Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XIV. He who is released from paternal authority cannot afterwards be honorably subjected to it again, except by adoption.

Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XIV. Where a right of way is created through several different tracts of land, it is still a single road, just as the servitude is also single, hence the question arises: If I pass through one tract of land but not through another for such a time as is necessary for the servitude to be extinguished, do I retain the servitude? The better opinion is that it is entirely lost, or entirely retained; therefore if I did not make use of either tract at all, the whole servitude is lost; but if I make use of one, the entire servitude is preserved.

Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XIV. By the Law of the Twelve Tables, legal guardianships are granted to agnates and blood relatives, as well as to patrons, that is to say, to those persons who can be admitted to lawful inheritance. This rule has been established most wisely, in order that those who expect the succession may protect the property to prevent it from being wasted. 1It sometimes occurs that the expectation of the succession belongs to one person and the guardianship to another; as, for instance, where there is a female blood-relative of the guardian, for the inheritance, in fact, belongs to a female agnate, but a male agnate is entitled to the guardianship. The same rule applies in the case of freedmen, where there is a female patron and the son of a male patron, for the latter will obtain the guardianship, and the former the estate. This is also the case where there is a daughter of the patron and a grandson of the latter. 2Where a brother of the ward is in the hands of the enemy, the guardianship is not granted to an agnate of the next degree; and if the patron is in the hands of the enemy, the guardianship is not granted to the son of the latter, but a temporary appointment is made by the Prætor. 3Sometimes, also, guardianship is established without inheritance, and sometimes inheritance without guardianship; as, for instance, in the case of a party who conceals himself after he has been asked to manumit his slave, for the Divine Pius stated, as a general rule, in a Rescript to Aurelius Bassus, that a party would not be entitled to the right of patronage, in the following words: “It is clear that the reluctance of persons who wish to avoid the grant of freedom prescribed by a trust, shall be punished by not being permitted to acquire the right of patronage over him whom they do not wish to be free.” The same rule will apply where a freedman is assigned to the daughter of the patron, for the guardianship will remain with her brothers, as Marcellus states, and the lawful inheritance will belong to their sister.

Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XIV. By a decree of the Senate enacted in the time of the Emperor Claudius, during the Consulate of Velleius Rufus and Osterius Scapula, with reference to the assignment of freedmen, it was provided as follows: “Where anyone has two or more children born in lawful marriage, and has indicated to one of them that he wishes to assign to him or her a certain freedman or freedwoman, whom he designates, the said male or female child, after the death of the person who manumitted the said slave during his lifetime, or by his will, shall become the sole patron or patroness of the said freedman or freedwoman, just as if he or she had been liberated directly by said child. And if either of said children should die without issue, all the rights of the person who manumitted the slave shall pass to the other children, just as if he who manumitted him or her had made no special provision with reference to them.” 1Although the Decree of the Senate is expressed in language indicating the singular number, it is, nevertheless, certain that several freedmen can be assigned to several children as well as to one. 2A freedman who is in the hands of the enemy can also be assigned. 3Moreover, a patron can assign his freedman by any words whatsoever, or by a gesture, or by his will or codicil, or during his lifetime. 4He can also annul the assignment by the mere expression of his will. 5If, however, anyone should assign the freedman to his son, whom he had disinherited, the assignment will be valid, nor will the reproach of disinheritance prejudice the son, so far as the right of patronage is concerned. 6If the son should be disinherited after the assignment, the act of disinheritance does not always annul it, unless it was done with this intention. 7Where the child to whom the assignment was made declines to accept it, I think that the better opinion is the one stated by Marcellus, that is, that his brother shall be admitted to the right of patronage. 8Where one patron left one son, and another two, and the freedman is assigned to one of the two last, it should be considered into how many shares the estate of the freedman must be divided, whether into three, of which the one to whom the assignment is made will be entitled to two shares, that is to say, his own and that of his brother, or whether there ought to be two equal shares, as the other brother is excluded by the assignment. Julianus, in the Seventy-fifth Book, says that the better opinion is that the one who excludes his brother should have two-thirds of the estate. This opinion is correct so long as his brother is living, or can become the heir at law of the freedman; but if he should forfeit his civil rights the estate must be divided into two parts.

Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XV. The same rule will apply where a person who had a son and a grandson assigns the freedman to the grandson, for the latter will be admitted to the succession of the freedman, even if there is a son of another patron. This will occur during the lifetime of his uncle. But if his uncle should no longer be living, the assignment made to the grandson will be of no advantage to him, by diminishing the right of the son of the other patron. 1Moreover, it is certain that a freedman can be assigned to a grandson by his grandfather, and it is established that, in this instance, the grandson will take precedence over the son. 2Wherefore, it may be asked if the patron should have a son and a grandson, whether he can cause the Decree of the Senate to apply just as if he had both of them under his control. In this case, as it is settled that the assignment can be made to him who will again come under the control of his father, why should we not admit that they are both subject to the authority of the patron? 3Again, can a question arise as to whether the grandson, who is under the control of the father, can be admitted as heir at law of the freedman? And as there are many cases under which a child who is under paternal control can have a freedman, why should it not be conceded in this instance that a father can obtain the benefit of the lawful inheritance of the estate of the freedman through his son? This opinion is very properly adopted by Pomponius. Sons under paternal control also have freedmen; as, for example, where someone manumits a slave who forms part of his peculium castrense. 4I also think that the emancipated sons of a person to whom a freedman has been assigned are entitled to the benefit of the Decree of the Senate; not that they may be admitted as the heirs at law of the freedman, but that they may acquire what property they can. 5According to this, where a freedman dies after having been appointed heir, since emancipated sons cannot be admitted to the succession as heirs at law, let us see whether the son of the assignor, who remains under his control, can be admitted or not. I think that the emancipated children should be preferred by the Prætor under such circumstances. 6By the children of the person to whom the assignment is made we must understand not only his sons, but also his grandsons, and his granddaughters, and his other descendants. 7Where anyone assigns a freedman to two children, and one of them dies without issue, and the other does not:

Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XIV. Shall the share of him who has lost his civil rights, or rejected the estate, revert to the family, or will it rather accrue to him in whose person the assignment continues to exist? Julianus, in the Seventy-fifth Book, says that the assignment will only become operative with respect to the person of the latter, and that he alone should be admitted to the succession; which is correct. 1But what if one of the children should die, leaving issue, can the latter be admitted to the succession, if the other child is living? Julianus thinks that he alone should be admitted, but after his death the children of the other will succeed to the estate; and that the right over the freedman will not revert to the family. 2But if one of these two children leaves sons, and the other grandsons; shall they be admitted together to the succession of the freedman as heirs at law? I think that the regular order of descent should be preserved between them.

The Same, On Sabinus, Book XIV. When a freedman dies without making a will, it is certain that his estate first passes to his proper heirs, and, if there are none of these, then to his patron. 1We should understand a freedman to mean one whom any person has raised from servitude to the dignity of a Roman citizen, either voluntarily or through necessity, having been charged to manumit him, for his patron will also be admitted to the legal succession of the freedman. 2If anyone should manumit a dotal slave, he will be considered his patron, and will be entitled to his estate as the heir at law. 3It is clear that he whom I have purchased under the condition of manumitting him, even though he may obtain his freedom by the Constitution of the Divine Marcus, still (as is stated in the same Constitution) he will become my freedman, and his estate will pass to me as heir at law. 4Where a slave has deserved his freedom under the Decree of the Senate, for detecting the murder of his master, and the Prætor has assigned him to anyone to become his freedman, he will undoubtedly become such, and his estate will belong to his patron as his heir at law; but if the Prætor did not assign him to anyone, he will indeed become a Eoman citizen, but he will be the freedman of him of whom he was recently the slave, and the former will be admitted to his succession as his heir at law, unless he should be excluded from his estate as being unworthy to receive it. 5Anyone who compels his freed woman to swear that she will not marry unlawfully does not come within the terms of the Lex Ælia Sentia. If, however, he should compel his freedman to swear that he will not marry within a certain time, or marry anyone without the consent of her patron, or her fellow-freedwoman, or a female relative of his patron, it must be said that he will be liable under the Lex Ælia Sentia, and cannot be admitted, as the heir at law, to the freedman’s estate. 6If municipal magistrates should manumit a slave of either sex, and he or she should afterwards die intestate, he or she shall be admitted to the succession as heir at law. 7A soldier, by manumitting a slave constituting part of his peculium, will make him his freedman, and can be admitted to his estate as heir at law. 8It is perfectly evident that the Emperor can be admitted to the succession of the estates of his freedmen. 9It is also certain that an unborn child will be admitted, as heir at law, to an estate by a provision of the Twelve Tables, if he should afterwards be born; and hence the agnates next in succession to him, and over whom he has preference, must wait, in case he should be born. Hence, he shares with those who are in the same degree; for instance, where there is a brother of the deceased, and the unborn child; or a son of the paternal uncle, and the child who is yet unborn. 10Moreover, the question arose in what way a division should be made in this case, for the reason that several children might be born at a single birth. It was decided that if it was absolutely certain that the woman who alleged that she was pregnant was not in that condition, the child who was already born would be the heir to the entire estate, since he becomes the heir without his knowledge. Wherefore, if in the meantime he should die, he will transmit the estate unimpaired to his own heir. 11A child born after ten months is not admitted to the succession as heir at law. 12Hippocrates says, and the Divine Pius also stated in a Rescript addressed to the Pontiffs, that a child was considered to have been born within the time prescribed by law, and could not be held to have been conceived in slavery, if its mother had been manumitted before the one hundred and eighty-second day previous to delivery.

The Same, On Sabinus, Book XIV. For this reason, such bodies can claim the estates of their freedmen to which they are legally entitled.

The Same, On Sabinus, Book XIV. The execution of the penalty imposed upon a pregnant woman should be deferred until she brings forth her child. I, indeed, am well aware of the rule that torture must not be inflicted upon her as long as she is pregnant.