- 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-lat1:5.3.47.pr
- Generated
- Humanitext Reader · reader.humanitext.ai · 2026-11-11
To the question of whether a person who failed in accusing a relative's will of forgery can still bring an action regarding a will not made according to law nor sealed, it is answered that the failure in the forgery suit does not bar this subsequent claim.
[IDEM libro octauo responsorum.]
[THE SAME in his eighth book of Opinions.]
Lucius Titius cum in falsi testamenti propinqui accusatione non optinuerit, quaero, an de non iure facto nec signato testamento querella illi competere possit. respondit non ideo repelli1 ab intentione non iure facti testamenti, quod2 in falsi accusatione non optinuerit.
As Lucius Titius did not prevail in his accusation of a forged will of his relative, I ask whether an action can be competent to him regarding a will that was not made according to law nor sealed. He replied that he is not for that reason repelled from his claim concerning a will not made according to law, because he did not prevail in the accusation of forgery.
- 5.3.47.prrepelli
In the accusative-with-infinitive (ACI) construction following the main verb respondit, the subject accusative of the present passive infinitive repelli is omitted. It must be understood by supplying the pronoun eum, referring back to Lucius Titius (or illi in the preceding indirect question).
- 5.3.47.prnon ideo ... quod
This construction expresses a restricted negation, meaning "not for the reason that... [therefore]...". In this context, it indicates that he is not barred (repelli) from asserting his claim that the will was not made according to law, simply because he did not prevail in the accusation of forgery (quod... non optinuerit).