- 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-lat1:5.3.20.pr-5.3.20.8
- Generated
- Humanitext Reader · reader.humanitext.ai · 2026-11-11
Ulpian discusses the criteria under which items acquired for the inheritance and subsequent additions come into the inheritance petition, and then quotes the text of the famous Senatus Consultum Juventianum concerning the liabilities of good and bad faith possessors to initiate his detailed interpretation.
[ULPIANUS libro quinto decimo ad edictum.]
[ULPIANUS in the fifteenth book on the Edict]
Item ueniunt in hereditatem etiam ea, quae hereditatis causa comparata sunt, ut puta mancipia pecoraque et si qua alia, quae necessario hereditati sunt comparata. et si quidem pecunia hereditaria sint comparata, sine dubio uenient: si uero non pecunia hereditaria, uidendum erit: et puto etiam haec uenire, si magna utilitas hereditatis uersetur, pretium scilicet restituturo herede.1
Likewise, those things which have been acquired for the sake of the inheritance also come into the inheritance, such as, for example, slaves and cattle, and any other things which were necessarily acquired for the inheritance. And if indeed they were acquired with hereditary money, they will come without doubt; but if not with hereditary money, it must be considered; and I think these also come, if a great benefit to the inheritance is involved, on condition, of course, that the heir will restore the price.
Sed non omnia, quae ex hereditaria pecunia comparata sunt, in hereditatis petitionem ueniunt. denique scribit Iulianus libro sexto digestorum, si possessor ex pecunia hereditaria hominem emerit et ab eo petatur hereditas, ita uenire in hereditatis petitionem, si hereditatis interfuit eum emi:2 at si sui causa emit, pretium uenire.
But not all things which have been acquired from hereditary money come into the petition for inheritance. For Julian writes in the sixth book of his Digests that if a possessor has bought a slave with hereditary money and the inheritance is claimed from him, the slave comes into the petition for inheritance only if it was to the interest of the inheritance that he be bought; but if he bought him for his own sake, the price comes.
Simili modo et si fundum hereditarium distraxerit, si quidem sine causa, et ipsum fundum et fructus in hereditatis petitionem uenire: quod si aeris exsoluendi gratia hereditarii3 id fecit, non amplius uenire quam pretium.
In like manner, also if he has sold a hereditary estate, if indeed without cause, both the estate itself and the fruits come into the petition for inheritance; but if he did this for the sake of paying off hereditary debt, nothing more than the price comes.
Item non solum ea quae mortis tempore fuerunt, sed si qua postea augmenta hereditati accesserunt, uenire in hereditatis petitionem: nam hereditas et augmentum recipit et deminutionem. sed ea, quae post aditam hereditatem accedunt, si quidem ex ipsa hereditate, puto hereditati accedere: si extrinsecus, non, quia personae possessoris accedunt. fructus autem omnes augent hereditatem, siue ante aditam siue post aditam hereditatem accesserint. sed et partus ancillarum sine dubio augent hereditatem.
Likewise, not only those things which existed at the time of death, but also any additions that accrued to the inheritance afterwards, come into the petition for inheritance; for an inheritance admits of both increase and decrease. But those things which accrue after the acceptance of the inheritance, if indeed from the inheritance itself, I think accrue to the inheritance; if from without, they do not, because they accrue to the person of the possessor. But all fruits increase the inheritance, whether they accrued before or after the acceptance of the inheritance. Moreover, the offspring of female slaves without doubt increase the inheritance.
Cum praediximus omnes hereditarias actiones in hereditatis petitionem uenire, quaeritur, utrum cum sua natura ueniant an contra. ut puta est quaedam actio, quae infitiatione crescit: utrum cum suo incremento an uero in simplum uenit, ut legis Aquiliae? et Iulianus libro sexto digestorum scribit simplum soluturum.
Since we have previously said that all hereditary actions come into the petition for inheritance, it is asked whether they come with their own nature or otherwise. For example, there is a certain action which increases by denial: does it come with its increment, or indeed for the single value, as under the Lex Aquilia? And Julian writes in the sixth book of his Digests that he will pay the single value.
Idem recte ait, si noxali iudicio condemnatus sit possessor defuncto, non posse eum dedentem noxae officio iudicis liberari: quia tamdiu quis habet noxae dedendae facultatem, quamdiu iudicati conueniatur, post susceptum iudicium non potest noxae dedendo se liberare: suscepit autem per petitionem hereditatis.
The same writer rightly says that if the possessor was condemned in a noxal action to the deceased, he cannot be freed by the office of the judge by surrendering for the damage; because one has the power of surrendering for the damage only so long as he is sued on the judgment; after undertaking the trial, he cannot free himself by surrendering for the damage; but he undertook it through the petition for inheritance.
Praeter haec multa repperimus tractata et de petitione hereditatis, de distractis rebus hereditariis, de dolo praeterito et de fructibus. de quibus cum forma senatus consulto sit data, optimum est ipsius senatus consulti interpretationem facere uerbis eius relatis. 'Pridie idus Martias Quintus Iulius Balbus et Publius Iuuentius Celsus Titius Aufidius Oenus Seuerianus consules uerba fecerunt de his, quae imperator Caesar Traiani Parthici filius diui Neruae nepos Hadrianus Augustus imperator maximusque princeps proposuit quinto nonas Martias quae proximae fuerunt libello complexus esset, quid fieri placeat, de qua re ita censuerunt.
Besides these things, we find many things discussed also concerning the petition for inheritance, concerning sold hereditary things, concerning past dolus, and concerning fruits. Concerning which, since a rule has been given by a senatusconsultum, it is best to make an interpretation of the senatusconsultum itself, having recited its words. ‘On the day before the Ides of March, the consuls Quintus Julius Balbus and Publius Juventius Celsus Titius Aufidius Hoenius Severianus made a report concerning those things which the Emperor Caesar, son of Trajanus Parthicus, grandson of the divine Nerva, Hadrianus Augustus, emperor and greatest prince, proposed on the fifth day before the Nones of March which were most recent, having embraced in a memorial what he pleased to be done, concerning which matter they resolved as follows.
Cum, antequam partes caducae ex bonis Rustici fisco peterentur, hi, qui se heredes esse existimant, hereditatem distraxerint, placere redactae ex pretio rerum uenditarum pecuniae usuras non esse exigendas idemque in similibus causis seruandum., Item placere, a quibus hereditas petita fuisset, si aduersus eos iudicatum esset, pretia, quae ad eos rerum ex hereditate uenditarum peruenissent, etsi eae ante petitam hereditatem deperissent deminutaeue fuissent, restituere debere.
When, before the lapsed portions from the goods of Rusticus were claimed by the treasury, those who think themselves to be heirs sold the inheritance, it is resolved that interest on the money realized from the price of the sold things is not to be demanded, and the same is to be observed in similar cases. Likewise, it is resolved that those from whom the inheritance had been claimed, if judgment was given against them, ought to restore the prices which came to them from the sold things of the inheritance, even if those things had perished or been deteriorated before the inheritance was claimed.
Item eos qui bona inuasissent, cum scirent ad se non pertinere, etiam si ante litem contestatam fecerint, quo minus possiderent,4 perinde condemnandos, quasi possiderent: eos autem, qui iustas causas habuissent, quare bona ad se pertinere existimassent, usque eo dumtaxat, quo locupletiores ex ea re facti essent.
Likewise, those who had seized the goods, knowing that they did not belong to them, even if before the joinder of issue they have acted so that they do not possess them, are to be condemned just as if they possessed them; but those who had just causes for thinking that the goods belonged to them, only to the extent that they have been made richer from that thing.
Petitam autem fisco hereditatem ex eo tempore existimandum esse, quo primum scierit quisque eam a se peti, id est cum primum aut denuntiatum esset ei aut litteris uel edicto euocatus esset. censuerunt'. aptanda est igitur nobis singulis uerbis senatus consulti congruens interpretatio.
And an inheritance is to be considered as claimed by the treasury from that time when each person first knew that it was claimed from him, that is, when it was first either notified to him, or he was summoned by a letter or an edict. They resolved.’ Therefore, a suitable interpretation must be adapted by us to each of the words of the senatusconsultum.
Ait senatus: 'cum antequam partes caducae fisco peterentur'. hoc euenerat, ut partes caducae fisco peterentur: sed et si ex asse fiat, senatus consultum locum habebit: idem, et si uacantia bona fisco uindicentur uel si ex alia quacumque causa bona ad eum peruenerunt, senatus consultum hoc locum habebit:
The senate says: ‘When, before the lapsed portions were claimed by the treasury.’ This had occurred, namely, that lapsed portions were claimed by the treasury; but even if it is done in respect of the whole inheritance, the senatusconsultum will apply; the same, also if vacant goods are claimed by the treasury, or if from any other cause whatsoever the goods have come to it, this senatusconsultum will apply;
et si ciuitati peteretur.
and if it were claimed for a city.
- 5.3.20.prpretium scilicet restituturo herede
An ablative absolute containing the future active participle restituturo, expressing a conditional sense: "on condition, of course, that the heir will restore the price."
- 5.3.20.1si hereditatis interfuit eum emi
The impersonal verb interest (perfect tense interfuit) takes the genitive of the entity concerned (hereditatis) and an accusative with infinitive clause (eum emi, "that he be bought") as its subject.
- 5.3.20.2aeris exsoluendi gratia... hereditarii
A gerundive construction (aeris... exsoluendi) depending on gratia ("for the sake of"). The phrase aes hereditarium (literally "hereditary bronze") is a legal idiom for "hereditary debt" (analogous to aes alienum).
- 5.3.20.6cfecerint, quo minus possiderent
The construction facere followed by quo minus and the subjunctive (possiderent), meaning "to act so as not to..." or "to prevent from...". Here it refers to fraudulently parting with possession before the joinder of issue.