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)
Tert.
Tertulliani Opera

Tertulliani Opera

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

Index

2.
Quaestionum libri (2 fragmenta)

De castrensi peculio liber singularis

Dig. 29,1,23Ter­tul­lia­nus li­bro sin­gu­la­ri de cas­tren­si pe­cu­lio. Idem et si pa­ter fa­mi­lias mi­les de cas­tren­si­bus re­bus dum­ta­xat tes­ta­tus ad­ro­gan­dum se de­de­rit: si ve­ro mis­sus iam hoc fe­ce­rat, non va­let tes­ta­men­tum.

Tertullianus, On the Castrense Peculium. The same rule applies where the head of a household, while a soldier, only disposes of his peculium castrense by will, and subsequently gives himself to be arrogated. If, however, he should do this after having been already discharged, his testament will not be valid.

Dig. 29,1,33Ter­tul­lia­nus li­bro sin­gu­la­ri de cas­tren­si pe­cu­lio. Si fi­lius fa­mi­lias mi­les fe­cis­set tes­ta­men­tum mo­re mi­li­tiae, de­in­de post mor­tem pa­tris pos­tu­mus ei nas­ce­re­tur, uti­que rum­pi­tur eius tes­ta­men­tum. ve­rum si per­se­ve­ras­set in ea vo­lun­ta­te, ut vel­let ad­huc il­lud tes­ta­men­tum va­le­re, va­li­tu­rum il­lud, qua­si rur­sum aliud fac­tum, si mo­do mi­li­ta­ret ad­huc eo tem­po­re quo nas­ce­re­tur il­li pos­tu­mus. 1Sed si fi­lius fa­mi­lias mi­les fe­cis­set tes­ta­men­tum, de­in­de post­ea vi­vo eo et ad­huc avo quo­que su­per­sti­te nas­ce­re­tur ei pos­tu­mus, non rum­pi­tur eius tes­ta­men­tum, quia cum id quod nas­ce­re­tur in po­tes­ta­te eius non per­ve­ni­ret, non vi­de­tur suus he­res ad­gnas­ci: ac ne avo qui­dem suo hunc ne­po­tem pos­tu­mum, cum vi­vo fi­lio nas­ce­re­tur, suum he­redem pro­ti­nus ad­gnas­ci et id­eo nec avi tes­ta­men­tum rum­pi, quon­iam, li­cet in po­tes­ta­te avi pro­ti­nus es­se in­ci­pe­ret, ta­men an­te­ce­de­ret eum fi­lius. 2Se­cun­dum quae si fi­lius fa­mi­lias mi­les tes­ta­men­tum fe­ce­rit et omi­se­rit pos­tu­mum per er­ro­rem, non quod vo­le­bat ex­he­redatum, de­in­de pos­tu­mus post mor­tem avi vi­vo ad­huc fi­lio, id est pa­tre suo na­tus fue­rit, om­ni­mo­do rum­pet il­lius tes­ta­men­tum. sed si qui­dem pa­ga­no iam il­lo fac­to na­tus sit, nec con­va­les­cet rup­tum: si ve­ro mi­li­tan­te ad­huc na­tus fue­rit, rum­pe­tur, de­in­de, si vo­lue­rit ra­tum il­lud es­se pa­ter, con­va­les­cet sic qua­si de­nuo fac­tum. 3Sed et si vi­vo avo nas­ca­tur pos­tu­mus, hic non rum­pet con­ti­nuo pa­tris tes­ta­men­tum: si su­per­vi­xe­rit post mor­tem avi vi­vo ad­huc pa­tre, rum­pet, quod no­vus il­li nunc pri­mum he­res ad­gnas­ci­tur: ita ta­men, ut num­quam pos­sit duo­rum si­mul tes­ta­men­ta rum­pe­re et avi et pa­tris.

Tertyllianus, On the Castrense Peculium. Where a son under paternal control, while in the army, makes a will according to military custom, and subsequently, after the death of his father, a posthumous child is born to him, his will is broken. If, however, he is still of the same mind, and wishes the said will to continue to be valid, he can render it so, just as if he had made another; provided he was serving as a soldier up to the time when the posthumous child was born. 1Where, however, a son under paternal control, who is serving as a soldier, makes a will, and then afterwards, during his lifetime, and during that of his grandfather, a posthumous child is born to him, his will will not be broken, because the said child will not come under his control, and is not held to be born a proper heir. Nor indeed, can this posthumous grandchild, since it was born during the lifetime of the son, become at once a proper heir to its grandfather, and therefore the will of the grandfather is not broken; as, although it at once comes under the control of its grandfather, the son will, nevertheless, be entitled to priority. 2It follows that if a son under paternal control makes a will while serving as a soldier, and through mistake, and not because he wished to disinherit him, omits to mention a posthumous child; and if the said posthumous child should be born after the death of his grandfather, but during the lifetime of the son, that is to say his own father, his testament will certainly be broken. If, however, it should be born after its father has become a civilian, the validity of the testament which has been broken will not be restored. But if it should be born while its father is still in the army, then, if the latter should desire the will to be valid, it will become so, just as if it had been executed a second time. 3If, however, a posthumous child should be born during the lifetime of its grandfather, this will not at once break the will of the father, but only where it survives its grandfather, while its father is still living, as it now for the first time becomes the heir of the latter. For this is the case because it never can break two wills at once, that is to say, those of its father and its grandfather.

Dig. 49,17,4Ter­tul­lia­nus li­bro sin­gu­la­ri de cas­tren­si pe­cu­lio. Mi­les prae­ci­pua ha­be­re de­bet, quae tu­lit se­cum in cas­tra con­ce­den­te pa­tre. 1Ac­tio­nem per­se­cu­tio­nem­que cas­tren­sium re­rum sem­per fi­lius et­iam in­vi­to pa­tre ha­bet. 2Si pa­ter fa­mi­lias mi­li­tiae tem­po­re vel post mis­sio­nem ad­ro­gan­dum se prae­bue­rit, vi­den­dum erit, ne huic quo­que per­mis­sa in­tel­le­ga­tur ea­rum re­rum ad­mi­nis­tra­tio, quas an­te ad­ro­ga­tio­nem in cas­tris ad­quisie­rit, quam­vis con­sti­tu­tio­nes prin­ci­pa­les de his lo­quan­tur, qui ab in­itio cum es­sent fi­lii fa­mi­lias mi­li­ta­ve­rint. quod ad­mit­ten­dum est.

Tertullianus, On Castrense Peculium. A soldier should be especially entitled to any articles which he took with him into camp with the consent of his father. 1The son has always, even against the will of his father, the right of action and recovery of the property constituting his castrense peculium. 2If the head of a household, during the term of his military service, and after his discharge, should offer himself to be arrogated, let us see if he should not be understood to have the free administration of any property which he acquired in camp before his arrogation, although the Imperial Constitutions only mention those who, as sons under paternal control, served from the time when they entered the army. This rule should be adopted.

Quaestionum libri

Ex libro I

Dig. 1,3,27Ter­tul­lia­nus li­bro I quaes­tio­num. Id­eo, quia an­ti­quio­res le­ges ad pos­te­rio­res tra­hi usi­ta­tum est, sem­per qua­si hoc le­gi­bus in­es­se cre­di opor­tet, ut ad eas quo­que per­so­nas et ad eas res per­ti­ne­rent, quae quan­do­que si­mi­les erunt.

Tertullianus, Questions, Book I. Therefore, for the reason that it is the custom to interpret recent laws by former ones, it ought always to be understood that the principles of the laws are applicable to such persons or things as may at any time be of a similar character.

Dig. 41,2,28Ter­tul­lia­nus li­bro pri­mo quaes­tio­num. Si ali­quam rem pos­si­deam et ean­dem post­ea con­du­cam, an amit­tam pos­ses­sio­nem? mul­tum re­fert in his, quid aga­tur: pri­mum enim re­fert, utrum sciam me pos­si­de­re an igno­rem: et utrum qua­si non meam rem con­du­cam an qua­si meam: et sciens meam es­se, utrum qua­si pro­prie­ta­tis re­spec­tu an pos­ses­sio­nis tan­tum. nam et si rem meam tu pos­si­deas et ego emam a te pos­ses­sio­nem eius rei vel sti­pu­ler, uti­lis erit et emp­tio et sti­pu­la­tio, et se­qui­tur, ut et pre­ca­rium et con­duc­tio spe­cia­li­ter pos­ses­sio­nis so­lius con­du­cen­dae vel pre­ca­rio ro­gan­dae ani­mus in­ter­ve­niat.

Tertullianus, Questions, Book I. If I possess property, and afterwards lease it, do I lose possession? It makes a great deal of difference as to what the intention of the testator was in this case. First, it is important to ascertain whether I know that I am in possession, or am ignorant of the fact; and whether I lease the property as my own, or as belonging to someone else, and, knowing it to be mine, whether I lease it with reference to the ownership, or merely to obtain possession. For if you are in possession of my property, and I purchase the possession of the same from you, or enter into a stipulation with reference thereto, both the purchase and the stipulation will be valid; and the result is that there will be both a precarious title and a lease, if there was an express intention of only leasing possession, or an intention of claiming it by a precarious title.