Paulus, On the Law of Codicils. Codicils are drawn up in four ways: for they are either to be confirmed in the future; or have been confirmed in the past; or they are made by means of a trust, where a will has been executed; or where there is no will. 1Those who succeed to an estate ab intestato can be charged with a trust, as it is considered that the deceased has voluntarily left them the estate to which they were entitled by law. 2A codicil is valid whenever the party who executed it was competent to make a will. But it must not be understood that we require him to have been competent to make a will at the time when he wrote the codicil. (For what if he was unable to obtain a sufficient number of witnesses?) It is indispensable, however, for him to have had the legal right to make a will. 3If anyone, by his will, should confirm a codicil to be made hereafter, and then offer himself to be arrogated, and afterwards make a will, and die emancipated; the question arises whether the legacies bequeathed by the codicil should be paid, as the will is valid? He, however, executed the codicil at a time when he did not have testamentary capacity; and this case is not similar to that of a dumb person, who can legally confirm a codicil; for, although he is not competent to make a will, still one which he made before he became dumb remains in the same condition; but the will of this party is void, and, he is in a certain way disposing of the property of others by means of it. We hold, however, that the codicil is valid, for even if the birth of a posthumous child should break the will, and it should afterwards die, the codicil will still be valid. 4Where a soldier executes a will before entering the army, and executes a codicil after his enlistment, the question arises whether the codicil will be valid under military law, since a will made under such circumstances is valid by the Common Law only where the soldier did not seal it, or make some addition to it during the term of his military service. It is certain that the codicil made during military service should not be referred back to the will in order to establish its validity, but is valid by military law. 5Where freedom is granted by a codicil to a slave who had also received a legacy by will, we say that the legacy is valid, just as if it had been so from the beginning. 6Where anyone confirms a codicil of a certain kind, for instance, “the one which I shall execute last”, the provisions contained in any codicil will not be considered to be valid immediately, so long as others can be made; and therefore if others should be made subsequently, all grants of legacies by former ones will be void.

The Same, On the Law of Codicils. The posthumous child of a brother can be charged with a trust. For, with reference to trusts, the intention of the deceased is also considered; and the opinion of Callus, who holds that the posthumous children of others can become our heirs at law, prevails.

The Same, On the Law of Codicils. It makes no difference whether the legacy contained in the will is erased, or taken away.

The Same, On the Law of Codicils. If I should say in my will, “I bequeath to So-and-So as much as I shall bequeath to Titius by my codicil,” although the legacy is only explicitly mentioned by the codicil, still it is valid under the terms of the will, and only the amount inserted in the codicil will be due. For legacies like the following were sustained by the ancients, namely, “Let my heir give to So-and-So an amount equal to that I shall state to him in a letter, or which I shall obtain from such-and-such an action.”

The Same, On the Law of Codicils. “Let Stichus be free, if I do not by a codicil forbid him to be manumitted,” is the same as if a testator said, “Let Stichus be free, if I do not ascend to the Capitol,” for an heir can be appointed in this way.