The Same, On Urseius Ferox, Book II. Where a slave owned in common causes unlawful damage to one of his owners, an action under the Lex Aquilia will not lie on that account; because if he had caused the damage to a stranger, an action could be brought against the other joint-owner for the entire amount under the Lex Aquilia; just as where a slave owned in common committed theft an action for theft cannot be brought against the other joint-owner, but proceedings in partition must be instituted.

The Same, On Urseius Ferox, Book II. Mævius, who appointed us heirs, held property in common with Attius, and if we should bring suit in partition against Attius, and the property was adjudged to us, Proculus says it will be included in an action for partition of the estate. 1Where a slave is left his freedom and appointed heir, he can be compelled by an action for the partition of the estate to pay to the coheir anything which he retains in his hands arising from the accounts that he kept for the testator. 2An arbiter whom you and I selected in an action in partition desired to award certain property to me and some other to you, and held that, with reference to these matters, each of us should be directed to make payment to the other; and the question arose whether he could not set off one account against the other, and direct the party who owed the larger account to pay only the excess? It was decided that the arbiter could do this. 3Where an action is brought for the partition of an estate or for the division of property held in common, the entire property must be appraised, and not the shares in the different things.

Julianus, On Urseius Ferox, Book II. But where the case was not defended, and we are ordered by the Prætor to take possession of the house, and by reason of this we have obtained the ownership of the same; it is the opinion of Proculus that I can, by an action for the partition of common property, recover a portion of the expense that I have incurred.

The Same, On Urseius Ferox, Book II. A stipulation was entered into in the following terms: “You promise to pay ten aurei, by way of dowry, during the next year.” The question arose from what date the year should be reckoned, whether from the day the stipulation was made, or from that when the dowry took effect, that is, the day of the marriage. The answer was that the year should be reckoned from the day of the marriage, for if we held otherwise, and the marriage did not take place within the year, the dowry could be considered to be due on account of the obligation. 1A father-in-law made a bequest to his son-in-law as follows: “My heir shall give a hundred aurei to Lucius Titius on account of my daughter.” The son-in-law should claim this money, and when it is collected it ought to be received as a legacy; but Proculus is of the opinion that if a divorce takes place, it must be restored to the woman by means of an action on dowry; and, nevertheless, it becomes a part of the dowry. Julianus states in a note that an action of this kind should not even be refused a daughter, if she wishes to bring it.

The Same, On Urseius Ferox, Book II. A certain man received a tract of land from his wife by way of dowry, and it was agreed between them that the husband should give the rent of said land to his wife as annual income. The husband afterwards leased the land to the mother of the woman to be cultivated for a certain amount of rent, and she died without having paid it, leaving her daughter her sole heir, and then a divorce took place. Her husband brought suit against the woman for the rent which her mother owed him, and it was decided that an exception should not be granted her, as if the agreement had not been made between her and her husband that the said rent should be given to her for her maintenance; since, under some circumstances, donations may legally be made between husband and wife, for what is given by way of annual income is a species of gift.

The Same, On Urseius Ferox, Book II. If a former husband, as a debtor of his wife, should promise the delivery of the dotal property to her second husband by way of dowry, the amount of the dowry will not be any more than the pecuniary resources of the first husband will justify.

Julianus, On Urseius Ferox, Book II. The husband of my daughter, who was emancipated, and ill at the time, sent her a notice of repudiation, so that, after her death, he could the more readily deliver her dowry to her heirs than to me. Sabinus said that an equitable action should be granted me for the recovery of the dowry, and Gaius holds the same opinion.

The Same, On Urseius Ferox, Book II. Two partners by their will directed a certain slave owned in common by them to be their heir and free, and both of them perished at the same time by the fall of a house. Several authorities gave it as their opinion that, in this instance, the slave became the heir of, and obtained his freedom from both of them; and this opinion is correct. 1Where two partners direct a slave owned in common by them shall become free and their heir, under the same condition, and the condition is complied with, the same rule of law will apply.

The Same, On Urseius Ferox, Book II. Several authorities, and among them Priscus, have held that a person who receives a sum of money to induce him to accept an estate obtains the money mortis causa.

The Same, On Urseius Ferox, Book II. There is no doubt that a slave held in common by minors of twenty years of age can be manumitted before the proper tribunal; even though one of the owners may not assent to the proceedings.

The Same, On Urseius Ferox, Book II. Where a testator appointed two heirs, and directed that his slave should be free after the death of one of them, and the heir upon whose death the freedom of the slave depended died during the lifetime of the testator, Sabinus gave it as his opinion that the slave would become free. 1The following condition, “Let him be free when I die,” includes the entire duration of life, and therefore is held to be void. It is better, however, that the words should be interpreted in a more favorable manner, and in such a way that the testator may be considered to have granted freedom to his slave after his death. 2The following gives rise to greater doubt, “Let him be free in a year,” as this can be understood to mean, “Let him be free after the year of my death,” and it can also be understood as follows, “Let him be free after the year when I made this will,” and if the testator should happen to die within a year, the grant of freedom will be of no force or effect.

Julianus, On Urseius Ferox, Book II. Where anyone who is in possession of all his property confirms a codicil, and then grants freedom to his slaves by the codicil, with the intention of defrauding his creditors, his bequest will be of no force or effect; as, under such circumstances, bequests of freedom are prevented By law. For the intention of the testator to commit the fraud is not referred to the time when the codicil was confirmed, but to the time when freedom was granted by the codicil. 1A minor of twenty years of age who desired to manumit a slave, without having any good reason to offer to the Council for doing so, gave him to you, so that you might manumit him. Proculus denied that the slave was free, because a fraud was committed against the law.

Julianus, On Urseius Per ox, Book II. A stipulation formulated as follows, “Do you promise to pay me such-and-such a sum of money, if you do not appoint me your heir?” is void, as this stipulation is contrary to good morals.

The Same, On Urseius Ferox, Book II. Whenever one of several sureties has paid his share as having transacted the affairs of the principal debtor, this is considered the same as if the debtor himself had paid the share of the indebtedness for which one of the sureties was liable; but this does not diminish the amount of the principal, and only the surety, in whose name payment was made, is released.