Paulus, On Vitellius, Book I. A certain man appointed his daughter sole heir to his estate, and bequeathed ten aurei to his son, who was under his control, and added: “My son shall be disinherited so far as the remainder of my estate is concerned.” The question arose whether he could be held to be legally disinherited. Scævola answered that he did not seem to be properly disinherited, and, while discussing the point, added that the disinheritance was void, for a child could not be legally disinherited when this only had reference to a certain tract of land; and that the case was different where anyone is appointed an heir, for the reason that appointments are understood to be subject to the most liberal interpretation, but no encouragement should be given to disinheritances.

The Same, On Vitellius, Book I. Nor does a son returning from captivity break the will of his father through the right of postliminium, which is the opinion held by Sabinus.

Paulus, On Vitellius, Book I. Sabinus says: “The question arises where a testator had distributed among his heirs a larger number of shares than the usual division of an estate requires, and had appointed one heir without any share; will the latter be entitled to half the double division, or only what is lacking of the twenty-four shares?” I think that the latter opinion is the more correct one, so that the same ratio shall be observed where the division is doubled, or any other greater number of shares is made than is done in the ordinary distribution of an estate. Paulus: “The same ratio must be observed in the second division as in the first”.

The Same, On Vitellius, Book I. If no one accepts an estate, the force of the will is entirely destroyed.