Modestinus, Opinions, Book I. Where an estate left to a municipality in trust was ordered to be delivered, the magistrate appointed Titius, Seius, and Gaius as being suitable agents for the management of the property. These agents subsequently divided the administration of the estate among themselves, and did so without the authority or consent of the magistrates. Sometime afterwards, the will containing the trust under which the estate was to be turned over to the municipality, was proved in court to be void; and Sempronius appeared as the heir-at-law, ab intestato, of the deceased, but one of the aforesaid agents died insolvent, and without leaving an heir. I ask if Sempronius should bring suit against these agents of the estate, who would assume the risk caused by the insolvency of the deceased agent? Herennius Modestinus answered that the action based on business transacted could not be employed against anyone of the agents on account of what he alone had done, and that any loss must be borne by him who claimed the estate as heir-at-law.

Modestinus, Opinions, Book I. Gaius Seius, having died after making his will, appointed his freedman Julius, together with his sons, heir to part of his estate, just as if he had been his own child. I ask whether an appointment of this kind can change the civil condition of the freedman. Modestinus gave it as his opinion that it would not change his condition.

Modestinus, Opinions, Book I. The Governor of a province rendered a decision that a party should pay compound interest, contrary to the laws and the Imperial Constitutions, and, on this ground, Lucius Titius took an appeal from the unjust decision of the Governor. As Titius did not take his appeal in accordance with law, I ask whether the money can be collected under the judgment. Modestinus answered that if the judgment was for a specified sum, there was nothing in the case stated why execution could not be issued.

The Same, Opinions, Book II. While Titius was at Rome for the purpose of pursuing his studies, a letter was despatched to him by the magistrates of his native village, in order that he might deliver to the Emperor an ordinance of the said village which was transmitted along with the letter. But the person who had undertaken to deliver the letter, through collusion, delivered it to Lucius Titius, who himself was residing at Rome, for the same reason as Titius. After having erased the name of Titius, to whom the ordinance was directed, he inserted his own name, and then delivered it to the Emperor, according to the order of the municipality. I ask whether the messenger could demand his travelling expenses, and what offence he should be considered to have committed in not delivering the letter to the person to whom he had undertaken to give it, as well as what he was guilty of, who, having erased the name of another, and written in his own, delivered the ordinance to the Emperor, just as if he had been ordered to do so by his native town? Herennius Modestinus answered that Titius could not demand the travelling expenses, but that he could have recourse to the person who made the substitution in his own name. 1Titius accepted a pledge for public money which he himself had lent, and made an agreement with the debtor that, if the debt should not be paid, the pledge should be sold without any guarantee. The magistrates who succeeded to the place of Titius approved the claim as well as the pledge, as far as Mævius. Enough money was not realized by the sale of the pledge to pay the debt, on account of the guarantee made by the magistrate to the purchasers with reference to the amount of the land. The question arose, who was responsible to the municipality? Herrenius Modestinus answered that Titius was not liable on this account, as his successors had assumed responsibility for the debt, nor would the magistrates who made the sale, as they sold it as containing more than was shown by actual measurement of the land; and for the reason that they sold it for more, they should be ordered to make up the deficiency. Therefore, he who was the last to approve the claim should indemnify the municipality for the loss, if the claim should not be proved to have been transferred to a solvent successor.

Modestinus, Opinions, Book I. Herennius Modestinus gave it as his opinion that a man did not become a decurion merely by an order for the payment of his salary, when he not been legally created.

The Same, Opinions, Book I. Septicia promised a certain sum of money to her native city for the celebration of public games, under the condition that the principal should remain in her hands, and that she herself should give half of the interest as reward to the contestants, in the following terms: “I give and set apart thirty thousand aurei as principal to be devoted to the games every four years, I myself retaining the said amount in my hands, and furnishing security to the decurions to pay the interest, at the ordinary rate, on said principal of thirty thousand aurei; under the condition that the games shall be presided over by my future husband and the children who may be born to me. The said interest shall be expended in prizes to be awarded to the competitors whom the judges may decide to have excelled in each contest.” I ask whether the children of Septicia would suffer any injustice if they should not preside at these contests, in accordance with the terms and the condition of the promise. Herennius Modestinus answered that in case the institution of the public games was permitted, the condition imposed by the promise must be complied with.