- Source
- Digesta Iustiniani Augusti. Mommsen, Theodor & Krueger, Paul, editors. Berlin: Weidmann, 1870.
- Translation
- AI-generated (gemini-3.5-flash) — machine translation; may contain errors
- Languages
- 日本語 · English · 简体中文 · 한국어
- CTS URN
- urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:5.2.12.pr-5.2.12.3
- Generated
- Humanitext Reader · reader.humanitext.ai · 2026-11-11
This passage outlines the criteria for when a disinherited son is deemed to have accepted a testament—such as through legacies left to himself or others, actions involving a slave, or the release of a co-debt—thereby barring his complaint of an inofficious testament, and when he is not barred.
[IDEM libro singulari de praescriptionibus.]
[THE SAME AUTHOR in his Single Book on Prescriptions.]
Nihil interest sibi relictum legatum filius exheredatus adgnouerit an filio seruoue relictum consecutus sit: utrubique enim praescriptione submouebitur. quin etiam si idem institutum seruum priusquam adire hereditatem iuberet1 manumiserit, ut ille suo arbitrio adeat hereditatem, idque fraudulento consilio fecerit, submouebitur ab actione.
It makes no difference whether a disinherited son has accepted a legacy left to himself, or has obtained one left to his son or slave; for in either case he will be barred by a prescription. Moreover, if the same person, before ordering him to enter upon the inheritance, manumits a slave who has been instituted heir, so that the slave may enter upon the inheritance of his own free will, and does this with fraudulent intent, he will be barred from the action.
Si a statulibero exheredatus pecuniam petere coeperit, uideri2 adgnouisse parentis iudicium.
If a disinherited person begins to demand money from a conditionally free slave, he is considered to have accepted the judgment of his parent.
Si cum filius ademptum legatum instituerit petere, summotus repetat inofficiosi querellam, praescriptione remouendus non est: quamuis enim agendo testamentum comprobauerit, tamen est aliquid, quod testatoris uitio reputetur, ut merito repellendus non sit.
If a son, having undertaken to demand a legacy that has been revoked, and being barred, should again bring a complaint of an inofficious testament, he is not to be excluded by a prescription; for although by bringing the action he has approved the testament, yet there is something which is attributed to the fault of the testator, so that he should not justly be repelled.
Filius testatoris, qui cum Titio eiusdem pecuniae reus fuerat, liberatione Titio legata per acceptilationem Titii liberatus3 ab actione inofficiosi non summouebitur.
A son of a testator, who was a co-debtor with Titius for the same sum of money, and who has been released by Titius’s formal release because a release was bequeathed to Titius, will not be barred from the action of an inofficious testament.
- 5.2.12.prpriusquam adire hereditatem iuberet
The imperfect subjunctive 'iuberet' in the 'priusquam' clause expresses a subjective intent or anticipation ('before he could order'). The subject is the disinherited son, referring to his ordering of the slave (who had been instituted as heir) to accept the inheritance.
- 5.2.12.1uideri
This is an accusative-with-infinitive construction (Aci) with an omitted accusative subject ('eum'), expressing a legal determination ('is deemed') in the jurist's opinion. A main verb like 'dicitur' or 'responsum est' is understood as omitted.
- 5.2.12.3liberatione Titio legata per acceptilationem Titii liberatus
This describes a scenario where a release of debt is bequeathed to Titius (a co-debtor), and through the subsequent formal verbal release ('acceptilatio') given to Titius, the son (the other co-debtor) is also reflexively released from the debt. Since the son did not personally receive the legacy, he is not deemed to have approved the testament, and thus his complaint is not barred.