1Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XIV. By a decree of the Senate enacted in the time of the Emperor Claudius, during the Consulate of Velleius Rufus and Osterius Scapula, with reference to the assignment of freedmen, it was provided as follows: “Where anyone has two or more children born in lawful marriage, and has indicated to one of them that he wishes to assign to him or her a certain freedman or freedwoman, whom he designates, the said male or female child, after the death of the person who manumitted the said slave during his lifetime, or by his will, shall become the sole patron or patroness of the said freedman or freedwoman, just as if he or she had been liberated directly by said child. And if either of said children should die without issue, all the rights of the person who manumitted the slave shall pass to the other children, just as if he who manumitted him or her had made no special provision with reference to them.” 1Although the Decree of the Senate is expressed in language indicating the singular number, it is, nevertheless, certain that several freedmen can be assigned to several children as well as to one. 2A freedman who is in the hands of the enemy can also be assigned. 3Moreover, a patron can assign his freedman by any words whatsoever, or by a gesture, or by his will or codicil, or during his lifetime. 4He can also annul the assignment by the mere expression of his will. 5If, however, anyone should assign the freedman to his son, whom he had disinherited, the assignment will be valid, nor will the reproach of disinheritance prejudice the son, so far as the right of patronage is concerned. 6If the son should be disinherited after the assignment, the act of disinheritance does not always annul it, unless it was done with this intention. 7Where the child to whom the assignment was made declines to accept it, I think that the better opinion is the one stated by Marcellus, that is, that his brother shall be admitted to the right of patronage. 8Where one patron left one son, and another two, and the freedman is assigned to one of the two last, it should be considered into how many shares the estate of the freedman must be divided, whether into three, of which the one to whom the assignment is made will be entitled to two shares, that is to say, his own and that of his brother, or whether there ought to be two equal shares, as the other brother is excluded by the assignment. Julianus, in the Seventy-fifth Book, says that the better opinion is that the one who excludes his brother should have two-thirds of the estate. This opinion is correct so long as his brother is living, or can become the heir at law of the freedman; but if he should forfeit his civil rights the estate must be divided into two parts.

2Pomponius, Decrees of the Senate, Book IV. If, however, the child to whom I have made the assignment should die, leaving a son, and his brother, and there should also be a son of another patron, the grandson will be entitled to half of the estate, which my son, who is living, would have if I had not assigned the said freedman.

3Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XV. The same rule will apply where a person who had a son and a grandson assigns the freedman to the grandson, for the latter will be admitted to the succession of the freedman, even if there is a son of another patron. This will occur during the lifetime of his uncle. But if his uncle should no longer be living, the assignment made to the grandson will be of no advantage to him, by diminishing the right of the son of the other patron. 1Moreover, it is certain that a freedman can be assigned to a grandson by his grandfather, and it is established that, in this instance, the grandson will take precedence over the son. 2Wherefore, it may be asked if the patron should have a son and a grandson, whether he can cause the Decree of the Senate to apply just as if he had both of them under his control. In this case, as it is settled that the assignment can be made to him who will again come under the control of his father, why should we not admit that they are both subject to the authority of the patron? 3Again, can a question arise as to whether the grandson, who is under the control of the father, can be admitted as heir at law of the freedman? And as there are many cases under which a child who is under paternal control can have a freedman, why should it not be conceded in this instance that a father can obtain the benefit of the lawful inheritance of the estate of the freedman through his son? This opinion is very properly adopted by Pomponius. Sons under paternal control also have freedmen; as, for example, where someone manumits a slave who forms part of his peculium castrense. 4I also think that the emancipated sons of a person to whom a freedman has been assigned are entitled to the benefit of the Decree of the Senate; not that they may be admitted as the heirs at law of the freedman, but that they may acquire what property they can. 5According to this, where a freedman dies after having been appointed heir, since emancipated sons cannot be admitted to the succession as heirs at law, let us see whether the son of the assignor, who remains under his control, can be admitted or not. I think that the emancipated children should be preferred by the Prætor under such circumstances. 6By the children of the person to whom the assignment is made we must understand not only his sons, but also his grandsons, and his granddaughters, and his other descendants. 7Where anyone assigns a freedman to two children, and one of them dies without issue, and the other does not:

4Pomponius, Decrees of the Senate, Book IV. Or the one who survives declines to accept the estate of the freedman:

5Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XIV. Shall the share of him who has lost his civil rights, or rejected the estate, revert to the family, or will it rather accrue to him in whose person the assignment continues to exist? Julianus, in the Seventy-fifth Book, says that the assignment will only become operative with respect to the person of the latter, and that he alone should be admitted to the succession; which is correct. 1But what if one of the children should die, leaving issue, can the latter be admitted to the succession, if the other child is living? Julianus thinks that he alone should be admitted, but after his death the children of the other will succeed to the estate; and that the right over the freedman will not revert to the family. 2But if one of these two children leaves sons, and the other grandsons; shall they be admitted together to the succession of the freedman as heirs at law? I think that the regular order of descent should be preserved between them.

6Marcianus, Institutes, Book VII. If a slave should be ordered to be free, and afterwards is bequeathed to the son of the testator, and the latter afterwards manumits him, the freedman will belong to the son, just as if he had been assigned to him. This will be the case whether it is either expressly stated, or clearly understood that the slave was not bequeathed as a slave, but assigned as a freedman.

7Scævola, Rules, Book II. We can make an assignment absolutely and conditionally, by a letter, in the presence of witnesses, or by means of a written instrument, because the assignment of a freedman is not acquired either as a legacy or under the terms of a trust, nor can it be charged with the execution of a trust.

8Modestinus, Differences, Book VII. Although the children of a patron are, in many instances, considered to enjoy the same rights as the person who manumitted the slave, still, they cannot assign a freedman of their father to their own children, even if he has been assigned to them by their parents. This opinion is adopted by both Julianus and Marcellus.

9The Same, Pandects, Book IX. Some doubt exists on the point as to whether a patron can only assign a freedman to his son, who is under his control, or to his emancipated son, provided he has at least two others under his control. The better opinion is that he can do so.

10Terentius Clemens, On the Lex Julia et Papia, Book XII. Where a freedman is assigned under a condition, or after a certain period, everything will remain unchanged while the condition is pending, or the day has not arrived, just as if the freedman had not been assigned. Therefore, if, in the meantime, he should die, his estate, both under the Civil Law and the Prætorian Edict, will belong to all the children. 1Where a freedman has been assigned to one child absolutely, and to another conditionally, the one to whom he was assigned absolutely must be said to alone have the right of a patron over him, while the condition is pending.

11Papinianus, Opinions, Book XIV. I gave it as my opinion that where freedmen have been allotted to children for the purpose of providing them with support, they are not to be considered as assigned to them, as the patron intended to benefit his freedmen in order that they can, the more readily, enjoy the advantages of his will, without violating the requirements of the Common Law.

12Pomponius, Epistles, Book II. Where one of two patrons assigns the freedman to his son, there is no reason why the other should not retain his rights over him unimpaired.

13The Same, Decrees of the Senate, Book IV. Anyone can, by his will, manumit a slave, and assign him to one of his children as his freedman. 1The Senate refers to children who are under the control of their father. Must it therefore be understood that no provision is made for posthumous children by this decree? I think that the better opinion is that posthumous children are also included. 2Where the Decree of the Senate says, “If anyone should lose his civil rights,” it refers to a person who has lost them forever, and not to one who has been captured by the enemy, and may return. 3An assignment can also be made to begin at a certain date, but it can hardly be made for a certain term, as the Senate itself fixed the limit of the transaction.