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. XXXVII11,
De bonorum possessione secundum tabulas
Liber trigesimus septimus
XI.

De bonorum possessione secundum tabulas

(Concerning Prætorian Possession of an Estate in Accordance with the Provisions of the Will.)

1Ul­pia­nus li­bro tri­gen­si­mo no­no ad edic­tum. Ta­bu­las tes­ta­men­ti ac­ci­pe­re de­be­mus om­nem ma­te­riae fi­gu­ram: si­ve igi­tur ta­bu­lae sint lig­neae si­ve cu­ius­cum­que al­te­rius ma­te­riae, si­ve char­tae si­ve mem­bra­nae sint vel si co­rio ali­cu­ius ani­ma­lis, ta­bu­lae rec­te di­cen­tur. 1Non au­tem om­nes ta­bu­las prae­tor se­qui­tur hac par­te edic­ti, sed su­pre­mas, hoc est eas, quae no­vis­si­mae ita fac­tae sunt, post quas nul­lae fac­tae sunt: su­pre­mae enim hae sunt non quae sub ip­so mor­tis tem­po­re fac­tae sunt, sed post quas nul­lae fac­tae sunt, li­cet hae ve­te­res sint. 2Suf­fi­cit au­tem ex­ta­re ta­bu­las, et­si non pro­fe­ran­tur, si cer­tum sit eas ex­sta­re. igi­tur et­si apud fu­rem sint vel apud eum, apud quem de­po­si­tae sunt, du­bi­ta­ri non opor­tet ad­mit­ti pos­se bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem: nec enim opus est ape­ri­re eas, ut bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio se­cun­dum ta­bu­las agnos­ca­tur. 3Se­mel au­tem ex­sti­tis­se ta­bu­las mor­tuo tes­ta­to­re de­si­de­ra­tur, tam­et­si ex­sta­re de­sie­rint: qua­re et si post­ea in­ter­ci­de­runt, bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio pe­ti pot­erit. 4Scien­tiam ta­men ex­ige­mus, ut sciat he­res ex­ta­re ta­bu­las cer­tus­que sit de­la­tam si­bi bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem. 5Si quis in duo­bus ex­em­pla­ri­bus fe­ce­rit tes­ta­men­tum et aliud ex­stet, aliud non ex­stet, ta­bu­lae ex­ta­re vi­den­tur pe­ti­que pot­est bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio. 6Sed et si in duo­bus co­di­ci­bus si­mul sig­na­tis alios at­que alios he­redes scrip­se­rit et utrum­que ex­tet, ex utro­que qua­si ex uno com­pe­tit bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio, quia pro unis ta­bu­lis ha­ben­dum est et su­pre­mum utrum­que ac­ci­pie­mus. 7Sed si unum fe­ce­rit tes­ta­tor qua­si tes­ta­men­tum, aliud qua­si ex­em­plum, si qui­dem id ex­tat quod vo­luit es­se tes­ta­men­tum, bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio pe­te­tur, si ve­ro id quod ex­em­plum erat, bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio pe­ti non pot­erit, ut Pom­po­nius scrip­sit. 8Ex­igit prae­tor, ut is, cu­ius bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio da­tur, utro­que tem­po­re ius tes­ta­men­ti fa­cien­di ha­bue­rit, et cum fa­cit tes­ta­men­tum et cum mo­ri­tur. pro­in­de si im­pu­bes vel fu­rio­sus vel quis alius ex his qui tes­ta­men­tum fa­ce­re non pos­sunt tes­ta­men­tum fe­ce­rit, de­in­de ha­bens tes­ta­men­ti fac­tio­nem de­ces­se­rit, pe­ti bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio non pot­erit. sed et si fi­lius fa­mi­lias pu­tans se pa­trem fa­mi­lias tes­ta­men­tum fe­ce­rit, de­in­de mor­tis tem­po­re pa­ter fa­mi­lias in­ve­nia­tur, non pot­est bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio se­cun­dum ta­bu­las pe­ti. sed si fi­lius fa­mi­lias ve­te­ra­nus de cas­tren­si fa­ciat, de­in­de em­an­ci­pa­tus vel alias pa­ter fa­mi­lias fac­tus de­ce­dat, pot­est eius bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio pe­ti. sed si quis utro­que tem­po­re tes­ta­men­ti fac­tio­nem ha­bue­rit, me­dio tem­po­re non ha­bue­rit, bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio se­cun­dum ta­bu­las pe­ti pot­erit. 9Si quis au­tem tes­ta­men­tum fe­ce­rit, de­in­de amis­e­rit tes­ta­men­ti fac­tio­nem vel fu­ro­re vel quod ei bo­nis in­ter­dic­tum est, pot­est eius pe­ti bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio, quia iu­re tes­ta­men­tum eius va­let: et hoc ge­ne­ra­li­ter de om­ni­bus hu­ius­mo­di di­ci­tur, qui amit­tant mor­tis tem­po­re tes­ta­men­ti fac­tio­nem, sed an­te fac­tum eo­rum tes­ta­men­tum va­let. 10Si li­num, quo li­ga­tae sunt ta­bu­lae, in­ci­sum sit, si qui­dem alius con­tra vo­lun­ta­tem tes­ta­to­ris in­ci­de­rit, bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio pe­ti pot­est: quod si ip­se tes­ta­tor id fe­ce­rit, non vi­den­tur sig­na­tae et id­eo bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio pe­ti non pot­est. 11Si ro­sae sint a mu­ri­bus ta­bu­lae vel li­num ali­ter rup­tum vel ve­tus­ta­te pu­tre­fac­tum vel si­tu vel ca­su, et sic vi­den­tur ta­bu­lae sig­na­tae, ma­xi­me si pro­po­nas vel unum li­num te­ne­re. si ter for­te vel qua­ter li­num es­set cir­cum­duc­tum, di­cen­dum est sig­na­tas ta­bu­las eius ex­ta­re, quam­vis vel in­ci­sa vel ro­sa sit pars uni.

1Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXXIX. By a will we should understand any kind of material upon which it is written; therefore, whether it is written upon tablets of wood, or upon those of any other kind of material, or upon papyrus, or parchment, or upon the skin of any animal whatsoever, it is also properly designated a will. 1The Prætor does not, under this Section of the Edict, confirm all wills, but only the last ones; that is to say, those which were most recently made, and after which no others have been drawn up. A last will is not one which was executed at the very time of death, but one after which no other has been executed, even though it is old. 2It is sufficient for there to be a will, although it may not be produced, if it is certain that it does exist. Therefore, if it is in possession of a thief, or in the hands of one with whom it has been deposited for safe-keeping, there is no doubt that prætorian possession of the estate should be granted; for it is not necessary to open the will in order that prætorian possession may be obtained in accordance with its provisions. 3Again, it is necessary for the will to have been in existence at the time of the death of the testator, even if it may have ceased to exist afterwards, hence, where it has subsequently been destroyed prætorian possession can be demanded. 4Nevertheless, we require that the heir should know that the will existed, and be certain that the possession of the estate was given to him by its provisions. 5Where anyone makes two copies of his will, and one of them remains, and the other is destroyed, the will is considered to be in existence, and prætorian possession of the estate can be demanded. 6Even if the testator made two wills, and sealed them at the same time, and appointed different heirs by each one, and both are in existence; possession of the estate can be obtained under both, because they are considered as one document and the last will of the testator. 7If, however, a testator should execute a will, and also a copy of the same, and if the one which he intended to be his will is in existence, prætorian possession of the estate can be demanded; but Pomponius says that if only the copy is in existence, possession of the estate cannot be claimed. 8For possession to be given of an estate of anyone, the Prætor requires that he should have the right of testation, not only when he made the will, but also at the time of his death; hence, if a minor under the age of puberty, or an insane person, or anyone else of those who have not testamentary capacity should make a will and afterwards became competent to do so, and die, prætorian possession of his estate cannot be demanded. If, however, a son under paternal control, thinking that he was the head of a household when he was not, should make a will, and afterwards be found to be his own master at the time of his death, possession of his estate in accordance with the provisions of the will cannot be claimed under the terms of the Prætorian Edict. But if a son under paternal control, who was a veteran, should make a will disposing of his castrense peculium, and afterwards be emancipated, or become the head of a family and then die, prætorian possession of his estate can be demanded. If anyone should have the power to make a will at both the times above mentioned, but should not have that power in the interval, prætorian possession of his estate can be claimed in accordance with the provisions of his will. 9Moreover, if anyone should make a will, and afterwards be deprived of testamentary capacity either through becoming insane, or for the reason that he was forbidden to manage his property, possession of his estate can be demanded under the Edict, because his will is valid in law. Generally speaking, this may be said of all persons of this kind who have lost the power to make a will at the time of their death; but their wills executed before that time are valid. 10Where the cord which binds the tablets of the will together is cut, even though this was done against the wish of the testator, prætorian possession of the estate can be demanded. If, however, the testator himself should cut it, the will is not considered to have been sealed, and therefore possession of the estate cannot be claimed. 11If the tablets on which the will is written should be gnawed by mice, or the cord be broken in some other way, either through being decayed by age, or by the dampness of the place where it was deposited, or by a fall, the will is considered to have been sealed; especially if you suppose that it is fastened with only one cord. If a cord is wound three or four times around the tablets, it must be held that they are sealed, even though it may be cut or gnawed in one place.

2Idem li­bro qua­dra­gen­si­mo pri­mo ad edic­tum. Ae­quis­si­mum or­di­nem prae­tor se­cu­tus est: vo­luit enim pri­mo ad li­be­ros bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem con­tra ta­bu­las per­ti­ne­re, mox, si in­de non sit oc­cu­pa­ta, iu­di­cium de­func­ti se­quen­dum. ex­spec­tan­di igi­tur li­be­ri erunt, quam­diu bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem pe­te­re pos­sunt: quod si tem­pus fue­rit fi­ni­tum aut an­te de­ces­se­rint vel re­pu­dia­ve­rint vel ius pe­ten­dae bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nis amis­e­rint, tunc re­ver­te­tur bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio ad scrip­tos. 1Si sub con­di­cio­ne he­res in­sti­tu­tus fi­lius sit, Iu­lia­nus perae­que pu­ta­vit se­cun­dum ta­bu­las com­pe­te­re ei qua­si scrip­to bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem, qua­lis­qua­lis con­di­cio sit, et­iam si haec ‘si na­vis ex Asia ve­ne­rit’: et quam­vis de­fe­ce­rit con­di­cio, prae­tor ta­men fi­lium, qui ad­mi­se­rit se­cun­dum ta­bu­las, tue­ri de­be­bit ac si con­tra ta­bu­las ac­ce­pe­rit: quae tui­tio ei qui em­an­ci­pa­tus est ne­ces­sa­ria est. 2Pro qua quis­que par­te he­res scrip­tus est, pro ea ac­ci­piet bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem, sic ta­men, ut, si non sit qui ei con­cur­rat, ha­beat so­lus bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem: quam­diu ta­men ex he­redi­bus unus de­li­be­rat, utrum ad­mit­tat bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem an non, por­tio bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nis eius co­he­redi non de­fer­tur. 3Si Pri­mus qui­dem ita sub­sti­tu­tus sit, si in­tra de­cem, Se­cun­dus, si post de­cem in­tra quat­tuor­de­cim an­nos: si qui­dem in­tra de­cem de­ces­se­rit, Pri­mus so­lus he­res erit et ac­ci­piet bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem, si ve­ro post de­cem in­tra quat­tuor­de­cim, Se­cun­dus so­lus he­res erit et ac­ci­piet bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem, nec si­bi iun­gun­tur, cum ad suam quis­que cau­sam sub­sti­tu­tus sit. 4De­fer­tur bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio se­cun­dum ta­bu­las pri­mo gra­du scrip­tis he­redi­bus, mox il­lis non pe­ten­ti­bus se­quen­ti­bus, non so­lum sub­sti­tu­tis, ve­rum sub­sti­tu­ti quo­que sub­sti­tu­tis, et per se­riem sub­sti­tu­tos ad­mit­ti­mus. pri­mo gra­du au­tem scrip­tos ac­ci­pe­re de­be­mus om­nes, qui pri­mo lo­co scrip­ti sunt: nam sic­uti ad ad­eun­dam he­redi­ta­tem pro­xi­mi sunt, ita et ad bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem ad­mit­ten­dam. 5Si quis ita scrip­se­rit: ‘Pri­mus ex par­te he­res es­to: si Pri­mus he­res non erit, Se­cun­dus he­res es­to. Ter­tius ex alia par­te di­mi­dia he­res es­to: si non erit, Quar­tus he­res es­to’, Pri­mus et Ter­tius prio­res ad bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem in­vi­tan­tur. 6Si­quis ita in­sti­tue­rit he­redes: ‘uter ex fra­tri­bus meis Se­iam uxo­rem du­xe­rit, ex do­dran­te mi­hi he­res es­to, uter non du­xe­rit, ex qua­dran­te he­res es­to’, si qui­dem mor­tua fue­rit Se­ia, ae­quas par­tes ha­bi­tu­ros he­redes con­stat: quod si ab al­te­ro uxor duc­ta fue­rit, do­dran­tem et qua­dran­tem eis com­pe­te­re: bo­no­rum au­tem pos­ses­sio­nem, an­te­quam ex­is­tat con­di­cio, ne­utrum pe­te­re. 7Si con­sul­to sit in­duc­tum no­men he­redis, in­du­bi­tan­ter pro­ba­tur bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem pe­te­re eum non pos­se, quem­ad­mo­dum non pot­est, qui he­res scrip­tus est non con­sul­to tes­ta­to­re: nam pro non scrip­to est, quem scri­bi no­luit. 8Si duo sint he­redes in­sti­tu­ti Pri­mus et Se­cun­dus, Se­cun­do Ter­tius sub­sti­tu­tus, omit­ten­te Se­cun­do bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem Ter­tius suc­ce­dit: quod si Ter­tius no­lue­rit he­redi­ta­tem ad­ire vel bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem ac­ci­pe­re, rec­ci­dit bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio ad pri­mum. nec erit ei ne­ces­se pe­te­re bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem, sed ip­so iu­re ei ad­cres­cet: he­redi enim scrip­to sic­ut por­tio he­redi­ta­tis, ita et bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio ad­cres­cit. 9Si ser­vus he­res scrip­tus sit, ei do­mi­no de­fer­tur bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio, ad quem he­redi­tas per­ti­ne­bit: am­bu­lat enim cum do­mi­nio bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio. qua­re si mor­tis tem­po­re Sti­chus he­res in­sti­tu­tus fuit ser­vus Sem­pro­nii nec Sem­pro­nius eum ius­sit ad­ire, sed vel de­ces­sit vel et­iam eum alie­na­vit et coe­pit es­se Sep­ti­cii: eve­nit, ut, si Sep­ti­cius eum ius­se­rit, Sep­ti­cio de­fe­ra­tur bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio: ad hunc enim he­redi­tas per­ti­net. un­de si per mul­tos do­mi­nos trans­ie­rit ser­vus tres vel plu­res, no­vis­si­mo da­bi­mus bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem.

2The Same, On the Edict, Book XLI. The Prætor has adopted a most equitable order of succession in the Edict. For he desires that, in the first place, the children shall be entitled to possession of the estate in opposition to the terms of the will, and then, if this should not be done, the will of the deceased must be complied with. Therefore the matter must remain in abeyance for the time during which the children can demand possession of the estate. When this period has elapsed, or if before this they should die, or reject the estate, or should lose the right to claim possession of it, then possession of the estate under the Prætorian Edict will revert to the appointed heirs. 1Where a son is appointed an heir under a condition, Julianus very properly holds that he can demand possession of the estate in accordance with the terms of the will, in the capacity of appointed heir, no matter what the condition is, even if it should be as follows, “when a ship should arrive from Asia.” And although the condition may not be fulfilled, the Prætor must, nevertheless, protect the son whom he permits to have possession in accordance with the provisions of the will, even if he had already obtained possession in opposition to them. This protection is especially necessary to a son who has been emancipated. 2Each appointed heir shall be given possession of the estate in proportion to the share of the same which has been bequeathed to him, in such a way, however, that if there is no one who demands it with him he may have sole possession. Nevertheless, while one of the heirs is deliberating whether or not he will take prætorian possession of the estate, possession of the share of his co-heir shall not be granted the latter. 3Where one substitute has been appointed for an heir if he should die within ten years, and another if he should die between the ages of ten and fourteen years, and the heir dies before he is ten years old, the first substitute will become the heir, and will obtain prætorian possession of the estate; but if the heir should die after he is ten years old, and before he reaches his fourteenth year, the second substitute will become the heir, and will obtain possession; but both cannot be joined, as each of them is substituted under a different condition. 4Prætorian possession of an estate in accordance with the terms of the will is granted to heirs appointed in the first degree, and afterwards, if they do not claim it, to the substitutes who come next in order, as well as to those who were substituted for the substitutes; and we grant possession to substitutes in regular order. We should understand heirs to be appointed in the first degree who are appointed first; for as they have the prior right to accept the estate, so also they should be the first entitled to prætorian possession. 5If anyone should say in his will, “Let the first be heir to half of my estate and if he should not be my heir, let the second be my heir; let the third be my heir to half of my estate, and if he does not become my heir, let the fourth be my heir,” the first and the third are those who will be permitted to obtain prætorian possession of the estate. 6If anyone should appoint heirs as follows, “Let whichever of my brothers who shall marry Seia be the heir to three-fourths of my estate, and let the one who does not marry her be the heir to a fourth of the same,” it is evident that if Seia should die, the heirs will be entitled to equal shares of the estate. If, however, she should be married to one of them, he will be entitled to three-fourths, and the other to one-fourth of the estate, respectively; but neither of them can demand prætorian possession before the condition has been complied with. 7Ad Dig. 37,11,2,7Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. III, § 548, Note 2; Bd. III, § 673, Note 1.If the name of the heir has been designedly erased, it is settled beyond a doubt that he cannot demand prætorian possession of the estate, any more than one who has been appointed an heir without consulting the testator; for he is considered as not having been designated whom the testator did not wish to appoint. 8Where two heirs are appointed, namely the first and the second, and a third is substituted for the second, if the second declines to take possession of the estate, the third will succeed to his place. If, however, the third should refuse to enter upon the estate, or to take prætorian possession of the same, possession of it will revert to the first; nor will it be necessary for him to demand prætorian possession, for it will accrue to him by operation of law, as prætorian possession accrues to an appointed heir in the same manner as his share of the estate. 9Where a slave is appointed an heir, prætorian possession of the estate is given to his master to whom the estate will belong; for prætorian possession follows the ownership of the property. Therefore, if at the time of the death of the testator, the appointed heir, Stichus, was the slave of Sempronius, and Sempronius did not order him to enter upon the estate because of his death, or for the reason that he had alienated the slave, and the latter had become the property of Septitius, the result will be that if Septitius should order the slave to accept the estate, prætorian possession of the same will be given to Septitius, for the estate will belong to him. Wherefore, if a slave should pass to three or four masters in succession we will grant prætorian possession of the estate to the last of them.

3Pau­lus li­bro qua­dra­gen­si­mo pri­mo ad edic­tum. Ve­rum est om­nem pos­tu­mum, qui mo­rien­te tes­ta­to­re in ute­ro fue­rit, si na­tus sit, bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem pe­te­re pos­se.

3Paulus, On the Edict, Book XLI. It is true that every posthumous child who was unborn at the time of the death of the testator can demand prætorian possession of the estate after his birth.

4Ul­pia­nus li­bro qua­dra­gen­si­mo se­cun­do ad edic­tum. Char­tae ap­pel­la­tio et ad no­vam char­tam re­fer­tur et ad de­le­ti­ciam: pro­in­de et si in opis­t­ho­gra­pho quis tes­ta­tus sit, hinc pe­ti pot­est bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio.

4Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XLII. The term “papyrus” applies not only to such as is new, but also to that which has been already used. Hence, if anyone should draw up his will upon a sheet the back of which is already written on, prætorian possession of property based on such a will can be obtained.

5Idem li­bro quar­to dis­pu­ta­tio­num. Si sub con­di­cio­ne he­res quis in­sti­tu­tus sit et ac­cep­ta bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­ne se­cun­dum ta­bu­las con­di­cio de­fe­ce­rit, in­ter­dum eve­nit, ut res pos­ses­so­ri con­ce­den­da sit, ut pu­ta si fi­lius sit em­an­ci­pa­tus sub con­di­cio­ne he­res in­sti­tu­tus: nam si de­fe­ce­rit con­di­cio, at­ta­men se­cun­dum ta­bu­las bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem eum ac­ci­pe­re Iu­lia­nus scri­bit. sed et si is fue­rit, qui ab in­tes­ta­to bo­no­rum pos­ses­sor fu­tu­rus es­set, tuen­dum es­se scrip­sit, et hoc iu­re uti­mur. 1Vi­den­dum, an le­ga­ta ab eis de­bean­tur. et fi­lius qui­dem qua­si con­tra ta­bu­las bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­ne ac­cep­ta rem ha­be­re vi­de­tur, ce­te­ri ve­ro qua­si ab in­tes­ta­to: et id­eo fi­lius li­be­ris pa­ren­ti­bus­que le­ga­ta re­lic­ta so­lis prae­sta­re co­ge­tur, ce­te­ris non. pla­ne ei, cui ab in­tes­ta­to fi­dei­com­mis­sum re­lic­tum est, erit prae­stan­dum, qua­si vi­dea­tur hoc ip­so frau­da­tus, quod ex tes­ta­men­to pe­ti­ta sit bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio.

5The Same, Disputations, Book IV. Where anyone is appointed an heir under a condition, and after he has obtained prætorian possession in accordance with the terms of the will, the condition is not fulfilled, the result will be that the property in the meantime will remain in the hands of the possessor; as, for instance, where an emancipated son is appointed an heir conditionally. For, if the condition should fail to be fulfilled, Julianus says that he can, nevertheless, obtain prætorian possession in accordance with the terms of the will; but he also says that he should be protected if he is one who can obtain prætorian possession of the estate as heir at law. This is our present practice. 1Let us see whether legacies must be paid by these heirs. The son, indeed, who has obtained possession, as it were, contrary to the provisions of the will, is considered to hold the estate by virtue of his appointment, but the others hold it as heirs at law; therefore the son is only compelled to pay the legacies left to descendants and ascendants, but not those left to others. It is evident that a trust must be executed for the benefit of him who was entitled to it as heir-at-law; as otherwise it would seem that prætorian possession under the terms of the will had been claimed for the purpose of defrauding him.

6Idem li­bro oc­ta­vo dis­pu­ta­tio­num. Hi de­mum sub con­di­cio­ne he­redes in­sti­tu­ti bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem se­cun­dum ta­bu­las et­iam pen­den­te con­di­cio­ne nec­dum im­ple­ta pe­te­re pos­sunt, qui uti­li­ter sunt in­sti­tu­ti: quod si in­uti­li­ter quis sit in­sti­tu­tus, nec ad bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem in­uti­lis in­sti­tu­tio pro­fi­cit.

6The Same, Disputations, Book VIII. Those who have been appointed heirs conditionally can demand prætorian possession in accordance with the terms of the will, even while the condition is pending, and has not yet been fulfilled, provided they have been legally appointed; for where anyone has been illegally appointed, his nomination will be of no advantage to him in obtaining prætorian possession of the estate.

7Iu­lia­nus li­bro vi­cen­si­mo ter­tio di­ges­to­rum. Cum ta­bu­lae tes­ta­men­ti plu­rium sig­nis sig­na­tae es­sent et quae­dam ex his non pa­rent, sep­tem ta­men sig­na ma­neant, suf­fi­cit ad bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem dan­dam sep­tem tes­tium sig­na com­pa­re­re, li­cet non om­nium qui sig­na­ve­rint ma­neant sig­na.

7Julianus, Digest, Book XXIII. When the tablets of the will were sealed in several places, and some of the seals are broken but seven still remain, this will be sufficient to enable prætorian possession of the estate to be granted; just as where the seals of seven witnesses appear, although they may not include the seals of all who sealed the will.

8Idem li­bro vi­cen­si­mo quar­to di­ges­to­rum. Si ita scrip­tum sit: ‘Sem­pro­nius ex par­te di­mi­dia he­res es­to. Ti­tius, si na­vis ex Asia ve­ne­rit, ex par­te ter­tia he­res es­to. idem Ti­tius, si na­vis ex Asia non ve­ne­rit, ex par­te sex­ta he­res es­to’: Ti­tius non ex dua­bus par­ti­bus he­res scrip­tus, sed ip­se si­bi sub­sti­tu­tus in­tel­le­gi de­bet id­eo­que non ex ma­io­re par­te quam ter­tia scrip­tus vi­de­tur. se­cun­dum hanc ra­tio­nem cum sex­tans va­cuus re­lin­qua­tur, bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem Ti­tius ac­ci­piet non so­lum ter­tiae par­tis, sed eius quo­que, quae ex sex­tan­te ei­dem ad­cres­cit. 1Qui fi­lio im­pu­be­ri sub­sti­tui­tur ita: ‘si fi­lius meus mo­ria­tur, prius­quam in suam tu­te­lam ve­niat, tunc Ti­tius mi­hi he­res es­to’, sic­ut he­redi­ta­tem vin­di­cat, per­in­de ac si ver­bum hoc ‘mi­hi’ ad­iec­tum non es­set, ita bo­no­rum quo­que eius pos­ses­sio­nem ac­ci­pe­re pot­est. 2Sed et cum in prae­no­mi­ne co­gno­mi­ne er­ra­tum est, is ad quem he­redi­tas per­ti­net et­iam bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem ac­ci­pit. 3Is au­tem, cu­ius no­men in tes­ta­men­to vo­lun­ta­te tes­ta­to­ris per­duc­tum est, sic­ut ad ad­eun­dam he­redi­ta­tem, ita ad pe­ten­dam bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem scrip­tus non in­tel­le­gi­tur, quam­vis no­men eius le­ga­tur. 4Qui­dam tes­ta­men­tum in ta­bu­lis si­bi fe­cit, fi­lio au­tem im­pu­be­ri per nun­cu­pa­tio­nem sub­sti­tuit. re­spon­di sen­ten­tiam prae­to­ris in dan­da bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­ne eam es­se, ut se­pa­ra­tim pa­tris, se­pa­ra­tim fi­lii he­redes aes­ti­ma­ri de­beant: nam quem­ad­mo­dum scrip­to fi­lii he­redi se­pa­ra­tim ab he­redi­bus pa­tris, ita nun­cu­pa­to pot­est vi­de­ri se­pa­ra­tim a scrip­tis pa­tris he­redi­bus bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio da­ri.

8The Same, Digest, Book XXIV. If the following was inserted into a will, “Let Sempronius be the heir to half of my estate; let Titius be an heir to a third of my estate, if a ship should arrive from Asia; and let the said Titius be the heir to a sixth of my estate, if a ship should not arrive from Asia,” in this instance, Titius is not appointed heir to two different shares of the estate, but he is understood to be substituted for himself, and therefore he is held to be entitled to no larger a share than one-third. In accordance with this statement, as a sixth of the estate remains undisposed of, Titius will not only obtain possession of a third of the same under the Prætorian Edict, but also of the sixth which will accrue to him. 1Where a substitute is appointed for a son under the age of puberty, as follows, “If my son should die before reaching the age of puberty, then let Titius be my heir,” he can claim the estate just as if the word “my” had not been added, and he can also obtain prætorian possession of it. 2If a mistake is made in the name or the surname of the person entitled to the estate, he can, nevertheless, obtain prætorian possession of the same. 3Ad Dig. 37,11,8,3Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. III, § 673, Note 1.Moreover, where the name of the heir has been erased in the will at the desire of the testator, even though it can still be read, he is not understood to have been appointed, so that he can either enter upon the estate, or demand prætorian possession of the same in accordance with the Civil Law. 4A certain man drew up his will in writing, but appointed orally a substitute for his son, who was under the age of puberty. I gave it as my opinion that the intention of the Prætor in granting jpossession of the estate was that the heirs of the son and those of the father should be considered separately. For just as prætorian possession of an estate is granted to the appointed heir of the son separately from the heirs of the father, so it should also be given separately from the appointed heirs of the father, where the heir is orally appointed.

9Pom­po­nius li­bro se­cun­do ad Sa­binum. Ut bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio se­cun­dum pu­pil­la­res ta­bu­las ad­mit­ti pos­sit, re­qui­ri­tur, an pa­tris tes­ta­men­tum sig­na­tum sit, li­cet se­cun­dae ta­bu­lae re­sig­na­tae pro­fe­ran­tur.

9Pomponius, On Sabinus, Book II. In order that prætorian possession of an estate may be granted in accordance with the pupillary substitution, inquiry should be made whether the will of the father was sealed, even though that portion containing the substitution was produced unsealed.

10Pau­lus li­bro oc­ta­vo ad Plau­tium. Si ser­vus sub con­di­cio­ne he­res in­sti­tu­tus sit, an bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem ac­ci­pe­re pot­est, du­bi­ta­tur. et Scae­vo­la nos­ter pro­bat pos­se.

10Paulus, On Plautius, Book VIII. When a slave is appointed an heir conditionally, there is some doubt as to whether he can obtain prætorian possession of the estate, or not. Our Scævola holds that he can obtain it.

11Pa­pi­nia­nus li­bro ter­tio de­ci­mo quaes­tio­num. ‘Qui ex li­be­ris meis im­pu­bes su­pre­mus mo­rie­tur, ei Ti­tius he­res es­to’. duo­bus per­egre de­func­tis si sub­sti­tu­tus igno­ret, uter no­vis­si­mus de­ces­se­rit, ad­mit­ten­da est Iu­lia­ni sen­ten­tia, qui prop­ter in­cer­tum con­di­cio­nis et­iam prio­ris pos­se pe­ti pos­ses­sio­nem bo­no­rum re­spon­dit. 1Fi­lius he­res in­sti­tu­tus post mor­tem pa­tris ab hos­ti­bus red­iit: bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem ac­ci­piet et an­ni tem­pus a quo red­iit ei com­pu­ta­bi­tur. 2Tes­ta­men­to fac­to Ti­tius ad­ro­gan­dum se prae­buit ac post­ea sui iu­ris ef­fec­tus vi­ta de­ces­sit. scrip­tus he­res si pos­ses­sio­nem pe­tat, ex­cep­tio­ne do­li ma­li sum­mo­ve­bi­tur, quia dan­do se in ad­ro­gan­dum tes­ta­tor cum ca­pi­te for­tu­nas quo­que suas in fa­mi­liam et do­mum alie­nam trans­fe­rat. pla­ne si sui iu­ris ef­fec­tus co­di­cil­lis aut aliis lit­te­ris eo­dem tes­ta­men­to se mo­ri vel­le de­cla­ra­ve­rit, vo­lun­tas, quae de­fe­ce­rat, iu­di­cio re­cen­ti red­is­se in­tel­le­ge­tur, non se­cus ac si quis aliud tes­ta­men­tum fe­cis­set ac su­pre­mas ta­bu­las in­ci­dis­set, ut prio­res su­pre­mas re­lin­que­ret. nec pu­ta­ve­rit quis­quam nu­da vo­lun­ta­te con­sti­tui tes­ta­men­tum: non enim de iu­re tes­ta­men­ti ma­xi­me quae­ri­tur, sed vi­ri­bus ex­cep­tio­nis. quae in hoc iu­di­cio quam­quam ac­to­ri op­po­na­tur, ex per­so­na ta­men eius qui op­po­nit aes­ti­ma­tur.

11Papinianus, Questions, Book XIII. “Let Titius be the heir of the one of my children who shall be the last to die before reaching the age of puberty.” If the two children should die in a very distant place, and the substitute did not know which one of them died last, the opinion of Julianus must be adopted, which was that, on account of the uncertainty of the condition, possession of the estate of even one who died first could be demanded by the substitute. 1Where a son who was appointed heir returns from captivity after the death of his father, he can obtain prætorian possession of his estate, and the term of a year in which he can do so will be computed from the day of his return. 2Ad Dig. 37,11,11,2Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. III, § 563, Note 7.Titius, after having made his will, gave himself to be arrogated, and then, having become his own master, died. If the appointed heir should demand prætorian possession, he will be barred by an exception on the ground of fraud; because, by giving himself to be arrogated, the testator transferred all his property, together with himself, to the family and household of another. It is clear that if, having become his own master, he stated in a codicil, or in some other document that he wished to die without changing his will, the will which had become inoperative is understood to have been restored by this subsequent statement, in the same way as if he had executed another will and had torn it up, so as to leave the first one in force. Nor should anyone think that a will can be made by the mere expression of a wish; for, in this instance, no question whatever is raised with reference to the legality of the instrument, but only with reference to the force of the exception that, under these circumstances, may be filed against the plaintiff, which must depend upon the person of the adversary.

12Pau­lus li­bro sep­ti­mo quaes­tio­num. Ut scrip­tus he­res ad­gnos­ce­re pos­sit bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem, ex­igen­dum pu­to, ut et de­mons­tra­tus sit pro­pria de­mons­tra­tio­ne et por­tio ad­scrip­ta ei in­ve­ni­ri pos­sit, li­cet si­ne par­te in­sti­tu­tus sit: nam qui si­ne par­te he­res in­sti­tu­tus est, va­can­tem por­tio­nem vel alium as­sem oc­cu­pat. quod si ita he­res scrip­tus sit, ut in­ter­dum ex­clu­da­tur a tes­ta­men­to, eo quod non in­ve­ni­tur por­tio, ex qua in­sti­tu­tus est, nec bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem pe­te­re pot­est. id eve­nit, si quis ita he­redem in­sti­tuat: ‘Ti­tius quan­ta ex par­te prio­re tes­ta­men­to eum he­redem scrip­tum ha­beo, he­res es­to’ vel ‘quan­ta ex par­te co­di­cil­lis scrip­tum eum ha­beo, he­res es­to’, sic scrip­tus non in­ve­nia­tur. quod si ita scrip­se­ro: ‘Ti­tius, si eum prio­re tes­ta­men­to ex sem­is­se scrip­tum he­redem ha­beo’ vel ‘si eum co­di­cil­lis ex sem­is­se he­redem scrip­se­ro, ex sem­is­se he­res es­to’, tunc ac­ci­piet bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem qua­si sub con­di­cio­ne he­res scrip­tus.

12Paulus, Questions, Book VII. In order that the appointed heir may obtain prætorian possession of the estate I think it should be required that his identity be established by a suitable designation, so that the share to which he is entitled can be found, even if he was appointed without any share; for when an heir is appointed without a share he can take one which is undisposed of, or some other portion of the estate. If, however, the heir was designated in such a way as to seem to be excluded by the will, because the share of the estate to which he was appointed cannot be found, he shall not obtain prætorian possession. This occurs where anyone appoints an heir as follows, “Let Titius be my heir to the same portion of my estate to which I have appointed him by my first will,” or “Let him be my heir to the same share to which I have appointed him by my codicil,” and it should be ascertained that he was not appointed. If, however, I should say, “Let Titius be my heir if I have appointed him heir to half of my estate in my first will,” or “Let him be my heir if I have appointed him heir to half of my estate in my codicil,” he can then obtain possession of my estate, as he was appointed heir conditionally.