Pomponius, On Quintus Mucius, Book III. Where no one enters upon the estate, nothing stated in the will is valid. If, however, one out of several heirs enters upon it, the appointment of a guardian will be valid, and it will not be necessary to wait for all the heirs to accept the estate.

Pomponius, On Quintus Mucius, Book III. Where a legacy was bequeathed as follows, “I wish that as much be given to Tithasus as my heir will have,” it is the same as if it had been said: “As much as all my heirs will have.” 1If, however, the bequest was made in the following terms, “I wish my heirs to give as much to Tithasus as one of them will have,” the smallest amount included in the legacy is understood to be intended. 2Pegasus was accustomed to make a distinction where a trust was bequeathed for a certain time, for instance, after ten years; and he held that it made a difference for whose benefit this time had been fixed, whether in favor of the heir, in which case he was entitled to retain the profits of the property, or in favor of the legatee, for example, where the trust was left to take effect at the time of puberty, when the beneficiary was under that age; for in this case the profits of the preceding period must be delivered. These principles are understood to apply where it was specifically added by the testator that the heir must deliver the property subject to the trust, together with all its increase. 3Where the following provision was inserted in a will, “Let my heir pay ten or fifteen aurei,” it is the same as if only ten aurei had been bequeathed. But if he had left the legacy as follows, “Let my heir pay such-and-such a sum of money one year, or two years, after I die,” the legacy is considered to be due after the lapse of two years, because it is in the power of the heir to select the time for payment.

Pomponius, On Quintus Mucius, Book III. Either uncertain times or conditions are imposed upon legacies which are bequeathed; and if this is not done, they take effect at once, unless, by their very character, they are dependent upon some condition. 1Where a certain date is prescribed for the payment of a legacy, even though the time has not yet arrived, the heirs can, nevertheless, pay it, because it is certain that it will be due. 2When the time is uncertain, as in the following instance, “Let my heir pay ten aurei when he dies,” as the date of his death is uncertain, hence, if the legatee should die before him the legacy will not pass to his heir, for the reason that the time did not arrive during his lifetime, although it is certain that the heir will die some time or other. 3A condition is inserted in a legacy for example, where we make a bequest as follows, “Let my heir give the child born of Arescusa the slave,” or “Let my heir give the crops which may be collected from such-and-such an estate,” or “Let my heir give to Seius the slave whom I may have not bequeathed to anyone else.”

Pomponius, On Quintus Mucius, Book III. Where a father promised a dowry for his daughter whom he afterwards disinherited, or if he bequeathed her a legacy after she had been emancipated, and passed her over in his will, she will be entitled to the dowry as a preferred legacy, as well as to the legacy.

Pomponius, On Quintus Mucius, Book III. If I stipulate as follows, “Will you pay me ten, or fifteen aurei?” ten will be due. Again if I stipulate as follows, “Will you pay after one, or two years?” the money will be due after two years; because in stipulations, the smallest amount of money, and the longest period of time are considered to be inserted in the obligation.

Pomponius, On Quintus Mucius, Book III. When a slave owned in common stipulates as follows, “Do you promise to pay Lucius Titius, and Gaius Seius?” (who are his masters), they will be entitled to equal shares under the terms of the agreement. If, however, he should stipulate as follows, “Do you promise to pay my master?” they will be entitled to share in proportion to their respective ownership. But when he stipulates as follows, “Do you promise to pay Lucius Titius, and Gaius Seius?” it may be doubted whether they will be entitled to equal shares, or only in proportion to the amount of the interest of each. It is also important to ascertain what was added merely for the purpose of explanation, and what the other part of the stipulation, which is the principal one, provides. But as the names are first mentioned, it seems to be more reasonable that the stipulation was acquired for their benefit equally, because the names of the masters are given for the purpose of designation.

The Same, On Quintus Mucius, Book III. The term “estate” undoubtedly includes one which may be onerous; for the name is the same in law as prætorian possession of property.