The Same, Opinions, Book XIII. Where a person having charge of furnishing supplies to troops in an expedition, has judgment rendered against him on this account, it is held that he cannot retain the money by the right of set-off, as it is not subject to it.

The Same, Opinions, Book XIII. I held that an heir who, being aware of the murder of the deceased, failed to avenge his death should be compelled to surrender all the profits of the estate, without being able to legally demand that the rights of action which had been merged when he obtained the estate should be restored to their former condition. Where, however, the heir has been misled by his ignorance of the crime, he will be entitled to the same defence, as a bona fide possessor, so far as the profits collected before the controversy arose are concerned; and in this case his demand that the rights of action which have been merged shall be restored to their former condition will not be improperly made.

The Same, Opinions, Book XIII. Where a debt has been remitted by an agreement mortis causa, the debtor must contribute to the amount due under the Falcidian Law, and this can be retained by the heir by filing a replication in factum. 1Where a brother appointed his sister his heir, and charged her with a donation which he wished to give to another, who stipulated with her that she would not take advantage of the Falcidian Law, and if she did so, that she would pay him a certain sum of money, as it has been well established that the laws cannot be violated by any agreement entered into by private individuals, the sister will be entitled by public law to retain the Falcidian portion, and an action based on the stipulation will be refused to the other party. 2Where annual legacies have been bequeathed, it has been decided that an heir will, none the less, be permitted to retain the Falcidian portion, because during the first and second years he paid the legatee without making any deduction. 3Where a grandfather was indebted to his grandson on account of his administration of his guardianship, and the latter afterwards became the sole heir of his grandfather, if the Falcidian Law should be applicable, it was held that the amount, along with the other debts, must be deducted from the assets of the estate. It makes no difference whether the grandfather, who was also the guardian, charged his heir, if he should die before reaching a certain age without having any children, to deliver the estate, as well as his own property to a third party; for it was not held that the estate should be set off against this debt, and it was practically admitted that such a set-off ought not to be made, as the deceased indicated that his heir should have his own property. It is clear that if the condition of the trust was complied with, and the profits of the estate collected after the death of the grandfather, they should be set off against an equal sum of the money due to the guardianship; but the heir would only be entitled to retain the fourth part of the property of the grandson, which the grandfather left him at his death. 4Where a father was charged with a trust for the benefit of his son, by the will of the mother of the latter, which trust he had not executed, he wished a set-off against it to be made of the estate which he left to his son. If a calculation was made to determine the amount due under the Falcidian Law, what the son was entitled to should be set off against the fourth which he had actually obtained from his father’s estate, and he could only deduct the excess of the three-fourths of what was owing to the heirs. 5Whatever the heir is compelled to deliver to a husband out of donations made by him to his wife shall not be counted as part of her estate; as the woman, so far from becoming more wealthy, is considered to have become poorer to that extent. Again, when any diminution of the donations for which the heir is responsible takes place, the loss will not be borne by the husband. 6In fixing the amount due under the Falcidian Law, the heir cannot be compelled to give a receipt for the crops of land left conditionally under the terms of a trust; and where he has not been charged to deliver the crops to the beneficiary of the trust, he will be entitled to a fourth, and the profits of the fourth of the property of the deceased which belonged to him at the time of his death. Nor does it make any difference when the Falcidian Law begins to be operative, for although it will commence to apply to the trust immediately after the conditions have been fulfilled; still, the profits of the fourth must be left in possession of the heir from the time of the death of the testator. 7Where a son appointed his mother his heir, and bequeathed her, under a trust, a sum to make up the deficiency of what he should have left her, but did not do so; what was left to her can be diminished by the amount of the Falcidian portion, and the mother can receive the money left her in excess of the quarter of the share. 8In calculating the fourth to be reserved under the Falcidian Law, the amount cannot be diminished by the estimate made by the testator, any more than the heir can be entirely deprived of it.

Papinianus, Opinions, Book XIII. A freedwoman is not considered ungrateful because she works at her trade in opposition to the wishes of her patron.

Papinianus, Opinions, Book XIII. The offence of evading taxation by fraud is transmitted to the heir of the person who committed the fraud, to the extent of causing confiscation of the property. 1Where one of several heirs for the purpose of evading the tax removes any of the property held in common, the others will not be deprived of their shares.

The Same, Opinions, Book XXXII. Ad Dig. 39,6,42 pr.Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 368, Note 1.Seia, having transferred her property to her relative Titius, by way of donation, reserved the usufruct of the same for herself; and it was agreed that if Titius should die before she did, the said property should go to him, and if she died during the lifetime of the children of Titius, it should then belong to them. Hence, if the heirs of Lucius Titius should claim the property, they could not ineffectually be opposed by an exception on the ground of bad faith. However, suit having been brought in good faith, it was asked whether the woman was not obliged to promise to give the property to the children of Titius when he died. Some doubt arose on the point that the donation should not be extorted, where title to it had not yet vested in the children; still, might it not be said that, on account of the security given, the first donation which was perfected by the delivery of the property, and which, being actually given in the beginning, should be perpetuated; and not the second one which was merely promised? Therefore, was the donation made under a certain condition, and should it be so considered, or was it made on account of death? It cannot be denied that it should be considered to have been made mortis causa. The result is that the first donation having been annulled, the second one should be held to have been extorted, as Seia survived Titius. Finally, after the death of the woman, if the children of Titius had accepted the bond with her consent, they would be liable to contribute to the Falcidian portion in proportion to their respective shares. 1Where a father, at the point of death, gave certain property to his emancipated son, without imposing upon him the condition of returning the same, and his brothers and co-heirs desired contribution to be made out of the property, on account of the Falcidian Law, I gave it as my opinion that the ancient rule should be observed, as the new constitution had nothing to do with the other donations, which were made under positive conditions, and, in the case of death, there should be a deduction from the property of the estate, without the heirs having the hope of retaining it; for he who made the gift absolutely did so when dying, rather than as a donation mortis causa.

The Same, Opinions, Book XIII. A husband who is solvent can manumit a dotal slave during the continuance of the marriage. If, however, he is not solvent, even though he may have no other liabilities, the slave will be prevented from obtaining his liberty, as the dowry is understood to be due as long as the marriage continues to exist.

Pomponius, Opinions, Book XIII. An “informer, having notified the Treasury of certain property which had had no owner within the prescribed four years, desisted, after having given notice. After the four years had elapsed, a second informer having appeared, the first notice will not be available to prevent possession from being barred by lapse of time, unless the collusion of the first informer can be established, and this having been done, the prescription, as well as everything else relating to the affair, will be annulled. 1The term of four years which is fixed for notifying the Treasury of the existence of property without ownership is not computed according to mere opinion, but with reference to the character of the unoccupied property. The four years are reckoned from the time when a will is decided to be of no effect; or the possession of an intestate estate has been rejected by all those who had the right to claim it, in the regular order of succession; or where the time prescribed for each of them to do so had expired.

Papinianus, Opinions, Book XIII. Women are also heard in cases involving lese majesty. A woman named Julia revealed the conspiracy of Lucius Cataline, and furnished the Consul, Marcus Tullius, the evidence upon which to base the prosecution.

Papinianus, Opinions, Book XIII. Where anyone accused of fraud dies before the accusation of the crime has been filed, or judgment has been rendered, the Cornelian Law does not apply, because what was acquired by the crime is not left to the heir.

The Same, Opinions, Book XIII. The Treasury was defeated in a case where it was alleged that a will was forged, but, before this question was decided, it was established by the information of another that the estate was without an owner. I held that the crops which had been gathered after the first action should not be separated from it, for, after issue has been joined, the appointed heir is not entitled to the benefit of the Decree of the Senate. 1I gave it as my opinion that he has not performed the part of an informer who contended that the money which another person had in his possession belonged to the administration of his time, although he was not able to prove it, for the reason that he had acted in his own behalf.