The Same, Opinions, Book XI. Lucius Titius, a soldier, dictated his will to his secretary to be made from notes, and before it was fully written out he died. I ask whether this dictation can be valid. I answered, that it is conceded to soldiers to make their wills in whatever way they desire, and in whatever way they can, provided this is done so that it can be established by lawful evidence. 1It was also held that where a slave was entitled to a legacy (although under a condition), by a will drawn up in accordance with military law, he could also demand his freedom. 2An opinion was likewise given in the following case. Lucius Titius, a soldier, stated in his will: “Let Pamphila be the heir to my entire estate”, and then by another clause, left the same bequest to Sepronius, one of his comrades, and charged him to manumit the said slave. I ask whether Pamphila would be his heir, just as if she had received her freedom directly at the hands of the testator? The answer was, that it should be understood that the soldier did not know, at the time when he appointed his female slave his heir, that she would obtain her freedom by virtue of her appointment; and therefore he afterwards had no reason to request his comrade to manumit her, since she had become free and his heir under the first clause, and as the bequest was of no force or effect, the intention of the testator was not interfered with.

Paulus, Opinions, Book XI. Paulus gave it as his opinion that the application of a mother, alone, could not acquire prætorian possession of an estate for her daughter, who was under the age of puberty, unless he who granted it evidently intended to give it to the minor child.

Paulus, Opinions, Book XI. Paulus gives it as his opinion that an emancipated son is not obliged to make collation of such property as should be transferred to him after the death of his father, for the benefit of his brother who was left under paternal control, even if he obtained the said property before he was entitled to it; as he is held to have had possession of the same after the death of his father, not so much by virtue of the donation, as on account of the debt.

Paulus, Opinions, Book XI. Nor shall she contribute her dowry for the benefit of her brothers, as the latter are heirs under a different right than hers.

Paulus, Opinions, Book XI. Titia had a posthumous child after the death of her husband, and Sempronius brought an accusation of adultery against her before the Governor of the province. I ask whether trial of the accusation of adultery should be deferred until the age of puberty, in order that the rights of the posthumous child may not be prejudiced. Paulus answered that if there was no question as to the right of the minor to the estate of her father, her guardians have no reason to defer the trial for adultery until their ward reaches the age of puberty.

The Same, Opinions, Book XI. Paulus also held that the disinheritance of a grandson, which was not made by way of reproach, but for some other reason, did not injure him to the extent of preventing him from demanding prætorian possession of the estate of the freedman of his grandfather in opposition to the terms of the will. 1I ask if Titia, the daughter of a patron, should allege that her father Titius had written a letter to her before his death, in which he said that he had been badly treated by his freedman, and if relying upon this letter, she accused the freedman after the death of her father, whether this excuse would be of any advantage to her. Paulus answered that she who accused the freedman in accordance with the wishes of the father should not be excluded from prætorian possession of his estate contrary to the provisions of the will, since she relied, not only on her own judgment, but also on that of another. 2The son of a patron sent the following letter to his freedman: “Sempronius to his freedman Zoilus, Greeting. I grant you full power to make a will because you deserve it on account of the fidelity which you have always displayed towards me.” I ask whether the freedman should not leave something to the son of his patron. Paulus answered that the freedman in question does not appear to have obtained the full right to make a will by the above-mentioned letter. 3Paulus gave it as his opinion that a grandson had a right to demand prætorian possession of the estate of a freedman of his grandfather, contrary to the provisions of the will, even if he had been conceived after the death of his grandfather, who survived the freedman; and that he could be admitted to the succession as the heir at law. For the opinion of Julianus only has reference to a succession on the ground of intestacy, and the demand for prætorian possession of the estate of the grandfather. 4Paulus also gave it as his opinion that although sons who have been passed over by the will of a father who was serving in the army are considered as disinherited, still, the silence of their father should not prejudice their rights in such a way that they can be excluded from the estates of the freedman of their grandfather. The same opinion was given with reference to the estates of the freedmen of the father.

Paulus, Opinions, Book XI. If a son, after having been emancipated, demands prætorian possession of the estate of his father, and subsequently changes his condition, there is no reason why he should not retain what he has acquired. If, however, he had changed his condition beforehand, he cannot demand prætorian possession of the estate.