1Callistratus, On the Rights of the Treasury and the People, Book I. In consequence of conviction, property is confiscated either when life or citizenship is forfeited, or a servile condition is imposed. 1Even those who have been conceived before conviction and born afterwards are entitled to portions of the estates of their convicted parents. 2This portion, however, is not granted to children unless they are born in lawful marriage. 3No share is given to the children of one who has only been deprived of half his property. This was stated by the Divine Brothers in a Rescript.

2The Same, On Judicial Inquiries, Book VI. It is not necessary to strip a person of his clothing when he is placed in prison, but only after he has been sentenced. This was stated by the Divine Hadrian in a Rescript.

3Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXXIII. Under five laws, the dowry of a convicted woman is confiscated, namely, for high treason, public violence, parricide, poisoning, and assassination.

4Papinianus, On Adultery, Book II. Every husband is always entitled to actions against the Treasury.

5Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXXIII. If, however, the woman is punished with death under some other law which does not confiscate her dowry, for the reason that she first becomes a penal slave, it is true that her dowry passes to her husband just as if she were dead. 1Marcellus says that if a daughter under paternal control is deported, her marriage is not dissolved by the mere fact of her deportation, and this opinion is correct; for, as the woman remains free, nothing prevents the husband from retaining his marital affection, or the woman from retaining her affection as a wife. Therefore, if the woman has the intention of leaving her husband, Marcellus says that the father can then institute proceedings to recover her dowry. If, however, she is the mother of a family, and is deported during the existence of the marriage, the dowry will remain in the hands of the husband; but if the marriage is subsequently dissolved, she can bring her action, just as if, through considerations of humanity, the right to do so had recently been acquired.

6The Same, On the Duties of Proconsul, Book X. The Divine Hadrian stated in a Rescript to Aquilius Bradua: “It is evident that, by the name itself, one ought to understand what is meant by clothing. For no one can reasonably say that under this term is included the property of persons who have been condemned, for if anyone is wearing a girdle, no one should claim it on this ground; but any clothing which he wears, or any small sums of money which he may have in his possession for the purpose of living, or any light rings, that is to say, any which are not worth more than five aurei, can be demanded. “Otherwise, if the convicted person should have on his finger a sardonyx, or any other precious stone of great value, or have in his possession any note calling for a large sum of money, this can, by no right, be retained as part of his clothing.” Clothing of which a man can be stripped are those things which he brought with him when he was placed in prison, and with which he is attired when he is conducted to punishment, as the name itself indicates. Hence, neither the executioners nor their assistants can claim these things as spoils at the moment when the culprit is executed. Governors should not appropriate these articles for their own benefit, or suffer assistants or jailors to profit by this money, but they ought to preserve it for expenditures which Governors have the right to make; as, for instance, for paper for the use of certain officials; or as donations for soldiers who have distinguished themselves by their courage; or to be presented to barbarians belonging to an embassy; or for some other purpose. Frequently, moreover, Governors have paid into the Treasury sums of money which they had collected, which is a manifestation of too great diligence, as it will be sufficient if they do not appropriate it to their own use, but permit it to be employed for the benefit of their office.

7Paulus, On the Shares Granted to the Children of Persons Who Have Been Convicted. As natural reason, which is a certain kind of tacit law, grants to children the estates of their fathers, calling them to the succession in the same way as to a debt, oh this account the name of direct heirs has been conferred upon them by the Civil Law; so that, as they cannot be removed from the succession by the will of their parents, unless for a good reason, it has been thought to be perfectly just that, in cases in which the conviction of a parent deprives him of his property as a penalty, the children should be taken into consideration, for fear they may suffer a more severe penalty for offences committed by others, whose guilt did not involve them, by subjecting them to the greatest poverty. It was decided that, under such circumstances, a certain degree of moderation should be displayed; so that those who would have been entitled to the entire estate by the right of inheritance might have some portion of the same conceded to them. 1When a freedman is punished, any of his property which his patron would have been entitled to if his freedman had died a natural death should not be taken from him; but the remaining part of the estate which had no reference to his manumission shall be forfeited to the Treasury. 2It is just that certain portions of the property of persons who have been condemned should be given to adopted, as well as to natural children, if the adoption was not fraudulently made. An adoption is considered to be made for the purpose of fraud where anyone adopts a child, although he has not yet been accused, but, aware of the desperate condition of his affairs, is influenced by the fear of an impending accusation, in order that a part of the property which he thinks he is about to lose may be saved. 3Where the condemned person has several children, examples have been adduced in which all of his estate has been granted to several children. The Divine Hadrian stated in a Rescript: “The number of the children of Albinus causes me to look favorably upon their case, as I prefer that my empire should be increased by the addition of men, rather than by that of money; therefore I wish the property of their father to be given to them, which so many possessors will render evident, especially if they should obtain all of his estate.” 4Again, any property which the convicted person has acquired by crime does not increase the share of the children; for instance, if he has caused a relative of his to be killed, and enters upon his estate, or obtains prætorian possession of the same; for this was established by the Divine Pius in a Rescript. Consequently, where a son under paternal control had been convicted of killing, by means of poison, a person by whom he had been appointed heir; the above-mentioned Emperor rendered the decision that, although he had entered upon the estate by the order of his father, under whose control he was at the time, it should be forfeited to the Treasury. 5If the person whose property has been confiscated has been relegated, anything acquired by him after conviction shall belong to his testamentary heirs or to his heirs at law; for anyone who has been relegated to an island enjoys the right to make a will, as well as all other rights. If, however, he has been deported, he cannot have an heir, because he has lost his citizenship; and any property subsequently acquired will be forfeited to the Treasury.

8Marcianus, Book. The right of patrons is preserved unimpaired for their children, so far as the property of a freedman of their father, whose property has been confiscated, is concerned. If the son of the patron appears, the Treasury can claim nothing of the share to which he is entitled. 1Where, however, there is a son of the patron, and a son of the freedman as well, the former will be excluded; and there will still be more reason for us to hold that there will be no ground for forfeiture to the Treasury, as children of the freedman exclude those of the patron, and those of the patron exclude the Treasury. 2But even if the son of the patron does not desire to demand prætorian possession of the estate, it is established that the Treasury will be excluded from that portion of the property of the freedman of his father to which he is entitled. 3The property of a person who has been relegated is not confiscated, unless this is expressly done by the terms of the sentence; but the rights of freedmen cannot be taken away by a special sentence, because the Emperor alone can deprive a relegated person of them. 4When a father, who has given a dowry for his daughter, is convicted, nothing is forfeited to the Treasury, even if the daughter should die afterwards during marriage, in which case the profecticial dowry will revert to the father. Therefore it will remain in the hands of her husband.

9Callistratus, Book. Unless it is proved that the father, through apprehension of conviction, and in order to defraud the Treasury, has consulted the interests of the children.

10Marcianus, Book. Even if the father has promised a dowry for his daughter, and has been convicted, an action to recover the dowry from the estate of the father will be granted to the husband against the Treasury. 1Where a father has been convicted, after the dissolution of the marriage of the daughter, and, indeed, after the daughter has given her consent for him to have the dowry, the Treasury can recover it from the husband; but, before she gives her consent, the daughter herself will have a right to recover her dowry.

11The Same, Book. When anyone who has been convicted appeals, and dies while the appeal is pending, his property is not confiscated; for even a second will, if he should make one, will be valid. The same must be said even if the appeal is rejected. 1A defendant, except when accused of high treason, can administer his own property, pay his debts, and receive what is due to him, if it is paid in good faith; but every alienation which he has made for the purpose of defrauding the Treasury after his conviction can be set aside.