Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book X. Whatever a vendor wishes to reserve for himself by way of servitude, must be reserved in express terms, for a general reservation such as the following: “Any persons entitled to servitudes may certainly retain them”, has reference to strangers, and not to the vendor for the purpose of preserving his rights, for he has none, because no one owes him a servitude. Again, if I was entitled to a servitude, and the ownership of the land afterwards became vested in me, it is held that the servitude is extinguished in consequence.

Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book X. Hostages cannot execute a will, unless permission is granted them to do so.

The Same, On Sabinus, Book X. Where anyone, after having disinherited his son, dies, leaving his daughter-in-law pregnant, and appoints a stranger his heir under some condition, and while the condition is pending and after the death of the father, or while the heir is deliberating as to whether or not he will enter upon the estate, the disinherited son should die, and a grandson should be born, will this break the will? We say that the will is not broken, as a grandson ought not to be disinherited in this way by his grandfather, who preceded his father in the succession. It is clear that if the appointed heir should refuse to accept the estate, there can be no doubt that this heir would inherit from his grandfather ab intestato. Both of these cases are founded upon good and sufficient reasons, for a posthumous child breaks a will by his birth, where no one took precedence of him at the time of the death of the testator, and he succeeds ab intestato where the succession has not been granted to anyone before him. It is evident that, in this instance, the succession has not been granted to the son, since he died while the appointed heir was deliberating as to his acceptance of the estate. This, however, is the rule only where the grandson was still unborn at the time of the death of his grandfather; for Marcellus says that if he had been conceived after that time, he could not be admitted to the succession either as a proper heir, a grandson, or a cognate, or would be entitled to prætorian possession of the estate. 1Where the father of a grandson who, at the time of the death of the grandfather, was in the hands of the enemy, and died in captivity, the said grandson, by obtaining the succession after the death of his grandfather, breaks the will, because his aforesaid father was not in his way; for, as he died while a captive, he is not considered to have been alive when his grandfather died, and even if the captive father should return, this would render the will of his father illegal, as he had been passed over therein. 2If a grandson was either conceived in his own country or among the enemy, as the right of postliminium is also granted to unborn children, the will will be broken by his birth. 3Therefore, those who succeed to proper heirs do not break the will, whether they are appointed heirs or disinherited in the degree in which the succession is granted, provided that this is valid. 4However, no matter in what way fathers standing first in the succession may cease to be under paternal control, whether through captivity, death, or the infliction of some penalty, their children who succeed them and who are either appointed heirs or disinherited by a will cannot break it. 5A will becomes invalid whenever anything happens to the testator himself; as, for instance, where he loses his civil rights through being suddenly reduced to slavery, for example, where he is captured by the enemy; or where, being over twenty years of age, he permits himself to be sold for the purpose of transacting the business of his purchaser, or to share in his own price. 6Where, however, anyone convicted of a capital crime is condemned to be thrown to wild beasts, or to fight as a gladiator, or some other sentence is imposed which will deprive him of life, his will becomes void, not from the time when he suffered punishment, but from the date of his sentence, for he then at once becomes a penal slave; unless, being a soldier, he is convicted of some military offence, for under such circumstances, it is customary for him to be permitted to make a will, as the Divine Hadrian stated in a Rescript; and I think that he can make one in accordance with military law. On this principle, therefore, as he is allowed, to make a will after his conviction, should one which he had previously executed be held valid, if he was allowed to make it, or should it be considered void on account of the penalty, after it has been made? There can be no doubt that, if he has a right to make a will by military law, and wishes the first will to be valid, he will be considered to have executed it. 7The will of a person who has been deported does not immediately become void, but only after the Emperor has confirmed the sentence, for then he who was condemned loses his civil rights. Where, however, the punishment of a Decurion is concerned, or that of his son or grandson, and the Governor refers the case to the Emperor, I do not think that the convicted party becomes at once a penal slave, although it is customary to incarcerate him for safe-keeping. Therefore, his will does not become void before the Emperor issues his decree that he must suffer the punishment. Hence, if he should die before this is done, his will will be valid, unless he takes his own life; for, by the Imperial Constitutions the wills of those who are conscious of their guilt are void, even though they may die while in possession of their civil rights. But where anyone, through weariness of life, or because he is unable to endure the suffering of illness, or through a desire for notoriety commits suicide, as certain philosophers do, this rule does not apply, as the wills of such persons are valid. The Divine Hadrian also made this distinction with reference to the will of a soldier, in a letter addressed to Pomponius Falco, stating that if anyone belonging to the army preferred to kill himself because he was guilty of a military offence, his will shall be void; but if he does so because he is tired of life, or on account of suffering, it will be valid, and if he should die intestate, his property can be claimed by his relatives, or, if he has none, by his legion. 8All those persons, whose wills we have stated become void because of their condemnation, do not lose their civil rights if they appeal from the decision of the tribunal; and therefore any wills which they may have previously executed do not become void, and it has very frequently been decided they can still make a will. They are not held to resemble those who are doubtful concerning their condition, and have not testamentary capacity, for they are certain of their condition, and they are only uncertain of themselves while the appeal is pending. 9But what if the Governor did not receive the appeal, but delayed the infliction of the penalty until it was confirmed by the Emperor? I think that the party in question would, in the meantime, also preserve his status, and that his will would not become invalid. For (as has been stated in the Address of the Divine Marcus) where an appeal which has been taken by the party directly, or by someone acting for him is not received, the infliction of the penalty must remain in abeyance until the Emperor answers the letter of the Governor and returns his decision together with the letter; unless the accused is a notorious robber, or has been guilty of fomenting sedition, or has perpetrated bloodshed, or where some other good reason exists which can be set forth by the Governor in his letter, and which does not admit of delay, not for the purpose of hastening the punishment, but in order to provide against danger to the community; for, under such circumstances, he is permitted to inflict the penalty and then communicate the facts to the Emperor. 10Let us see where someone has been illegally condemned and the penalty has not been inflicted, whether his will will be invalid. Suppose, for instance, that a decurion has been sentenced to be thrown to wild beasts, will he lose his civil rights, and will his testament become void? I do not think that this will be the case, as the sentence cannot legally bind him. Therefore, where a magistrate finds someone guilty who is not subject to his jurisdiction, his will will not be void, as has been frequently decided. 11The wills of those whose memory is condemned after their death, for example, on account of high treason, or some similar offence, are invalid. 12Ad Dig. 28,3,6,12Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. III, § 563, Note 7.With reference, however, to what we have stated, namely, that the will of anyone captured by the enemy becomes invalid, it must be added that the will regains its validity through the right of postliminium, if the testator should return; or if he dies while in captivity, it is confirmed by the Lex Cornelia. Therefore, where anyone is convicted of a capital crime, and is restored to his civil rights through the indulgence of the Emperor, his will again becomes valid. 13It has been settled that the will of a son under paternal control who has served his time in the army, and has become his own master through the death of his father, is not void; for when a son disposes of his castrense peculium by will, he must be considered as the head of a household, and therefore it is certain that the will of a soldier or a veteran does not become void by his emancipation.

Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book X. If a soldier should make a will in accordance with the Civil Law, and appoint an heir in the first degree, which he is entitled to do under military law, and in the second degree should substitute someone as heir which he can do by the Common Law, and should die a year after his discharge, the first degree becomes invalid, and the will commences with the second.

Ad Dig. 34,7,4Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. III, § 638, Note 16.Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book X. It is well established that the Rule of Cato is not applicable to the conditional appointments of heirs.