The Same, On the Lex Julia et Papia, Book XI. The Divine Brothers stated the following in a Rescript: “We have ascertained from those who are the most learned in the law that it was sometimes doubtful whether a grandson could demand prætorian possession of the estate of his grandfather contrary to the provisions of the will, if his father, who was over twenty-five years of age, had accused him of a capital crime. It is true that Proculus, a jurist of great authority, was of the opinion that, in a case of this kind, prætorian possession should not be given to the grandson; and we adopted this opinion when we issued a Rescript in answer to the application of Cæsidia Longina. But, our friend Volusius Mæcianus, Prætor of the Civil Law, and one who pays the greatest attention to old and well-founded precedents, being influenced by his respect for Our Rescript (as he stated to Us) did not think that he could decide otherwise. But as We have discussed this point very fully with Mæcianus himself, and with others of our friends learned in the law, the better opinion seems to be that a grandson will not be excluded from the estate of his freedman’s grandfather, either by the words or the spirit of the law, or by the Edict of the Prætor, or on his own account, or by the stigma attaching to his father. We are also aware that this opinion has been adopted by many eminent jurists, as well as by that most illustrious man Salvius Julianus, our friend.” 1The question also arose, if a son accused the freedman of his father of a capital offence, whether this would prejudice the rights of his children. Proculus held that the stigma attaching to the son of the patron would prejudice his children. Julianus, however, denies that this is the case; and it must be held that the opinion of Julianus should be adopted.

Ulpianus, On the Lex Julia et Papia, Book XI. Labeo says that it is clear that a partnership formed between a freedman and a patron, in consideration of freedom being granted to the former, is void in law.

Ulpianus, On the Lex Julia et Papia, Book XI. Julianus says that if a patron should sell to his freedman the obligations which had been imposed upon him in consideration of liberating him from slavery, his son can be barred from obtaining prætorian possession of the estate of the freedman, for the reason that he does not obtain possession of the said estate in opposition to the terms of the will, as his father sold to him the gift, present, or services for which he obtained his freedom. He says that it is evident if the son of the patron should sell to him the services which were imposed upon the latter in consideration of giving him his liberty, that the brother of the patron can, nevertheless, obtain possession of the freedman’s estate contrary to the provisions of the will, because the son, by selling to the latter the services which were the consideration of his freedom, did not bar his uncle from asserting the claim. 1If the freedman should appoint an heir, and the latter should enter upon the estate before having put the slaves of the deceased to torture, Julianus says that the patron will not be permitted to obtain possession of the estate in opposition to the terms of the will, for he also should avenge the death of the freedman. This rule, likewise, is applicable to the patroness.