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.