Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LXI. The rents of urban estates are considered to be profits.

The Same, On the Edict, Book LXI. Where an, investigation is made with a view to the appointment of a guardian, this should also be done in the case of a Senator who is to become the guardian. This opinion Severus stated in a Rescript.

The Same, On the Edict, Book LXI. We consider a guardian to be suspicious whose behavior is such as to render him an object of distrust; for a guardian, however poor he may be, should not be removed on the ground of suspicion, if he is trustworthy and diligent.

The Same, On the Edict, Book LXI. This indulgence should not be granted, unless where a very good reason exists.

The Same, On the Edict, Book LXI. Where a proper heir, after having rejected the estate, requests time for deliberation, let us see whether he ought to obtain it. The better opinion is that he should obtain it, where proper cause is shown, and the property of the estate has not yet been sold.

Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LXI. He is held to act as an heir who does anything in the capacity of one. And, in general, Julianus stated that he only acted in the capacity of heir who transacted any business as such; but to act as heir is not so much a matter of fact as of intention, for he must intend to perform the act as an heir. Where, however, he does anything on account of filial affection, or to protect the property of the estate, or where he acts, not as the heir or the owner, but by some other right, it is evident that he should not be held to have acted as heir. 1And therefore children who are necessary heirs are accustomed to allege that, where they transact any business for the estate, they do so only on account of natural affection or for the sake of protecting the property, or because it is theirs; as, for instance, where a child buries his father, or does only what is just and is required of him. If, however, he proceeds with the intention of becoming an heir, he acts in the capacity of one, for if, induced by filial reverence, he does anything, he will not be held to have acted as an heir. In instances of this kind, he provides food for slaves belonging to the estate, or for beasts of burden, or sells them. If he does this in the capacity of heir, he acts as heir, and if he does not do so, but merely attempts to preserve the property because he believes it to be his; or, while he is deliberating what course he shall pursue, he merely takes measures that the property of the estate may be preserved; and if he should conclude not to conduct himself as heir, it is evident that he cannot be held to have acted in that capacity. Hence, if he has either leased or repaired any lands or houses belonging to the estate, or has done anything else of this kind, not with the intention of acting as heir, but merely for the benefit of the substitution, or of the heir ab intestato, or sells property which is perishable; he is not in the position of a person who acts in the capacity of an heir, because he had not the intention of doing so. 2If, however, he should claim any property as heir which does not pass to the foreign heir, let us see whether he becomes liable for the debts of the estate; for instance, where he claims the services of a freedman of his father, which a foreign heir cannot claim, but he can obtain by demanding them; it is established that he does not act as an heir; for such a demand can be made by the creditors, and especially for future services to be rendered. 3A son who buries a corpse in the family tomb of his father, should not, by this act, be held to have rendered himself liable to the creditors of the latter; which opinion is held by Papinianus, and is the more equitable one, although Julianus states the contrary. 4Ad Dig. 29,2,20,4Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. III, § 536, Note 3.Papinianus says that certain authorities hold that where a son has been appointed the heir of his father, and declines to accept the estate, if he receives money from a slave who was to be free on condition of payment, he can be sued by the creditors of the estate, whether the money paid was, or was not, a part of the peculium of the slave; because it was received, as it were, by the wish of the deceased, for the purpose of complying with the condition. Julianus thinks that the same rule will apply even where the son did not accept the estate. Finally, Papinianus says that he acts in the capacity of heir only where he is the sole heir, but if he should have a co-heir, and the latter enters upon the estate, the son who received the money from the slave should not be compelled to defend actions brought by the creditors; for, as he rejected the estate as a son, he should also be entitled under Prætorian Law to the rights enjoyed by an emancipated child who rejects an inheritance. Hence, if the slave had been expressly ordered by the testator to pay the money to his son, he could obtain his freedom even if he did not pay him. He is therefore said to have acted in the capacity of heir, since he received what he could not obtain without assuming the name and rights of an heir. 5Where a son brings an action against a person who has violated a tomb, even though it belongs to the estate, he is not considered to have interfered with the affairs of the same, as he takes nothing from the estate of his father; for the object of this action is a penalty and punishment rather than the recovery of property.

Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LXI. Where a slave owned in common becomes the necessary heir of one, or several, or all of his masters, he cannot refuse to accept the estate of any of them.

Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LXI. If anyone should ransom a slave belonging to another from the enemy, and appoint him his heir with the gift of freedom, I am inclined to think that he will be free, and the necessary heir of the testator. For the latter, when he granted him his freedom, released him from his bond, and gave him power to enjoy the right of postliminium, so that he would not again become the slave of the party to whom he belonged before he was captured (for this would be extremely wicked), but to enable him to tender to his former master the price of his ransom, or remain obligated to him until he could pay it; which provision was introduced in favor of freedom. 1If a slave should be purchased under this law in order to be manumitted within a certain time, and he is appointed heir with the grant of his freedom, let us see if he will be entitled to relief if he declines to accept the estate. The better opinion is, that until the prescribed time has elapsed, he can become the necessary heir of the testator, and cannot reject the estate; but where the time has expired, he then becomes not the necessary, but the voluntary heir, and can reject it in the same way that he, to whom freedom is due under the terms of a trust can do. 2If a slave should give money to his master in order that he may be manumitted, I think that, by all means, relief should be granted him. 3The Prætor says: “If either a male or a female heir should have committed an act by which any property has been taken from the estate.” 4If a proper heir should state that he is unwilling to retain the estate, and has removed any property belonging to it, he shall not have the privilege of refusal. 5The Prætor did not say: “If the heir should take anything”; but, “If either a male or a female heir should have committed an act by which any property has been taken from the estate.” Therefore, if the heir should himself remove any of the property, or cause this to be done, the Edict will apply. 6We understand anyone to have taken the property belonging to an estate, to mean that he has concealed, embezzled, or squandered said property. 7The Prætor says: “By which any property has been taken from the estate”, and the Edict applies whether one article or several have been taken, or whether the property in question forms a portion of the estate, or is connected with the same. 8A person is not held to have taken property, where he did not act with fraudulent or malicious intent. Nor will he be held to have done so who was mistaken with reference to the property, and was not aware that it belonged to the estate. Hence, if he took it without the intention of misappropriating it, or causing damage to the estate, but under the impression that it did not belong to it, it must be held that he should not be considered to have appropriated it to his own use. 9These words of the Edict apply to him who, in the first place, took some of the property and afterwards rejected the estate; but if he rejected it in the first place, and then misappropriated the property, let us see whether the Edict will apply. I think that it is better in this instance to adopt the opinion of Sabinus, namely, that the heir will be liable to the creditors of the estate in an action of theft; for where the heir has refused the estate, he afterwards becomes liable on account of the crime.

Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LXI. The usufruct of property is also included in the sale, because an usufructuary is embraced in the term “owner.” 1If anyone has a right to take the crops from the land of his debtor, a creditor, who has been placed in possession of the land, can either sell or lease the said crops. This, however, can only be done where they have not been sold or leased beforehand; for if the debtor did this, the Prætor will sustain the sale or the lease made by him, even though the crops may have been disposed of for less than they were worth; unless this was done for the purpose of defrauding the creditors, for then the Prætor can authorize the creditors to make a new lease or sale. 2The same rule will apply to the income from other things, so that if they can be leased, this should be done; as for example, the wages of slaves, or the hire of beasts of burden, qr the revenue from other property which can be rented. 3The Prætor does not say anything about the time that the lease is to run. Therefore, free power is held to have been granted to creditors to lease the property as long as they may deem it advisable; just as they have the right to sell or lease according to their judgment, of course, where no fraud exists. They, however, are not responsible for negligence. 4If one of the creditors is in possession of the property, the question of leasing it will be easily disposed of. But where there is not only one, but several creditors, it may be asked which of them should sell or lease the property? This will be readily decided if they are agreed, for all of them can lease it, or appoint one of their number to do so. If, however, they do not agree, then it must be said that the Prætor after proper cause is shown must select one of them to lease or sell it.

Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LXI. Where anyone pays with the intention of again receiving the money, he will not be released, just as money which is paid in order to be returned is not alienated.

Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LXI. Anyone born in a village which is a dependency of a city is understood to have his residence there, just as if it was in the city itself.

The Same, On the Edict, Book LXI. The term “daughter-in-law” applies also to the wife of a grandson, and extends even farther.

Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LXI. Patroness is also included under the term “patron.”