Corpus iurisprudentiae Romanae

Repertorium zu den Quellen des römischen Rechts

Digesta Iustiniani Augusti

Recognovit Mommsen (1870) et retractavit Krüger (1928)
Convertit in Anglica lingua Scott (1932)
Paul.l. Iul.
Ad legem Iuliam lib.Pauli Ad legem Iuliam libri

Ad legem Iuliam libri

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50

Ex libro I

Dig. 40,9,15Pau­lus li­bro pri­mo ad le­gem Iu­liam. Quae­si­tum est, an is, qui ma­ies­ta­tis cri­mi­ne reus fac­tus sit, ma­nu­mit­te­re pos­sit, quon­iam an­te dam­na­tio­nem do­mi­nus est. et im­pe­ra­tor An­to­ni­nus Cal­pur­nio Cri­to­ni re­scrip­sit ex eo tem­po­re, quo quis prop­ter fa­ci­no­rum suo­rum co­gi­ta­tio­nem iam de poe­na sua cer­tus es­se pot­erat, mul­to prius con­scien­tia de­lic­to­rum, quam dam­na­tio­ne ius dan­dae li­ber­ta­tis eum amis­sis­se. 1Iu­lia­nus ait, si post­ea, quam fi­lio per­mi­sit pa­ter ma­nu­mit­te­re, fi­lius igno­rans pa­trem de­ces­sis­se ma­nu­mi­sit vin­dic­ta, non fie­ri eum li­be­rum. sed et si vi­vit pa­ter et vo­lun­tas mu­ta­ta erit, non vi­de­ri vo­len­te pa­tre fi­lium ma­nu­mis­sis­se.

Paulus, On the Lex Julia, Book I. The question arose whether anyone accused of the crime of lese majeste could manumit a slave, inasmuch as he was the owner of slaves before his conviction. The Emperor Antoninus stated in a Rescript addressed to Calpurnius Crito that, from the time when the accused party was certain of having the penalty inflicted upon him, he would lose the right of granting freedom rather through his consciousness of guilt, than from his condemnation for crime. 1Julianus says that, after a father has granted his son permission to manumit a slave, and the son, not being aware that his father is dead, manumits the slave, the latter will not become free. If, however, the father is living, and has changed his mind, his son will be considered to have manumitted the slave against the consent of his father.

Ex libro V

Dig. 29,2,80Pau­lus li­bro quin­to ad le­gem Iu­liam. Si so­lus he­res ex plu­ri­bus par­ti­bus fue­ro in­sti­tu­tus, unam par­tem omit­te­re non pos­sum nec in­ter­est, in qui­bus­dam ha­beam sub­sti­tu­tum nec ne. 1Idem pu­to et­iam, si aliis mix­tus he­redi­bus ex plu­ri­bus par­ti­bus he­res in­sti­tu­tus sim, quod et hic ad­eun­do unam por­tio­nem om­nes ad­quiro, si ta­men de­la­tae sint. 2Item si ser­vus meus ex par­te he­res in­sti­tu­tus sit pu­re, ex par­te sub con­di­cio­ne, da­to sci­li­cet co­he­rede, et ius­su meo ad­ie­rit, de­in­de eo ma­nu­mis­so con­di­cio al­te­rius por­tio­nis ex­sti­te­rit, ve­rius est non mi­hi es­se ad­quisi­tam il­lam por­tio­nem, sed ip­sum com­ita­ri: om­nia enim pa­ria per­ma­ne­re de­bent in id tem­pus, quo al­te­rius por­tio­nis con­di­cio ex­stet, ut ad­quira­tur ei, cui prior por­tio ad­quisi­ta est. 3Ego qui­dem pu­to et si ad­huc in po­tes­ta­te sit, ite­rum ad­eun­dum es­se, si con­di­cio ex­sti­te­rit, et il­lud quod di­ci­mus se­mel ad­eun­dum, in eius­dem per­so­na lo­cum ha­bet, non cum per alium ad­quiren­da est he­redi­tas.

Paulus, On the Lex Julia et Papia, Book IV. If I should be appointed sole heir to several shares in an estate, I cannot reject one share, nor does it make any difference whether or not I have a substitute for said share. 1I think that the same rule will apply, even where I have been appointed together with other heirs, or have been appointed heir to several shares, because by the acceptance of one of the shares, I will acquire all of them, if they should be rejected. 2Moreover, if one of my slaves has been absolutely appointed an heir to a portion of an estate, and conditionally appointed to another portion, having, for example, a co-heir, and he enters upon the estate by my direction, and after he has been manumitted, the condition upon which the other portion of the estate depends is fulfilled; the better opinion is that the first portion is not acquired by me but follows the slave himself. For everything should remain in the same state at the time when the condition of the second share was fulfilled, in order that it may be acquired by him who was entitled to the first portion. 3Therefore, I think that if the slave remains under the control of his original master, he must enter upon the estate a second time, if the condition should be fulfilled; and when we stated that the heir should only enter upon the estate but once, this has reference to the heir himself personally, and does not apply where the estate is acquired through the intervention of another.