Ad Massurium Sabinum libri
Ex libro XXI
Dig. 30,34Ulpianus libro vicesimo primo ad Sabinum. Plane ubi transferre voluit legatum in novissimum, priori non debebitur, tametsi novissimus talis sit, in cuius persona legatum non constitit. at si coniuncti disiunctive commixti sint, coniuncti unius personae potestate funguntur. 1Si eadem res saepius legetur in eodem testamento, amplius quam semel peti non potest sufficitque vel rem consequi vel rei aestimationem. 2Sed si duorum testamentis mihi eadem res legata sit, bis petere potero, ut ex altero testamento rem consequar, ex altero aestimationem. 3Sed si non corpus sit legatum, sed quantitas eadem in eodem testamento saepius, divus Pius rescripsit tunc saepius praestandam summam, si evidentissimis probationibus ostendatur testatorem multiplicasse legatum voluisse: idemque et in fideicommisso constituit. eiusque rei ratio evidens est, quod eadem res saepius praestari non potest, eadem summa volente testatore multiplicari potest. 4Sed hoc ita erit accipiendum, si non certum corpus nummorum saepius sit relictum, ut puta centum, quae in arca habet, saepius legavit: tunc enim fundo legato esse comparandum credo. 5Sed si pondus auri vel argenti saepius sit relictum, Papinianus respondit magis summae legato comparandum, merito, quoniam non species certa relicta videatur. 6Proinde et si quid aliud est quod pondere numero mensura continetur saepius relictum, idem erit dicendum, id est saepius deberi, si hoc testator voluerit. 7Quod si rem emissem mihi legatam, usque ad pretium quod mihi abest competet mihi ex testamento actio. 8Et multo magis hoc dicendum est, si duobus testamentis mihi eadem res legata sit, sed alter me restituere rogaverit vel ipsam rem vel aliud pro ea, aut si sub condicione legasset dandi quid pro ea: nam hactenus mihi abesse res videtur, quatenus sum praestaturus. 9Si coniunctim res legetur, constat partes ab initio fieri. nec solum hi partem faciunt, in quorum persona constitit legatum, verum hi quoque, in quorum persona non constitit legatum, ut puta si Titio et servo proprio sine libertate. 10Sed si in pupillari testamento alii eandem legaverit, quam mihi in suo testamento legavit, Iulianus scribit concursu partes nos habere: interim igitur partem habebit is, cui in suo testamento legavit. 11Si duobus sit legata, quorum alter heres institutus sit, a semet ipso ei legatum inutiliter videtur, ideoque quod ei a se legatum est ad collegatarium pertinebit. 12Inde dicitur, si duo sint heredes, unus ex uncia, alter ex undecim unciis, et eis fundus legatus sit, unciarium heredem undecim partes in fundo habiturum, coheredem unciam. 13Plane si alter ex legatariis heres extiterit heredi, a quo legatum erat relictum, non ideo minus partem collegatario faciet: retinet enim pro parte legatum. 14Si ita Titio legetur: ‘fundum Seianum vel usum fructum eius sibi habeto’, duo esse legata et arbitrio eius esse, an velit usum fructum vindicare. 15Sed et si quis ita leget Titio: ‘fundum do lego, ut eum pro parte habeat’, mihi videtur posse dici partem habiturum: videri enim fundi appellatione non totum fundum, sed partem appellasse: nam et pars fundi fundus recte appellatur.
Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXI. It is evident that where the testator intended to transfer the legacy to another party, it will not be due to the first one named, even if the last mentioned is not capable of receiving it. If, however, the legatees were joint, or, being originally several, have afterwards been united, all of them together are classed as one and the same person. 1Where the same property is bequeathed several times by the game will, it cannot be claimed more than once; and it is sufficient if the property itself, or the value of the same, is acquired. 2Where the same property is bequeathed to me by the wills of two persons, I can demand it twice, and obtain the property by virtue of one of the wills, and the estimated value of the same by virtue of the other. 3Where no certain article is bequeathed, but a specified sum is mentioned several times in the same will, the Divine Pius stated in a Rescript that the heir must pay the said sum several times, if it is established by perfectly conclusive evidence that the testator intended to multiply the legacy. The same rule has also been laid down by him with reference to a trust. The reason of this is evident, for as the identical thing cannot be delivered more than once, the same sum can be multiplied, if this should be the intention of the testator. 4This, however, ought only to be understood to be applicable where a certain amount of money should be left several times by the testator; as, for instance, a hundred aurei, which he has in his chest; for then I believe that it should be compared to the bequest of a tract of land. 5Where, however, a certain weight of gold or of silver has been left, Papinianus is of the opinion that it should rather be compared to the bequest of a sum of money, as no certain kind of property appears to have been bequeathed. 6Hence, if anything else which can be weighed, counted or measured has been left several times, it must be said that the same rule will apply; that is to say, it will be due several times, if such was the intention of the testator. 7If, however, I should purchase the property bequeathed to me, an action under the will will lie in my favor for the amount of the price which I have paid. 8And, with much more reason can this be said, where the same property is bequeathed to me by the wills of two different persons, but where one asked me to surrender the property itself to another, or something else in its stead; or where it was bequeathed under the condition of giving something in place of it; for I am considered to have been deprived of the property to the amount which I am compelled to Pay in order to obtain it. 9Where the property is bequeathed to several persons conjointly, it is settled that it is divided into shares from the beginning. The legatees have not only the right to a division in proportion to the number of persons to whom the legacy was left, but also those who are not entitled to it; as, for instance, where a bequest was made to Titius and to his slave, without granting the latter his freedom. 10Where a testator, by a will made while his son is under the age of puberty, bequeaths the same property to another which he had already left to me by will, Julianus says that the parties do not take the property concurrently. Therefore, in the meantime, he to whom the property has been bequeathed by the will of the father will be entitled to his share. 11Ad Dig. 30,34,11Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. III, § 627, Note 8.Where the same property is bequeathed to two persons, one of whom is appointed heir, if the latter is charged with the payment of part of the legacy to himself, it will be held to be, to this extent, invalid; and therefore, the share with which he was charged in his own favor will belong to his co-legatees. 12Ad Dig. 30,34,12Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. III, § 627, Note 8.Hence, it must be said that where there are two heirs, one of whom is appointed for one-twelfth, and the other for eleven-twelfths of the estate, and a tract of land is bequeathed to them; one of the heirs will be entitled to eleven-twelfths of the land, and his co-heir to one-twelfth of the same. 13It is clear that if one of the legatees becomes the heir of the party charged with the payment of the legacy, this will render his coheir none the less entitled to half of it, for he will retain his share of the legacy in the same proportion. 14If a bequest is made to Titius in the following terms: “Let him have the Seian Estate, or the usufruct of the same for himself,” there are two legacies, and it is at the option of the legatee whether or not he will only claim the usufruct. 15Where anyone makes a bequest as follows: “I do give and bequeath to Titius a certain tract of land, which he can have for his share,” it seems to me that it can be said that he will be entitled to half of it; for it is held that by the mention of the land he did not refer to the entire tract, but to a part of the same, for a part is also properly designated a tract.
Dig. 30,37Ulpianus libro vicesimo primo ad Sabinum. Legato generaliter relicto, veluti hominis, Gaius Cassius scribit id esse observandum, ne optimus vel pessimus accipiatur: quae sententia rescripto imperatoris nostri et divi Severi iuvatur, qui rescripserunt homine legato actorem non posse eligi. 1Si de certo fundo sensit testator nec appareat de quo cogitavit, electio heredis erit, quem velit dare: aut si appareat, ipse fundus vindicabitur. sed et si lancem legaverit nec appareat quam, aeque electio est heredis, quam velit dare.
Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXI. Where property has been bequeathed in general terms, as, for example, a slave, Gaius Cassius says that care should be taken that neither the best nor the worst slave should be received by the legatee. This opinion is confirmed by a Rescript of our Emperor and the Divine Severus, who decreed that where a slave was bequeathed, the one who transacted the business of his master could not be selected. 1Where a testator had in mind a certain tract of land, and it is not apparent what his intention was with reference to it, the heir shall have the choice to give the tract which he prefers; or if the intention of the testator is clear, the tract itself can be claimed by the legatee. Again, if he bequeathed a piece of silver plate, and it is not clear which one he meant, the heir will also have the choice to give the one that he wishes.
Dig. 30,39Ulpianus libro vicesimo primo ad Sabinum. Cum servus legatus in fuga esset vel longinquo absens exigatur, operam praestare heres debet, ut eam rem requirat et praestet, et ita Iulianus scribit. nam et sumptum an in hanc rem facere heres deberet, Africanus libro vicesimo epistularum apud Iulianum quaerit putatque sumptum praestandum, quod et ego arbitror sequendum. 1Fructus autem hi deducuntur in petitionem, non quos heres percepit, sed quos legatarius percipere potuit: et id in operis servorum vel vecturis iumentorum vel naulis navium dicendum. quod in fructibus dicitur, hoc et in pensionibus urbanorum aedificiorum intellegendum erit. in usurarum autem quantitate mos regionis erit sequendus: iudex igitur usurarum modum aestimabit et statuet. ipsius quoque rei interitum post moram debet, sicut in stipulatione, si post moram res interierit, aestimatio eius praestatur. item partus ancillarum et, si servus fuerit legatus, et hereditas vel legatum vel quid per eum adquisitum sit heres praestare debet. 2Si Titius a me rem emisset et eandem mihi legasset antequam ei traderem, mox ei tradidero et pretium recepero, videtur quidem is prima facie rem mihi meam legasse et ideo legatum non consistere. sed ex empto actione liberatus utique per legatum rem vindicare potero quam tradidi. sed si nondum erat solutum mihi pretium, Iulianus scribit ex vendito quidem me acturum, ut pretium exsequar, ex testamento vero, ut rem quam vendidi et tradidi recipiam. idem subiungit, si pretium quidem mihi erat solutum, rem autem nondum tradideram, ex testamento me agentem liberationem consequi. 3Idem Iulianus scribit, si fundum testator, quem ab alio emerat, mihi legavit, heredem cogendum mihi actionem ex empto praestare, scilicet si nondum res tradita fuerit vel defuncto vel heredi. 4Si quis alicui legaverit licere lapidem caedere, quaesitum est, an etiam ad heredem hoc legatum transeat. et Marcellus negat ad heredem transmitti, nisi nomen heredis adiectum legato fuerit. 5Heres cogitur legati praedii solvere vectigal praeteritum vel tributum vel solarium vel cloacarium vel pro aquae forma. 6Scio ex facto tractatum, cum quidam duos fundos eiusdem nominis habens legasset fundum Cornelianum et esset alter pretii maioris, alter minoris et heres diceret minorem legatum, legatarius maiorem: volgo fatebitur utique minorem eum legasse, si maiorem non potuerit docere legatarius. 7Constat etiam res alienas legari posse, utique si parari possint, etiamsi difficilis earum paratio sit. 8Si vero Sallustianos hortos, qui sunt Augusti, vel fundum Albanum, qui principalibus usibus deservit, legaverit quis, furiosi est talia legata testamento adscribere, 9Item campum Martium aut forum Romanum vel aedem sacram legari non posse constat. 10Sed et ea praedia Caesaris, quae in formam patrimonii redacta sub procuratore patrimonii sunt, si legentur, nec aestimatio eorum debet praestari, quoniam commercium eorum nisi iussu principis non sit, cum distrahi non soleant.
Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXI. Where a slave who has been bequeathed is in flight, or is absent in a distant country, the heir must exert himself to recover the property and deliver it. This also was stated by Julianus, for Africanus states in the Twentieth of his Letters on Julianus that, if the heir is compelled to incur any expense in this matter, he thinks that he should do so; and I hold that his opinion should be adopted. 1The profits of the property should also be deducted in making the claim for the legacy, not only those, however, which the heir may have collected, but also such as the legatee could have collected; and this rule also applies not only to the labor of slaves, but also to the work of animals, as well as transportation by vessels. What has been stated with reference to profits must also be understood to apply to the rents of houses in cities. With respect to the rate of interest on money, the custom of the country must be followed, and therefore the court must make an estimate and fix the rate of interest. Moreover, if the heir is in default, he will also be liable for the destruction of the property, and its value must be paid; just as this is done in a stipulation where the property is lost after the party is in default. This rule also applies to the offspring of female slaves. Where a slave is bequeathed, the heir will be bound to surrender everything which he has acquired by means of said slave, whether it be an estate, a legacy, or anything else. 2If Titius should purchase property from me, and bequeath it to me before I deliver it to him, and then I deliver it and receive the price for the same; he is considered at first sight to have bequeathed it to me, and hence the legacy is void. But, as I am released from liability to an action on purchase, I can bring an action to recover the property which I delivered on the ground of its being a legacy. Still, if the price has not yet been paid to me, Julianus says that I am entitled to an action on sale to recover the price, and that, in addition, a suit under the will to recover the property which I sold and delivered will lie. He also adds that if the price had been paid to me, but I had not yet delivered the property, I would be free from liability on account of the right of action to which I would be entitled by virtue of the will. 3Julianus likewise stated that if the testator should devise to me a tract of land which he had purchased from someone else, the heir would be compelled to transfer to me the right of action to which he was entitled on account of the purchase; provided the property had not yet been delivered either to the deceased, or to his heir. 4Where anyone makes a bequest to another of the right to quarry stone on his premises, the question arises whether this legacy also passes to his heir. Marcellus denies that it does pass to his heir, unless the name of the latter was mentioned in the bequest. 5Ad Dig. 30,39,5Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 220, Note 6.The heir is compelled to pay any taxes or tributes assessed on the land which was bequeathed, for sun-dials or for sewers, or for the right to conduct water. 6I know that the following case has been discussed. A certain person, who had two tracts of land bearing the same name, bequeathed the Cornelian Estate, and of the two thus designated one was of greater value than the other. The heir claimed that the least valuable one was bequeathed, and the legatee asserted that it was the one of greater value which was intended. It is generally understood that the one of lesser value was bequeathed, if the legatee should not be able to prove that the more valuable one was meant by the testator. 7It is established that even property belonging to another can be bequeathed, provided it can be obtained, even if its acquirement should be difficult. 8If, however, anyone should bequeath the gardens of Sallust which belonged to Augustus, or the Alban Estate which is set apart for the use of the Imperial household, he would be considered insane for having made such a bequest in his will. 9It is also established that the Campus Martius, or the Roman Forum, or any sacred building cannot be devised. 10If, however, lands belonging to the Emperor, and forming part of the Imperial domain or under the superintendence of the Imperial Steward, are devised, their appraised value will not have to be paid by the heir, as any commercial disposal of them cannot take place, except by order of the Emperor, as they are not to be sold.
Dig. 30,41Idem libro vicesimo primo ad Sabinum. Cetera igitur praeter haec videamus. et quidem corpora legari omnia et iura et servitutes possunt. 1Sed ea quae aedibus iuncta sunt legari non possunt, quia haec legari non posse senatus censuit Aviola et Pansa consulibus. 2Tractari tamen poterit, si quando marmora vel columnae fuerint separatae ab aedibus, an legatum convalescat. et si quidem ab initio non constitit legatum, ex post facto non convalescet, quemadmodum nec res mea legata mihi, si post testamentum factum fuerit alienata, quia vires ab initio legatum non habuit. sed si sub condicione legetur, poterit legatum valere, si exsistentis condicionis tempore mea non sit vel aedibus iuncta non sit, secundum eos, qui et emi rem meam sub condicione et promitti mihi stipulanti et legari aiunt. purum igitur legatum Catoniana regula impediet, condicionale non, quia ad condicionalia Catoniana non pertinet. 3Item quaeri potest, si quis binas aedes habens alteras legaverit et ex alteris aliquid iunctum ei cui aedes legavit, an legatum valebit? movet quaestionem, quod ex senatus consulto et constitutionibus licet nobis ab aedibus nostris in alias aedes transferre possessoribus earum futuris, id est non distracturis: et ita imperator noster et divus Severus rescripserunt. numquid ergo et legari possit ei, cui aliam domum legem? sed negandum erit, quia cui legatum est non est possessor futurus. 4Si duobus domum legaverit Sempronianam et ex ea alteri eorum marmora ad exstructionem domus Seianae quam ei legaverat, non male agitabitur, an valeat, quia dominus est utriusque legatarius. et quid si quis domum deductis marmoribus legaverit, quae voluit heredem habere ad exstruendam domum, quam retinebat in hereditate? sed melius dicetur in utroque detractionem non valere: legatum tamen valebit, ut aestimatio eorum praestetur. 5Sed si quis ad opus rei publicae faciendum legavit, puto valere legatum: nam et Papinianus libro undecimo responsorum refert imperatorem nostrum et divum Severum constituisse eos, qui rei publicae ad opus promiserint, posse detrahere ex aedibus suis urbanis atque rusticis et id ad opus uti, quia hi quoque non promercii causa id haberent. sed videamus, utrum ei soli civitati legari possit, in cuius territorio est, an et de alia civitate in aliam transferre possit. et puto non esse permittendum, quamquam constitutum sit, ut de domu, quam aliquis habet, ei permittatur in domum alterius civitatis transferre. 6Hoc senatus consultum non tantum ad urbem, sed et ad alias civitates pertinet. 7Sed et divorum fratrum est rescriptum ad libellum Procliani et Epitynchani ob debitum publicum desiderantium ut sibi distrahere permittatur, quod eis ius distrahendi denegaverunt. 8Hoc senatus consultum non tantum ad aedes, sed et ad balinea vel aliud quod aedificium vel porticus sine aedibus vel tabernas vel popinas extenditur. 9Item hoc prohibetur haec legari, quod non alias praestari potest, quam ut aedibus detrahatur subducatur, id est marmora, vel columnae. idem et in tegulis et in tignis et ostiis senatus censuit: sed et in bibliothecis parietibus inhaerentibus. 10Sed si cancelli sint vel vela, legari poterunt, non tamen fistulae vel castelli. 11Sed automataria aut siquis canthari, per quos aquae saliunt, poterunt legari, maxime si impositicii sint. 12Quid ergo in statuis dicendum? si quidem inhaerent parietibus, non licebit, si vero alias exsistant, dubitari potest: verum mens senatus plenius accipienda est, ut si qua ibi fuerunt perpetua, quasi portio aedium distrahi non possint. 13Proinde dicendum est nec tabulas adfixas et parietibus adiunctas vel singula sigilla adaequata legari posse. 14Sed si paravit quaedam testator quasi translaturus in aliam domum et haec legavit, dubitari poterit, an valeat: et puto valere. 15Sed si ea quae legavit aedibus iunxit, extinctum erit legatum. 16Sed si heres ea iunxit, puto non exstingui,
The Same, On Sabinus, Book XXI. Now let us examine some other things in addition to what has been mentioned, and in fact all corporeal property, as well as rights and servitudes can be bequeathed. 1Property, however, which is joined to buildings cannot be disposed of by will, because the Senate, during the Consulship of Aviola and Pansa, decreed that this could not be done. 2Still, the question may be raised where pieces of marble or columns have been separated from buildings, whether the legacy does not become valid. And, indeed, if it was not valid from the beginning, it cannot become so subsequently, just as where property of mine was bequeathed to me and alienated after the will had been made, because the legacy had no force or effect in the beginning; but if it was bequeathed under a condition, the legacy can become valid, if, at the time when the condition was fulfilled, the property does not belong to me, or is no longer joined to the building; in accordance with the opinion of those who hold that I can purchase my own property under A condition, and that I can also promise it and bequeath it conditionally. Hence, the rule of Cato stands in the way of an absolute legacy left under such circumstances, but is not opposed to a conditional one; because it does not have reference to conditional bequests of this kind. 3It may also be asked whether the legacy will be valid where a party has two houses and devises one of them, and also leaves him to whom he devised the house something which was joined to the other. This question arises from the fact that we are permitted by the Decree Of the Senate and the Imperial Constitutions to transfer to one house property from another of which we are to remain in possession, that is to say, which is not to be sold. This Our Emperor and the Divine Severus stated in a Rescript. Therefore cannot I devise property attached to one house to the person to whom I have devised the other? This will be denied, for the reason that the party to whom the property is bequeathed will not be the future possessor of the same. 4Where a testator leaves the Sempronian House to two persons, and bequeaths to one of them the marble which is in it, for the erection of the Seian House, which he devised to him, it may not unreasonably be asked whether such a bequest will be valid, for the reason that the legatee is the owner of both houses. What would be the case if a person should devise a house, after excepting the marble which he wished the heir to have for the purpose of building another house which still remained a part of the estate. The better opinion may be said to be that the exception will be void in either instance, but the legacy will be valid, and the appraised value of the property must be paid. 5If, however, anyone bequeaths a legacy of this kind for the purpose of constructing some public work, I think that it will be valid; and Papinianus, in the Eleventh Book of Opinions, relates that our Emperor and the Divine Severus decided that those who promised to erect some public work can remove materials from their city and country houses, and use them with that design, because they do not remove them for commercial purposes. Let us, however, consider whether property can only be left to a city situated in the same territory, or whether it can be transferred elsewhere, to be used in some other city. I think that this should not be allowed, although it has been settled that materials can be taken from a house which a man owns and transported to another belonging to him in a different town. 6This Decree of the Senate has reference not only to Rome, but also to other cities. 7There is also a Rescript of the Divine Brothers extant which was issued in answer to a petition of Proclianus and Epitynchanus, which requested permission for the removal of property from their houses that they desired to sell for the purpose of discharging a public debt, and in which the right to sell said property was denied them. 8This Decree of the Senate applies to dwellings, as well as to baths and every other kind of buildings, such as porticoes, drinking houses, and restaurants. 9It is also forbidden by this decree to bequeath property which the legatee cannot deliver without detaching it from a building; that is to say, blocks of marble, or columns. The Senate decided that this also applied to tiles, to beams, and to doors, as well as to libraries attached to walls. 10If, however, the articles consist of lattices, or awnings, it can be bequeathed, but water mains and reservoirs are not included. 11Hydraulic machines, however, and pipes through which the water issues can be bequeathed, and especially if they are merely placed upon the real property. 12What then must be said with reference to statues? Where they are fastened to the walls it will not be lawful to remove them, but if they are separate, some doubt exists. The spirit of the Decree of the Senate must, however, be taken into consideration, and if the statues were placed in the house to remain there always, and as a portion of the same, they cannot be removed. 13Hence, it must be said that where pictures are attached to the walls, or small ornaments inserted into the latter, they cannot be bequeathed. 14Where, however, the testator had prepared certain ornaments for the purpose of removing them to another house, and bequeathed them, a doubt may arise as to whether the bequest is valid; and I think that it is. 15But when the testator fastens to his house the objects which he bequeathed, the legacy will be extinguished,
Dig. 30,43Idem libro vicesimo primo ad Sabinum. Senatus enim ea, quae non sunt aedium, legari permisit, haec autem mortis tempore aedium non fuerunt: heres ergo aestimationem praestabit. sed si detraxerit ut praestiterit, poenis erit locus, quamvis ut non vendat, detraxit, sed ut exsolvat. 1Marcellus etiam scribit, si maritus diaetam in uxoris hortis, quos in dotem acceperat, fecerit, posse eum haec detrahere, quae usui eius futura sint, sine mulieris tamen damno, nec ad hoc senatus consultum futurum impedimento. ergo si non est ei obfuturum, quo minus detrahat, dici oportebit posse eum haec legare, quae detrahere potest. 2Legatum in aliena voluntate poni potest, in heredis non potest. 3Qui ab hostibus redemptus est legari sibi poterit et proficiet legatum ad liberationem vinculi pignoris, quod in eo habuit qui redemit.
The Same, On Sabinus, Book XXI. The Senate, therefore, does not permit anything which is attached to a house to be separately bequeathed. But if any of these objects did not form part of the house at the time of the death of the testator, the heir must pay their appraised value. If he should detach them for the purpose of paying a legacy, he will be liable to the penalties prescribed, even though he removed them, not for the purpose of selling them, but in order to discharge his obligation. 1Marcellus also says that if a husband builds a summer-house in the garden of his wife, which he received by way of dowry, he can remove the same if he can make use of it himself, without, however, causing his wife any loss; and that the Decree of the Senate will offer no obstacle to his doing so. Therefore, if no injury is suffered by his wife, through the removal of the house, it must be held that he can dispose of it by will, since he can remove it. 2Ad Dig. 30,43,2Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 93, Note 5; Bd. III, § 633, Note 17.The bequest of a legacy can be made dependent upon the will of a third party, but not upon that of an heir. 3Where one person has ransomed another from the enemy, he can bequeath him to himself; and a legacy of this kind will cause his release from the obligation of the pledge which the party who ransomed him possessed.
Dig. 34,2,17Ulpianus libro vicesimo primo ad Sabinum. Si gemma ex anulo legetur vel aliae materiae iunctae vel emblemata, recte legantur et separantur et praestanda sunt.
Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXI. Where a jewel set in a ring, or any other ornaments or articles which are joined together are bequeathed, this is in accordance with law, and they should be separated and delivered to the legatee.
Dig. 34,3,1Ulpianus libro vicesimo primo ad Sabinum. Omnibus debitoribus ea quae debent recte legantur, licet domini eorum sint. 1Iulianus scripsit, si res pignori data legetur debitori a creditore, valere legatum habereque eum actionem, ut pignus recipiat, priusquam pecuniam solvat. sic autem loquitur Iulianus, quasi debitum non debeat lucrari: sed si alia testantis voluntas fuit, et ad hoc pervenietur exemplo luitionis.
Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book I. Obligations due from all kinds of debtors can be lawfully bequeathed to them, even though they may be the owners of said obligations. 1Julianus stated that if property which is pledged is bequeathed by a creditor to his debtor, the legacy will be valid, and the debtor will be entitled to an action to recover the pledge before he pays the money due. In this instance, Julianus seems to have had in his mind a case where the debtor would not profit by the transaction. Where, however, the intention of the testator was otherwise, he can be released from the obligation just as if he had paid the debt.
Dig. 36,2,9Idem libro vicensimo primo ad Sabinum. Si habitatio filio familias vel servo legata sit, puto non adquiri domino vel patri legatum, si ante aditam hereditatem filius vel servus decesserit: nam cum personae cohaereat, recte dicitur ante aditam hereditatem diem non cedere.
The Same, On Sabinus, Book XXI. Where a right of habitation is bequeathed to a son under paternal control, or to a slave, I do not think that the legacy will be acquired by the master or the father, if the son of the slave should die before the estate is accepted; for, as the legacy attaches to the person, it is very properly held that it does not take effect before the estate has been entered upon.
Dig. 45,3,4Idem libro vicensimo primo ad Sabinum. Si servus communis sibi et uni ex dominis stipuletur, perinde est, ac si omnibus dominis et uni ex his stipuletur, veluti Titio et Maevio, et Titio: et probabile est, ut Titio dodrans, Maevio quadrans debeatur.
The Same, On Sabinus, Book XXI. If a slave owned in common stipulates for himself and one of his masters, it is the same as if he stipulated for all his masters, and one of them; as, for example, if he stipulates for Titius and Mævius, and for Mævius, it may be held that three-fourths are due to Titius, and one-fourth to Mævius.
Dig. 50,4,2Ulpianus libro vicensimo primo ad Sabinum. Quod ad honores pertinet, creditur in potestate filium habere etiam is, qui in patris potestate est.
Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXI. If a son who is under the control of his father should himself have a son, he will be considered to be under his control, so far as municipal honors are concerned.
Dig. 50,17,16Ulpianus libro vicensimo primo ad Sabinum. Imaginaria venditio non est pretio accedente.
Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXI. A sale is not fictitious when the price is agreed upon.