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. XXXVI3,
Ut legatorum seu fideicommissorum servandorum causa caveatur
Liber trigesimus sextus
III.

Ut legatorum seu fideicommissorum servandorum causa caveatur

(Concerning Security Given for the Payment of Legacies or the Execution of Trusts.)

1Ul­pia­nus li­bro sep­tua­gen­si­mo no­no ad edic­tum. Le­ga­to­rum no­mi­ne sa­tis­da­ri opor­te­re prae­tor pu­ta­vit, ut, qui­bus tes­ta­tor da­ri fie­ri­ve vo­luit, his die­bus de­tur vel fiat do­lum­que ma­lum afu­tu­rum sti­pu­len­tur. 1Sem­per au­tem sa­tis­da­re co­gi­tur, cu­ius­cum­que sit dig­ni­ta­tis vel fa­cul­ta­tium qua­rum­cum­que he­res. 2Nec si­ne ra­tio­ne hoc prae­to­ri vi­sum est, sic­uti he­res in­cum­bit pos­ses­sio­ni bo­no­rum, ita le­ga­ta­rios quo­que ca­re­re non de­be­re bo­nis de­func­ti: sed aut sa­tis­da­bi­tur eis aut, si sa­tis non da­tur, in pos­ses­sio­nem bo­no­rum venire prae­tor vo­luit. 3Non so­lum au­tem om­ni­bus le­ga­ta­riis sa­tis­da­ri opor­tet, sed et suc­ces­so­ri­bus le­ga­ta­rio­rum sa­tis­da­ri de­be­re iam con­stat, quam­vis is­ti non ex iu­di­cio de­func­ti, sed suc­ces­sio­nis ne­ces­si­ta­te qua­si ad aes alie­num ad­mit­tan­tur. 4Sed et pro­cu­ra­to­ri­bus le­ga­ta­rio­rum sa­tis­dan­dum est eo­que iu­re uti­mur. 5Pla­ne si ei qui in po­tes­ta­te ali­cu­ius erit le­ga­tum sit, ca­ve­bi­tur ei cu­ius iu­ri sub­iec­tus est. 6Non so­lum au­tem le­ga­to­rum no­mi­ne he­redes ca­vent, sed et suc­ces­so­res eo­rum. 7Is et­iam, cui ex se­na­tus con­sul­to re­sti­tu­ta est he­redi­tas, ni­hi­lo mi­nus ad cau­tio­nem com­pel­li­tur. 8Nec non et qui per alios he­redes ex­is­tunt si­ve ho­no­ra­rii suc­ces­so­res ad sa­tis­da­tio­nem com­pel­lun­tur. 9Pla­ne si quis omis­sa sti­pu­la­tio­ne li­tem de le­ga­to con­tes­ta­tus est, pro­ban­dum est ces­sa­re de­be­re sti­pu­la­tio­nem. 10Idem­que in fi­dei­com­mis­sis quo­que pro­ban­dum est. 11Si cui ita sit le­ga­tum vel fi­dei­com­mis­sum re­lic­tum et si id per­di­dis­set, rur­sus re­lic­tum, vi­dea­mus, an sa­tis se­quen­tis le­ga­ti si­ve fi­dei­com­mis­si pe­te­re pos­sit. mo­vet quaes­tio­nem, an fi­dei­com­mis­sum hoc si­ve le­ga­tum de­bea­tur et quo­tiens de­bea­tur et an ip­se le­ga­ta­rius ca­ve­re de­beat se non per­di­tu­rum. de his om­ni­bus ex­tat re­scrip­tum di­vi Pii ad Iu­nium Mau­ri­cum ta­le: ‘Clo­dio Fruc­tu­lo se­cun­dum ea, quae epis­tu­la con­ti­nen­tur, le­ga­ta si­ve fi­dei­com­mis­sa ex tes­ta­men­to Clo­dii Fe­li­cis prae­sta­ri de­bent ci­tra ne­ces­si­ta­tem ca­ven­di ni­hil ex is de­mi­nu­tu­rum se. nam quod fi­dei he­redis ab eo­dem tes­ta­to­re com­mis­sum est, ut, si Fruc­tu­lus per­di­dis­set quod ei in tes­ta­men­to re­lic­tum est, rur­sus he­res ei id re­sti­tue­ret, non eo per­ti­net, ut aut Fruc­tu­lo prio­rum le­ga­to­rum no­mi­ne sa­tis­da­tio in­iun­gen­da aut one­ran­dus sit he­res in in­fi­ni­to, ut, quo­tiens is per­di­de­rit, re­sti­tue­re ei tan­tum­dem de­beat, sed ut per fi­dei­com­mis­sum pos­te­rius du­pli­ca­ta le­ga­ta eius vi­dean­tur nec am­plius ad pe­ri­cu­lum he­redis per­ti­neat, si quid post­ea is con­sump­sit ex­so­lu­to ei pos­te­rio­re fi­dei­com­mis­so’. re­scrip­to er­go os­ten­sum le­ga­ta­rium he­redi non de­be­re ca­ve­re se non per­di­tu­rum. ver­sa vi­ce an he­res de se­quen­ti le­ga­to si­ve fi­dei­com­mis­so ca­ve­re de­beat, quae­ri­tur. et pu­tem non opor­te­re ei ca­ve­ri, cum in suo ar­bi­trio ha­beat, ne per­dat id quod si­bi re­lic­tum est, quam­vis si quis in­spe­xe­rit, quod sub con­di­cio­ne re­lic­tum est, di­ce­re de­beat sa­tis­da­tio­nem ex­igen­dam. 12Cer­te si­ve ex as­se si­ve ex par­te quis le­ga­tum de­beat, ca­ve­re de­bet, si­ve in­sti­tu­tus sit he­res si­ve sub­sti­tu­tus. 13Bel­lis­si­me quae­ri­tur, an haec sti­pu­la­tio in­cre­men­tum ex fruc­ti­bus vel usu­ris sen­tiat. et rec­te pla­cuit ex mo­ra in­cre­men­tum ha­bi­tu­ram sti­pu­la­tio­nem, ut id quod opor­te­bit con­pre­hen­dat. 14Si quis sub con­di­cio­ne le­ga­tum sti­pu­la­tus pen­den­te con­di­cio­ne de­ces­se­rit, sti­pu­la­tio eva­nes­cit, quia nec le­ga­tum trans­mit­ti­tur. huic sti­pu­la­tio­ni eas­dem cau­sas et con­di­cio­nes in­es­se scien­dum est: pro­in­de si qua sit ex­cep­tio, quae pe­ten­ti le­ga­tum op­po­ni so­let, ean­dem ex sti­pu­la­tu quo­que agen­ti op­po­nen­dam es­se pla­cet. 15Pro­cu­ra­to­ri eius, qui ab­sens es­se di­ci­tur, si sti­pu­lan­ti le­ga­ti no­mi­ne spon­deat he­res, Ofi­lius ait ita ca­ve­re de­be­re, si is, cu­ius no­mi­ne ca­veat, vi­vat, vi­de­li­cet ne te­n­ea­tur il­lo an­te de­func­to. 16Item quae­ri­tur, in hanc sti­pu­la­tio­nem utrum ip­sae res ve­niant quae le­ga­tae sunt an ve­ro pre­tia ea­rum. et est ve­rius in hanc sti­pu­la­tio­nem res vel pre­tia de­du­ci. 17Si de­cem quae in ar­ca erant mi­hi le­ga­ta sint, ti­bi eo­rum usus fruc­tus le­ga­tus sit, si pu­re utri­que le­ga­tum sit re­lic­tum, is cui pro­prie­tas le­ga­ta est ip­so iu­re de­cem vin­di­ca­bit, fruc­tua­rium au­tem ex se­na­tus con­sul­to ac­tu­rum et quin­que usum fruc­tum pe­ti­tu­rum con­stat. sed cum de­cem vin­di­cat pro­prie­ta­rius, per ex­cep­tio­nem do­li re­pel­li, qua fruc­tua­rius de re­sti­tuen­dis quin­que he­redi ca­vit. pla­ne si de­cem au­reo­rum pos­ses­sio­nem le­ga­ta­rius ha­beat, Mar­cel­lus ait dan­dam vel he­redi vel fruc­tua­rio uti­lem ac­tio­nem in le­ga­ta­rium, si mo­do ei ca­vea­tur. sed si sub con­di­cio­ne ei de­cem le­ga­ta sint, fruc­tua­rium in­ter­im de­cem ob­la­ta cau­tio­ne ha­bi­tu­rum, le­ga­ta­rio ve­ro, cui pro­prie­tas re­lic­ta est, in­ter­im le­ga­to­rum sti­pu­la­tio prae­stan­da est. sed si omi­se­rit sti­pu­la­tio­nem, ex­is­ten­te con­di­cio­ne ad ex­hi­ben­dum eum pos­se age­re Mar­cel­lus ait. sed si igno­rans he­res le­ga­tum de­cem fruc­tua­rio de­dit, ad ex­hi­ben­dum eum non te­ne­ri pa­lam est: suc­cur­ren­dum ta­men le­ga­ta­rio ad­ver­sus fruc­tua­rium Mar­cel­lus ait. 18Si ad fis­cum por­tio he­redi­ta­tis per­ve­ne­rit, ces­sa­bit is­ta sti­pu­la­tio, quia nec so­let fis­cus sa­tis­da­re. 19Qui mi­no­rem par­tem he­redi­ta­tis pos­si­det, cum ex ma­io­re par­te he­res sit, si qui­dem ip­so iu­re mi­nua­tur por­tio he­redi­ta­tis, se­cu­rior erit he­res: ne­que enim ex ma­io­re par­te ex sti­pu­la­tu te­ne­tur le­ga­ta­riis, quam ex qua he­res est: si ve­ro no­men qui­dem he­redis apud eos in­te­grum ma­neat, ve­rum­ta­men ef­fec­tu mi­nus ha­beant he­redi­ta­tis et ca­ve­rint le­ga­to­rum no­mi­ne, vi­den­tur one­ra­ri, quia ip­so iu­re pro ea par­te le­ga­ta de­bent, pro qua he­redes sint. sed enim ae­quis­si­mum est non ma­io­rem par­tem le­ga­ta­riis sol­ve­re, quam cu­ius ha­bent emo­lu­men­tum. hoc au­tem eve­nit, cum he­redi­tas pro ali­qua par­te ex Tre­bel­lia­no re­sti­tui­tur: nam pro ra­ta ex­one­ran­di sunt he­redes eius par­tis no­mi­ne, cu­ius emo­lu­men­tum si­bi ab­la­tum est. 20Si ei, qui in al­te­rius po­tes­ta­te erit, in­cer­ta die le­ga­tum fue­rit, ca­ve­bi­tur ei, qui ha­bet eum in po­tes­ta­te, non prae­ci­se, sed sub con­di­cio­ne ‘si, cum eius le­ga­ti dies ce­dit, in po­tes­ta­te sit’. ce­te­rum si sui iu­ris in­ve­nia­tur, in­iquum es­se vi­sum est pa­tri cau­tum es­se, cum alii le­ga­tum de­bea­tur, quam­quam et­si si­ne hac ad­iec­tio­ne ca­ve­re­tur, ve­rum ta­men ex­cep­tio­ne pa­trem vel do­mi­num sub­mo­ve­re­mus, si ex­is­ten­tis con­di­cio­nis tem­po­re non ha­be­rent eos in po­tes­ta­te. eve­nit ta­men se­cun­dum hoc, ut in ca­sum non sit de le­ga­to cau­tum: nam si ex­is­ten­tis con­di­cio­nis tem­po­re sui iu­ris sunt, non erit cau­tum.

1Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LXXIX. The Prætor has decided that security must be furnished for the payment of legacies, so that the heir may be responsible for any fraud committed against those to whom the testator desired the payment of money to be made, or some act performed for their benefit; in order that the money may be paid, or the act performed at the time prescribed. 1The heir is always compelled to give security, no matter what his rank or fortune may be. 2This rule was not established by the Prætor without good reason. For, as the heir has possession of the estate, the legatees should not be deprived of the property of the deceased, and they must either be given security, or, if this is not done, the Prætor shall authorize them to take possession of the property bequeathed. 3Security must not only be given to all the legatees, but also to their successors, as has been already decided, although the latter are admitted to take possession of the property, not on account of the will of the deceased, but because of the requirements of the succession, just as occurs in the case of a debt. 4Security must also be given to the agents of the legatees, which is our practice at present. 5It is clear that if a legacy is bequeathed to anyone who is under the control of another, security must be given to him to whose authority he is subject. 6Moreover, not only the heirs must furnish security for the payment of legacies, but their successors must do so likewise. 7He also to whom an estate has been transferred under the Decree of the Senate is compelled to give security. 8Those who become heirs through the agency of other persons, as well as prætorian heirs, are obliged to furnish security. 9It is clear that if the terms of the stipulation are not complied with, and suit is brought to recover the legacy, it must be said that the stipulation ceases to exist. 10The same rule also applies in the case of trusts, 11Where a legacy or a trust is bequeathed to anyone, with the understanding that it shall be renewed if the property is lost, let us see whether security can be required for the payment or execution of the second legacy, or trust. The question arises whether this trust or legacy is due, and how many times it is due, and whether the legatee himself should give security that he will not lose the property. There is extant a Rescript of the Divine Pius, addressed to Junius Mauritius, with reference to all these matters, which is as follows, “In accordance with the contracts of your letter, legacies or trusts should be paid or delivered to Clodius Fructulus under the will of Clodius Felix, without requiring a bond that none of said legacies or trusts will be lost by him. For, as the heir is charged by said testator that, if Fructulus should lose any of the property left to him by said will, the heir must make it up to him, this does not have the effect of requiring Fructulus to give security against the loss of the first legacies, or that the heir should be rendered liable indefinitely; so that, as often as the legatee may lose any property the former will be required to restore it, but as, by the terms of the trust, it would seem that after the legacy has been paid a second time, the heir will no longer be liable if the legatee afterwards loses any of the property, the trust having been fully executed by the last payment.” It therefore appears by this Rescript that the legatee is not required to give security to the heir against the loss of the property. On the other hand, the question arises whether the heir should give security with reference to the second legacy, or trust. I think that it is not necessary for him to do so, as it is in the power of the legatee to avoid losing what has been left to him. However, if anyone should ascertain that the second legacy was left under some condition, it must be said that security should be required. 12It is evident that where anyone is charged with the payment of a legacy, either wholly or in part, he must furnish security, whether he is an appointed or a substituted heir. 13The question is very seriously asked whether this stipulation involves the increase derived from profits or interest. It has been decided, and very properly, that the stipulation has reference to any increase which has taken place after the heir has been in default, as it includes whatever should be paid. 14Where anyone has stipulated for the payment of a legacy under a condition, and, while the condition is pending, he dies, the stipulation becomes of no effect, because the legacy is not transmitted to the heir. It must also be noted that the same circumstances and conditions are embraced in this stipulation that are involved in the legacy. Hence, if there is an exception which can be filed in opposition to the person claiming the legacy, it is established that the same exception can be pleaded against anyone bringing an action based on the stipulation. 15Ofilius says that if the heir is asked to give security with reference to the legacy by the agent of the legatee, who is alleged to be absent, he should furnish it on condition that the person for whose benefit he does so is living, so that he will not be held liable if the legatee should have previously died. 16The question also arises whether the property itself, which is bequeathed, is included in this stipulation, or whether it has reference merely to its value. The better opinion is that either the property itself, or its value, comes within the terms of the stipulation. 17If ten aurei, which were in a certain chest, are bequeathed to me, and the usufruct of the same is bequeathed to you, and each bequest is absolute, he to whom the ownership is left can claim the ten aurei by law. Still, it is settled that the usufructuary can bring an action under the Decree of the Senate and demand the usufruct of five aurei. However, if the owner should claim the entire ten, he can be barred by an exception on the ground of bad faith, after the usufructuary, having received five aurei, has given security for their return. Marcellus says it is clear that if the legatee should obtain possession of the ten aurei, an equitable action should be granted to the heir or the usufructuary, against the legatee, provided security is given to him. Where, however, the ten aurei were left under a condition, the usufructuary can, in the meantime, hold them if a bond is furnished; and the legatee to whom the ownership was bequeathed can stipulate for the payment of his legacy. But if he should fail to demand the stipulation, and the condition should be fulfilled, Marcellus says that he can bring an action for the production of the property. If, however, the heir has paid the ten aurei to the usufructuary through mistake, it is evident that he will not be required to produce the property in court, and Marcellus holds that relief should be granted to the legatee against the usufructuary. 18If a part of the estate should come into possession of the Treasury, the stipulation above mentioned will be of no force or effect, because it is not customary for the Treasury to give security. 19Where anyone is in possession of a small portion of the estate, although he may be heir to a larger share of the same, if a part of the estate is diminished by operation of law, the heir will become more secure, nor will he be liable under the stipulation for any more of the estate than that to which he is the heir. If, however, the capacity of the heir with reference to the interest of the legatees should remain unimpaired, still, in fact, he will be entitled to less of the estate and he will appear to be burdened if he has given security to indemnify the legatees, because, by operation of law, the legacies are due in proportion to the share of the estate to which he is the heir. It is perfectly just that he should not pay the legatees any more than is in proportion to the share of the estate from which he derives an income. This is also the case where an estate is proportionally transferred under the Trebellian Decree of the Senate, for the heir is released from liability to pay the legacy, so far as his share, the profit of which has been lost, is concerned. 20If a bequest should be made payable at an indefinite time to someone who is under the control of another, security shall be given to him who has control of the legatee, not absolutely but conditionally; that is, provided he is subject to his authority when the time for the payment of the legacy arrives. If, however, the legatee should be ascertained to be his own master, it would seem to be unjust that security should be given to the father, when the legacy is payable to another. And even if security has been furnished without this addition, we can, nevertheless, bar the father or the master by an exception, if they have neither the son nor the slave under their control at the time when the condition is complied with. Still, according to this, the result will be that there is an instance in which security given with reference to a legacy does not take effect, for it will be void if the person in question is his own master at the time when the condition is fulfilled.

2Pa­pi­nia­nus li­bro vi­cen­si­mo oc­ta­vo quaes­tio­num. Nec si for­te ve­lit pa­ter ca­ve­re ne­mi­nem am­plius pe­ti­tu­rum, com­pel­len­dus erit he­res le­ga­tum, quod iam fi­lius pe­te­re pot­est, alii quam cui de­be­tur ex­sol­ve­re.

2Papinianus, Questions, Book XXVIII. Even if the father should be willing to give security that no one will afterwards claim the legacy, the heir cannot be compelled to pay it to anyone else than to the son who it is entitled to, and can demand the same.

3Ul­pia­nus li­bro sep­tua­gen­si­mo no­no ad edic­tum. Sed et ip­sis, qui sunt in po­tes­ta­te, ca­ven­dum est, quem­ad­mo­dum so­let ca­ve­ri, si ea­dem res duo­bus sub di­ver­sis vel con­tra­riis con­di­cio­ni­bus re­lic­ta sit: duo­bus enim sa­tis­da­tur, sed in utro­que ca­su is­dem per­so­nis sa­tis­da­tio­nem sub­itu­ris.

3Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LXXIX. Security must also be given to those who are under the control of another, just as it is customary for this to be done where the same property is left to two persons under different conditions, for security is given to two legatees, but in both instances the same persons become sureties.

4Idem li­bro quin­to de­ci­mo ad edic­tum. Si ex cau­sa fi­dei­com­mis­si sit apud ali­quem he­redi­tas nec le­ga­to­rum sa­tis­dat, in pos­ses­sio­nem ad­ver­sus eum le­ga­ta­rius mit­ti­tur.

4The Same, On the Edict, Book XV. Where an estate is in the hands of anyone under the terms of a trust, and he does not give security for the payment of the legacies, the legatee is placed in possession of the property as against him.

5Pa­pi­nia­nus li­bro vi­cen­si­mo oc­ta­vo quaes­tio­num. Post­quam he­res ab hos­ti­bus cap­tus est, con­di­cio le­ga­ti, cu­ius no­mi­ne pro­pos­i­ta sti­pu­la­tio­ne cau­tum fue­rat, ex­ti­tit: fi­de­ius­so­res in­ter­im te­ne­ri ne­ga­vi, quia ne­que ius ne­que per­so­na es­set, ad quam ver­ba sti­pu­la­tio­nis de­ri­gi pos­sint. 1Im­pe­ra­tor Mar­cus An­to­ni­nus Iu­lio Bal­bo re­scrip­sit eum, a quo res fi­dei­com­mis­sae pe­te­ban­tur, cum ap­pel­las­set, ca­ve­re vel, si ca­veat ad­ver­sa­rius, ad ad­ver­sa­rium trans­fer­ri pos­ses­sio­nem de­be­re. rec­te pla­cuit prin­ci­pi post pro­vo­ca­tio­nem quo­que fi­dei­com­mis­si cau­tio­nem in­ter­po­ni: quod enim an­te sen­ten­tiam, si pe­ti­tio­nis dies mo­ra­re­tur, fie­ri de­buit, amit­ti post vic­to­riam di­la­ta pe­ti­tio­ne non opor­tuit. sed qua­re non ca­ve­rat de fi­dei­com­mis­so qui pro­vo­ca­ve­rit, si ca­ve­ret ad­ver­sa­rius, ad eum pos­ses­sio­nem es­se trans­fe­ren­dam re­scrip­sit, cum alia sit edic­ti con­di­cio? non enim ex­igi­tur a le­ga­ta­rio vi­ce mu­tua cau­tum, sed vi­ca­ria cus­to­diae gra­tia pos­ses­sio da­tur et qui op­ti­nuit in pos­ses­sio­nem per prae­to­rem aut prae­si­dem in­du­ci­tur. sed prae­tor qui­dem in om­nium re­rum pos­ses­sio­ne, quae in cau­sa he­redi­ta­ria per­ma­nent om­ni­mo­do, fi­dei­com­mis­si ser­van­di gra­tia es­se per­mit­tit: prin­ceps au­tem ea­rum re­rum no­mi­ne, de qui­bus fue­rat iu­di­ca­tum, mu­tuas ad­mi­sit cau­tio­nes: sic­uti, cum de bo­nis suis con­fe­ren­dis fi­lius ac­cep­ta pos­ses­sio­ne ca­ve­re non pot­est, quia de­ne­ga­mus ei ac­tio­nes, de­fer­tur con­di­cio ca­ven­di fra­tri­bus ex for­ma iu­ris­dic­tio­nis, quod ex por­tio­ne fra­tris fue­rint con­se­cu­ti, cum bo­na pro­pria con­fer­re coe­pe­rit, se re­sti­tu­tu­ros. sed si nec ip­si ca­ve­re pos­sint, uti­li­ter pro­ba­tum est vi­rum bo­num ab utra­que par­te eli­gen­dum, apud quem ut se­ques­trem fruc­tus de­po­nan­tur qui­que uti­les ac­tio­nes a prae­to­re da­tas ex­er­ceat. pos­ses­sio au­tem ex re­scrip­to su­pra re­la­to non ali­ter ad eum, qui fi­dei­com­mis­sum pe­tit, trans­fer­tur, quam si ca­ve­rit, tam­et­si ma­xi­me ad­ver­sa­rius non per in­opiam, sed per con­tu­ma­ciam ca­ve­re no­lue­rit: sed si is qui vi­cit non pos­sit ca­ve­re, vel res de­po­nen­da vel iu­ris­dic­tio re­sti­tuen­da erit. 2Si dies aut con­di­cio le­ga­ti fi­dei com­mis­si pe­ti­tio­nem ac­tio­nem­ve dif­fer­re di­ca­tur et id­eo sa­tis­da­tio de­si­de­re­tur, he­res au­tem per ca­lum­niam pos­tu­la­ri con­ten­dat et re­lic­tum ne­get, non ali­ter au­dien­dus erit qui ca­ve­re pos­tu­lat, quam si scrip­tu­ram, qua re­lic­tum ad­fir­met, ex­hi­bue­rit. 3Cum quae­re­ba­tur, ubi fi­dei­com­mis­si ser­van­di cau­sa ca­ve­ri opor­teat, im­pe­ra­tor Ti­tus An­to­ni­nus re­scrip­sit, si do­mi­ci­lium Ro­mae non ha­be­ret he­res et om­nis he­redi­tas in pro­vin­cia es­set, ad sa­tis­da­tio­nem fi­dei­com­mis­si no­mi­ne in pro­vin­ciam fi­dei­com­mis­sa­rium re­mit­ten­dum es­se. qua­re si he­res in eum lo­cum ca­ven­di gra­tia re­mit­ti de­si­de­ret, ubi do­mi­ci­lium ha­bet, le­ga­ta­rius au­tem ibi ca­ve­ri pos­tu­let, ubi est he­redi­tas, non erit he­res re­mit­ten­dus. id­que im­pe­ra­tor Ti­tus An­to­ni­nus re­scrip­sit. 4Qui­bus lit­te­ris ad­iec­tum et si bo­na iam dis­trac­ta sunt vel tes­ta­to­ris per­mis­su vel con­ce­den­te le­ga­ta­rio, pre­tium eo­rum fi­dei­com­mis­si ser­van­di cau­sa in de­po­si­to ha­ben­dum.

5Papinianus, Questions, Book XXVIII. The condition of a legacy for the payment of which security had been furnished was fulfilled after the heir had been captured by the enemy. I denied that the sureties could be held liable during the meantime, for there was neither a right nor a person to whom the terms of the stipulation could be applied. 1The Emperor Marcus Antoninus stated in a Rescript addressed to Julius Balbus that a person by whom property left under a trust was claimed should give security when he took an appeal; or, if his adversary furnished security, he should be given possession of the property in dispute. It was very properly decided by the Emperor that security should be furnished, even after the appeal of the case brought under the trust. This should be done before the decision is rendered if the claimant is in default, for he should not lose his victory because of his delay. But why should the appellant not give security on account of the trust, if his adversary did so in order that he might be given possession, when the requirements of the Edict are different, was asked in a rescript? For security is not exacted of the legatee, as in the case of a loan, but vicarious possession is granted on account of safekeeping, and he who obtains the property is placed in possession of the same, either by the Prætor or the Governor. The Prætor permits possession to be taken of all the property belonging to the estate, for the sole purpose of observing the condition of the trust; the Emperor, however, does so on account of the property which is the subject of litigation, and requires securities from both parties; just as where a son, having obtained possession, cannot give security to place all his property in the bulk of the estate, and, for the reason that we refuse him any action, the condition of his furnishing security to his brothers is deferred in accordance with the rule of the Prætorian Court, as his brothers must restore anything which they may have obtained from the share of their brother, when he does bring his own property into the bulk of the estate. If, however, none of them can give security, it is established, for the purpose of convenience, that a good man shall be chosen by both sides with whom the income shall be deposited, and, as it were, sequestrated, and who can bring the equitable actions granted by the Prætor. Moreover, possession under the terms of the Rescript previously cited is only transferred to the person who claims the benefit of the trust, where he gives security; even though his adversary may refuse to give it, not through inability to do so, but through obstinacy. But when the person who is successful cannot furnish security, the property itself must be deposited, or possession be given by a decree of the Prætor. 2Where the term or the condition of a legacy or a trust is said to postpone the demand, or the action for the same, and therefore security is demanded, and the heir alleges that this is done for the purpose of annoyance, and denies that anything has been left to the parties who make the application, he who asked that security should be furnished shall not be heard, unless he produces the will by which he can prove that the legacy was bequeathed to him. 3When the question was asked where security must be given for the purpose of preserving a trust, the Emperor, Titus Antoninus, stated in a Rescript that if the heir did not have his domicile at Rome, and all the property of the estate was situated in a province, the beneficiary of the trust who demanded that security be given should be sent back to the province. Hence, if the heir should ask to be sent back to his home for the purpose of giving security, and the legatee asks that security be given where the estate is situated, the heir should not be sent back. This was also stated by the Emperor Titus Antoninus in a Rescript. 4It was added in this Rescript that, where property belonging to the estate had already been sold, either by the will of the testator or with the consent of the legatee, the price of said property should be placed upon deposit for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the trust.

6Ul­pia­nus li­bro sex­to fi­dei­com­mis­so­rum. Si quan­do in­cer­ta sum­ma est fi­dei­com­mis­si, qui co­gnos­cit ta­xa­tio­nem quo­que fi­de­ius­so­res pe­tun­tur. 1Ad­mo­nen­di au­tem su­mus re­bus pu­bli­cis re­mit­ti so­le­re sa­tis­da­tio­nem fi­dei­com­mis­so­rum et­iam si quan­do ne­ces­si­tas dan­di in­ter­ce­dat: re­pro­mis­sio pla­ne ex­igen­da est vo­lun­ta­ti de­func­ti sta­tu iri.

6Ulpianus, Trusts, Book VI. Where an indefinite amount is mentioned in a trust, sureties shall be demanded, after the amount has been established by the decision of the magistrate who has jurisdiction of the case. 1We must also remember that in matters relating to property in which the public is interested, it is not customary for security to be required for the execution of trusts, even if sometimes a necessity should arise for giving it. It is clear, however, that a promise can be exacted that the will of the deceased shall be executed.

7Pau­lus li­bro se­cun­do ma­nua­lium. Fi­lio vel ser­vo sub con­di­cio­ne a pa­tre do­mi­no­ve he­rede in­sti­tu­to le­ga­tum est. hu­ius le­ga­ti sa­tis pe­te­re non pos­sunt: sed pen­den­te con­di­cio­ne em­an­ci­pa­tus vel ma­nu­mis­sus si sa­tis pe­tant, quae­ri­tur, an au­dien­di sint, ne be­ne­fi­cium pa­tris do­mi­ni­ve ip­sis one­ro­sum sit, an si­bi im­pu­ta­re de­be­rent, qui de­de­runt eis pos­tu­lan­di ad­ver­sus se fa­cul­ta­tem. sed me­lius est per me­dio­cri­ta­tem cau­sam dir­ime­re, ut cau­tio­ni tan­tum cum hy­po­the­ca sua­rum re­rum com­mit­tan­tur.

7Paulus, Manuals, Book II. Where, after a father or a master had been appointed an heir, and charged with a legacy payable to a son or a slave of the former, under a condition, neither can demand security for the preservation of the legacy. If, however, the son or the slave should be emancipated or manumitted while the condition is pending, and demands security, the question arises whether he should be heard, lest the benefit which he has received from his father or his master may be to his disadvantage, or whether the father and the master should blame themselves for having given them the power to make such a demand. The better opinion is to dispose of this point by adopting a middle course, and say that they can only be held liable for the hypothecation of their property.

8Ul­pia­nus li­bro qua­dra­gen­si­mo oc­ta­vo ad Sa­binum. Cum le­ga­to­rum no­mi­ne sa­tis­da­tum est, si­mul dies le­ga­to­rum ces­sit, pro­ti­nus is­dem die­bus et­iam ex sti­pu­la­tio­ne de­ben­tur,

8Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XLVIII. Where security is given to pay legacies, the day of payment arrives under this stipulation as soon as the legacies begin to be due:

9Pau­lus li­bro duo­de­ci­mo ad Sa­binum. non ta­men ut sta­tim pe­ti pos­sint: de­be­ri enim di­ci­mus et quod die cer­ta le­ga­ta­rio prae­sta­ri opor­tet, li­cet dies non­dum ve­ne­rit.

9Paulus, On Sabinus, Book XII. Not, however, to the extent that the legacies can be claimed at once, for we hold that payment should be made on a certain day, even though the time has not yet arrived.

10Pom­po­nius li­bro vi­cen­si­mo sex­to ad Sa­binum. Si a te he­rede le­ga­tum mi­hi sit sub con­di­cio­ne tu­que, post­quam ad­ie­ris he­redi­ta­tem, sa­tis­de­de­ris le­ga­to­rum et post mor­tem tuam an­te ad­itam tuam he­redi­ta­tem con­di­cio le­ga­ti ex­ti­te­rit, Sa­b­inus ait fi­de­ius­so­res mi­hi te­ne­ri, quia om­ni­mo­do da­ri opor­tet le­ga­tum et in rem es­set con­cep­ta sti­pu­la­tio.

10Pomponius, On Sabinus, Book XXVI. If you have been appointed an heir, and have been charged with a legacy to me under a condition, and you should afterwards accept the estate and give security for the payment of the legacy, and, after your death, but before your estate has been entered upon, the condition of the legacy should be fulfilled, Sabinus says that the sureties will be liable to me, because the legacy must, by all means, be paid, even if the stipulation was general in character.

11Gaius li­bro ter­tio de­ci­mo ad edic­tum pro­vin­cia­le. Si le­ga­ta­riis, qui ad­ver­sus me in pos­ses­sio­nem le­ga­to­rum ser­van­do­rum cau­sa mis­si sunt, pro­cu­ra­tor vel quis alius meo no­mi­ne ca­ve­rit, per­in­de mi­hi prae­tor ac­com­mo­dat in­ter­dic­tum, quo iu­bean­tur dis­ce­de­re le­ga­ta­rii pos­ses­sio­ne, ac si ego ca­vis­sem.

11Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book XIII. Where the legatees have been placed in possession of the property of an estate against me, on account of having given bond for the payment of the legacies, and my agent or anyone else has furnished security in my name, the Prætor can grant me an interdict on this ground, by which the legatees will be ordered to relinquish possession, just as if I myself had given security.

12Mar­cia­nus li­bro sep­ti­mo in­sti­tu­tio­num. Li­cet, ut non pe­ta­tur cau­tio, con­di­cio tes­ta­men­to scrip­ta fue­rit, non vi­de­tur con­di­cio: et id­eo li­cet de­si­de­ra­ve­rit quis ca­ve­ri si­bi, non vi­de­tur con­di­cio­ne de­fec­tus, quia post­quam re­mit­ti ta­lem cau­tio­nem iu­re pu­bli­co pla­cuit, nec onus cau­tio­nis se­qui­tur nec qui­dem con­di­cio in­tel­le­gi­tur.

12Marcianus, Institutes, Book VII. Even though the condition that no security shall be required may have been inserted into the will, such a condition will not be considered valid, and therefore, if any legatee should ask that security be given him, the condition will not be considered to have failed, because, after it has been established by public law that security of this kind can be remitted, the burden of a bond is not exacted, and no condition is understood to have been imposed.

13Ne­ra­tius li­bro sep­ti­mo mem­bra­na­rum. Ei quo­que, cui le­ga­to­rum ac­tio da­tur in eum, qui prae­ter­mis­sa in­sti­tu­tio­ne ab in­tes­ta­to pos­si­det he­redi­ta­tem, le­ga­to­rum sa­tis­da­tur et, ni­si sa­tis­da­bi­tur, in pos­ses­sio­nem le­ga­to­rum ser­van­do­rum cau­sa mit­ti­tur: nam haec quo­que prae­tor per­in­de sal­va es­se vult at­que ea quae iu­re ci­vi­li de­ben­tur. idem Aris­to­ni pla­cet.

13Neratius, Parchments, Book VII. Security may also be given for the payment of legacies to him to whom an action is granted on account of said legacies as against one who, having rejected his appointment as heir, has acquired the estate on the ground of intestacy; and, unless security is furnished, he will be placed in possession of it for the purpose of preserving the legacies, as the Prætor desires them to be secure, just as in the case of those due under the Civil Law. Aristo holds the same opinion.

14Ul­pia­nus li­bro sep­tua­gen­si­mo no­no ad edic­tum. Haec sti­pu­la­tio et in fi­dei­com­mis­sis lo­cum ha­bet, si­ve pu­re fi­dei­com­mis­sum sit re­lic­tum si­ve ex die cer­ta vel in­cer­ta vel sub con­di­cio­ne, si­ve res ali­qua si­ve he­redi­tas si­ve ius ali­quod re­lic­tum est. 1Di­vus quo­que Pius re­scrip­sit, quo­tiens evi­dens res est, ut cer­tum sit nul­lo mo­do fi­dei­com­mis­so lo­cum es­se, per­quam in­iquum es­se su­per­va­cua cau­tio­ne one­ra­ri he­redem.

14Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LXXIX. This stipulation also applies to trusts, where the trust is left either absolutely or to take effect after a certain day, or under a condition, or where certain property, or the entire estate, or any right dependent thereon, is bequeathed. 1The Divine Pius also stated in a Rescript that, whenever it is clear and certain that there is no ground for the execution of the trust under any circumstances, it would be unjust for the heir to be required to furnish a bond when there is no necessity for it.

15Pau­lus li­bro sep­tua­ge­si­mo quin­to ad edic­tum. Et­iam de prae­sen­ti le­ga­to lo­cum ha­bet haec sa­tis­da­tio, quon­iam non­nul­las mo­ras ex­er­ci­tio iu­di­cii ha­bet. 1Si et ab he­rede in­sti­tu­to le­ga­to­rum sa­tis ac­ce­pe­rit le­ga­ta­rius et a Tre­bel­lia­no fi­dei­com­mis­sa­rio, utra­que qui­dem sti­pu­la­tio com­mit­te­tur, sed ex­cep­tio­ne se tue­bi­tur he­res, quia ca­ve­re non de­bue­rit. sed si pars he­redi­ta­tis re­sti­tu­ta sit, ab utro­que ca­ven­dum est. 2Et­iam si ab in­tes­ta­to de­bea­tur fi­dei­com­mis­sum, lo­cum ha­bet haec sti­pu­la­tio.

15Paulus, On the Edict, Book LXXV. This bond also applies to a legacy which is payable immediately, as judicial proceedings give rise to some delay. 1If the legatee has received security from the appointed heir for the payment of his legacy, and has been charged with a trust under the Trebellian Decree of the Senate, both stipulations will take effect; but the heir can protect himself by an exception, because he is not obliged to give security. If, however, a portion of the estate has been transferred, security must be given by each of the parties. 2This stipulation is also applicable where a trust is to be executed ab intestato.

16Gaius li­bro vi­cen­si­mo sep­ti­mo ad edic­tum pro­vin­cia­le. Si duo eius­dem no­mi­nis de le­ga­to con­ten­dant, utris­que sa­tis­da­tur: nec one­ra­ri he­redem, cum pos­sit eos­dem fi­de­ius­so­res ad utram­que sti­pu­la­tio­nem ad­hi­be­re, qui et ip­si non one­ran­tur, cum fu­tu­rum sit, ut uni te­ne­ren­tur.

16Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book XXVII. Where two persons of the same name claim a legacy, security must be given to both of them, but the heir will not be unnecessarily burdened on this account, as he can make the same sureties responsible under both stipulations; and the said sureties are not unnecessarily burdened, since the result will be that they will only be liable under one obligation.

17Pau­lus li­bro qua­dra­gen­si­mo oc­ta­vo ad edic­tum. Si ab uno ex he­redi­bus le­ga­to­rum sa­tis ac­ci­pi­mus, cum ab om­ni­bus he­redi­bus no­bis le­ga­tum es­set: si pars co­he­redis ad­cres­cat pro­mis­so­ri, in to­tum fi­de­ius­so­res te­nen­tur, si so­li­dum le­ga­tum is coe­pe­rit de­be­re.

17Paulus, On the Edict, Book XLVIII. If we take security from only one heir for the payment to us of a legacy which all the heirs are charged with, and the share of the said co-heir accrues to the promisor, the securities will be liable in full, if the heir should owe the entire legacy.

18Scae­vo­la li­bro vi­cen­si­mo no­no di­ges­to­rum. Quae fi­lium le­gi­ti­mum re­lin­que­bat, pa­trem eun­dem­que col­li­ber­tum ex as­se scrip­sit he­redem fi­dei­que eius com­mi­sit, ut, quid­quid ad eum ex he­redi­ta­te eius per­ve­nis­set, cum mo­re­re­tur, re­sti­tue­ret fi­lio tes­ta­tri­cis ne­po­ti suo, et haec ver­ba ad­ie­cit: ‘sa­tis a Se­io pa­tre meo ex­igi ve­to’. quae­si­tum est, cum is­te Se­ius sub­stan­tiam suam dis­si­pat et ve­re­tur pa­ter fi­dei­com­mis­sa­rii, ne in­ane fi­dei­com­mis­sum con­sti­tua­tur, an ad sa­tis­da­tio­nem fi­dei­com­mis­si no­mi­ne pa­trem de­func­tae com­pel­le­re pos­sit. re­spon­dit se­cun­dum ea quae pro­po­ne­ren­tur non com­pel­len­dum ca­ve­re. 1Idem quae­siit: tes­ta­tri­cem apud ma­ri­tum suum, ex quo fi­lium re­li­que­rat, res de­po­suis­se non ex­ac­ta cau­tio­ne de­po­si­tio­nis: an ea res pa­tri he­redi re­sti­tui de­beat? an ve­ro quon­iam emo­lu­men­tum to­tius he­redi­ta­tis ad fi­lium de­func­tae re­ver­ti de­be­ret, apud ma­ri­tum re­ma­ne­ret, apud quem dos re­man­sis­set? re­spon­dit, quod mu­lie­ris man­sis­set nec in do­te fuis­set, re­sti­tuen­dum es­se he­redi. 2Tu­tor, qui et co­he­res pu­pil­li erat, ab­sen­te pu­pil­lo, cum ad­mo­nue­runt eum le­ga­ta­rii, fi­dei­com­mis­si no­mi­ne in so­li­dum ip­se ca­vit. quae­si­tum est, an in pu­pil­lum ad­ul­tum fac­tum dan­da sit uti­lis ac­tio. re­spon­dit dan­dam.

18Scævola, Digest, Book XXIX. A woman who left a legitimate son appointed her father heir to her entire estate, he having been manumitted at the same time as herself, and charged him, at the time of his death, to transfer to his grandson, a son of the testatrix, all of her estate which might come into her hands, and added the following words, “I forbid any security to be required of my father Seius.” As the said Seius had squandered all his property, and the father of the beneficiary of the trust was apprehensive that it would become of no effect, the question arose whether he could compel the father of the deceased to furnish security for the execution of the trust. The answer was that, according to the facts stated, he could not be compelled to give security. 1The testatrix having deposited certain property with her husband, the father of the boy to whom she made the bequest, without requiring from him a bond for the deposit, it was also asked whether the said property should be delivered to the heir who was the father of the testatrix; or whether, as the entire estate must eventually revert to the son of the deceased, the property in question should remain in the hands of the husband, who had a right to the possession of the dowry. The answer was that all the property belonging to the woman which remained and was not included in her dowry must be delivered to the heir. 2A guardian, who was also the co-heir of his ward, during the absence of the latter, and after having been notified by the legatees, himself gave security on account of the trust for the entire amount left under the same. The question arose whether a prætorian action should be granted against the ward when he grew up. The answer was that it should be granted.