidian Law, and can say that the stipulation has become operative. 4Although all legatees and beneficiaries of a trust may by means of this stipulation be obliged to give security, still, the Divine Brothers stated in a Rescript that some of them are excused from doing so, as, for instance, those to whom small allowances for support have been bequeathed. For they stated in a Rescript, addressed to Pompeius Faustina: “The bequest of the ten aurei payable annually under the will of Pompeia Crispiana, your patroness, which you allege have been left to you, is different from that by which food and clothing were left to her other freedwomen, for which reason we think that a bond should not be required.” 5Moreover, it should be noted that the Treasury ought not to be required to furnish security, but an action can be brought against it, just as if it had done so. Still, the Divine Pius stated in a Rescript that others, no matter what their rank, and though they may have already received their legacies, should be compelled to give security. We also learn from this Rescript that the Emperor intended that a stipulation should be entered into, even after the legacies have been paid. 6When a legatee has given security to an heir with reference to the return of the legacy which has been paid to him, and the heir is already involved in a controversy on account of the estate, or expects to be, and the estate is evicted, either on account of the negligence or fraud of him who paid the legacy, we hold that the stipulation will not take effect, so far as the judgment of a good citizen is concerned, because it contains the element of good faith. 7Likewise, if he who paid the legacy should, for some other reason, deprive himself of the estate (for instance, because he is appointed heir by a second will, under which the said legatee did not receive the legacy), we say that, in accordance with the judgment of a good citizen, the stipulation will become operative. 8And, generally speaking, where he who provided for himself by a stipulation of this kind, and has transferred an estate, or a sum of money, or some advantage, it must be said that the stipulation will take effect; provided he who entered into it was not guilty of bad faith. 9The question arose whether the stipulation can take effect more than once. And it is established that it can take effect repeatedly, if the heir is deprived of different parts of the estate at different times. 10If the legacy should be paid before the stipulation is entered into, and legal proceedings are instituted to compel security to be furnished, this suggests the point that proceedings can be instituted where anything has been omitted, or paid through mistake. Therefore, in this instance, as no security was given, more is considered to have been paid than is due. Pomponius says that an action to compel security to be furnished will lie, and I think that his opinion should be adopted on account of the benefit to be derived from it.

4Paulus libro septuagesimo quinto ad edictum. Haec autem satisdatio locum habet, si iusta causa esse videbitur: nam iniquum erat omnimodo caveri nondum illata controversia litis, cum possint ei lusoriae minae fieri: ideoque eam rem praetor ad cognitionem suam revocat. 1Si duo ex testamento hereditatem in solidum sibi vindicent, forte quod eiusdem nominis sint, tam in possessorem quam in petitorem competunt actiones et creditoribus et legatariis. 2Haec cautio utique necessaria est, si quis pecuniam suam solvat vel rem tradat: si vero pecuniam hereditariam solvat vel rem tradat, quidam non putant cavendum, quia nec teneri potest eo nomine victus, cum non possideat vel dolo fecerit, quo minus possideat. hoc si ante motam controversiam solvat: quod si postea, tenebitur culpae nomine. 3Sed cum de nomine inter duos quaestio est, numquid non sit cavendum ei, qui hereditariam rem tradat, quia omnimodo unus liberatur: quemadmodum si aes alienum hereditarium solvatur? sed si petitor suam pecuniam solvet aut rem suam tradat, non habet unde retineat et ideo necessaria est ei cautio.

4Paulus, On the Edict, Book LXXIII. Again, this security must be given where there appears to be good reason for it, as it would be unjust for it to be required where no controversy has as yet arisen with reference to the estate, and where only idle threats have been made, and therefore the Prætor must decide the question after proper investigation. 1Where each of two parties claims the entire estate for himself, under the will, for example, where they are both of the same name, actions can be brought by the creditors as well as the legatees against both the party in possession, and the one who demands the estate. 2This security is necessary where anyone pays his own money or delivers his own property. If he pays money or delivers property belonging to the estate, some authorities hold that security need not be furnished, for if he loses his case he will not be liable, since he was not in possession and did not commit fraud to avoid having possession. If he should make payment before any controversy has arisen, this rule will apply; because if he made payment afterwards he would be liable on the ground of negligence. 3In the case of two persons having the same name, the question arises whether security must be furnished by him who transfers the property of the estate, for the reason that one of them is absolutely released from liability, just as if he had paid a debt due from the estate. If the party claiming the estate paid his own money, or delivered his own property, he will not have anything to retain, and therefore a bond must be given him.

5Marcellus libro vicesimo primo digestorum. Videamus, an stipulatio ‘qua amplius per Falcidiam ceperis licuerit dari’ adversus eum non sufficiat, qui legatum alii restituere ex fideicommissi causa debet. sufficiet autem dici nihil eius fidei commissum esse: cavebit scilicet legatario et is, qui fideicommissum accipiet, nisi forte malet legatarius circuitu sublato heredi caveri. sed et legatario praeterea cavendum est, si (ut plerumque aequum est) pro rata ex fideicommisso retinere ei concedendum est, quamvis tantum ex legato apud eum erit remansurum, ut sufficere possit ad praestandum fideicommissum.

5Marcellus, Digest, Book XXI. Let us see whether this stipulation, namely, “Do you promise to return whatever you may have received above what is allowed by the Falcidian Law?” will not be sufficient as against the party who is obliged to pay a legacy to another under the terms of a trust. It will be sufficient for the heir to say that there is nothing to be done by him under the trust. For, in this case also, he who receives the benefit of the trust must furnish security to indemnify the legatee, unless the latter should prefer to give security to the heir in order to avoid circumlocution. Moreover, security must be given to the legatee if (as is perfectly proper), he should be permitted to retain a proportionate sum out of what was paid under the trust, even though enough of the legacy may remain in his hands to discharge the entire fiduciary obligation.

6Callistratus libro quarto de cognitionibus. Cum non facile satisdationem offerre legatarius vel fideicommissarius possit et futurum sit, ut propter hoc a petitione liberalitatis ex testamento submoveantur, numquid onus satisdationis eis remittendum erit? quod videtur adiuvari rescripto divi Commodi in haec verba: ‘is, cuius de ea re notio est, aditus si compererit ideo cautionem a te exigi, ut a fideicommissi petitione avertaris, onus satisdationis tibi remitti curabit’.

6Callistratus, On Judicial Inquiries, Book IV. If the legatee or the beneficiary of the trust cannot readily furnish security, and for this reason runs the risk of being deprived of the benefit conferred by the will, shall he be released from the necessity of giving security? This opinion seems to be adopted in a Rescript of the Divine Commodus, which is in the following words: “If the court having jurisdiction of the case should ascertain that application has been made to him to compel you to give security in order to prevent you from claiming the benefit of the trust, he must see that you are released from the requirement of furnishing it.”

7Paulus libro septimo ad legem Iuliam et Papiam. Divus Pius ab eo, qui annua legata praecipere ad distribuendum iussus erat, vetuit cautionem exigi cessantium partes reddi, nisi aperte cavere iussus esset.

7Paulus, On the Lex Julia et Papia, Book VII. The Divine Pius forbade security from being exacted from a person who was directed to oversee the distribution of certain annual legacies, requiring him to return to the heir the shares of those who failed to accept them, unless he was expressly ordered to do so by the testator.

8Maecianus libro decimo fideicommissorum. Si heres partem bonorum vel etiam universa bona delata ad fiscum diceret, constaret autem de fideicommisso, decretum est, ut petitori caventi ‘evicta hereditate restitutu iri’ solveretur.

8Marcianus, Trusts, Book X. Where an heir alleges that part of an estate, or even all of it, is forfeited to the Treasury, and it should be established that he was also charged with a trust, it was decided that if the beneficiary should give security to restore the estate in case it should be evicted, he must be paid.

9Idem libro duodecimo fideicommissorum. Si non in controversia sit proprietas, sed usus fructus (potest enim rei, cuius proprietas Titio legata est, usus fructus alii legari), tunc de eo restituendo non heredi, sed Titio caveri debeat. interdum et si ab herede legetur usus fructus, Titio cavendum est: veluti si detracto usu fructu proprietas ei legetur, usus fructus Seio: quid enim attinebit hoc casu heredi caveri, ad quem emolumentum intercidentis usus fructus non sit spectandum? verum si usu fructu Seio legato proprietas Titio ita legetur, ut, cum ad Seium pertinere desierit, habeat proprietatem, tunc heredi caveri oportebit a fructuario, ab herede autem Titio, quia non sit certum usu fructu intercepto ad Titium proprietatem reversuram.

9The Same, Trusts, Book XII. When the ownership of property is not in controversy, but the usufruct of the same is (for it may happen that the ownership is bequeathed to Titius, and the usufruct to someone else), then security to restore it should not be given to the heir, but to Titius. Sometimes, even if the heir is charged with the transfer of the usufruct, security should be given to Titius; for instance, if the usufruct, having been reserved, the ownership is left to him, and the usufruct to Seius; for, in this instance, what advantage would it be for security to be given to the heir, since no benefit will accrue to him if the usufruct should be extinguished? If, however, the usufruct, having been bequeathed to Seius, and the ownership is left to Titius in such a way that when the usufruct ceases to belong to Seius, he will be entitled to the ownership, then security must be furnished to the heir by the usufructuary, and also by the heir to Titius, because it is not certain that, if the usufruct should be extinguished, the ownership will be acquired by Titius.