- 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-lat1:5.3.5.pr-5.3.5.2
- Generated
- Humanitext Reader · reader.humanitext.ai · 2026-11-11
Ulpian explains the rescript of Antoninus Pius prohibiting the disposal of disputed inheritance before litigation along with the praetor's exceptions (such as funerals and pledges), and outlines Hadrian's rule on suspending inheritance petitions during forgery trials, emphasizing the overriding authority of inheritance lawsuits.
[ULPIANUS libro quarto decimo ad edictum.]
[ULPIANUS in the fourteenth book on the Edict.]
Diuus Pius rescripsit prohibendum possessorem1 hereditatis, de qua controuersia erit, antequam lis inchoaretur, aliquid ex ea distrahere: nisi maluerit pro omni quantitate hereditatis uel rerum eius restitutione satisdare. causa autem cognita, etsi non talis data sit satisdatio, sed solita cautio, etiam post litem coeptam deminutionem se concessurum praetor edixit, ne in totum deminutio impedita2 in aliquo etiam utilitates alias impediat. ut puta si ad funus sit aliquid necessarium: nam funeris gratia deminutionem permittit. item si futurum est, ut, nisi pecunia intra diem soluatur, pignus distrahatur. sed et propter familiae cibaria necessaria erit deminutio. sed et res tempore perituras permittere debet praetor distrahere.
The Divine Pius issued a rescript stating that the possessor of an inheritance about which there is a dispute must be prohibited from disposing of anything from it before the lawsuit is initiated, unless he prefers to give security for the entire value of the inheritance or for the restoration of its property. However, the praetor declared in his edict that, after an inquiry into the case, even if such security is not given but only the customary caution is provided, he will permit a reduction of the property even after the lawsuit has begun, lest a reduction completely prevented should also in some respect impede other utilities. As for example, if something is necessary for a funeral; for he permits a reduction for the sake of a funeral. Likewise, if it is to happen that, unless the money is paid within the day, the pledge will be sold. Furthermore, a reduction will be necessary because of the essential provisions for the household. Moreover, the praetor ought to permit the disposal of things that will perish with time.
Diuus Hadrianus Trebio Sergiano rescripsit, ut Aelius Asiaticus daret satis de hereditate quae ab eo petitur, et sic falsum dicat:3 hoc ideo, quia sustinetur hereditatis petitionis iudicium, donec falsi causa agatur.
The Divine Hadrian issued a rescript to Trebius Sergianus that Aelius Asiaticus should give security concerning the inheritance claimed from him, and then plead forgery; this is because the trial of the petition for inheritance is suspended until the case of forgery is conducted.
Eorum iudiciorum, quae de hereditatis petitione sunt, ea auctoritas est, ut nihil in praeiudicium eius iudicii fieri debeat.
The authority of those trials which concern the petition for inheritance is such that nothing ought to be done to the prejudice of that trial.
- 5.3.5.prprohibendum possessorem
In the indirect speech, esse is omitted after the gerundive prohibendum. The verb prohibere takes the construction 'to prohibit [someone, accusative] from doing [something, infinitive]', where possessorem is the accusative and distrahere is the infinitive indicating the prohibited action.
- 5.3.5.prne in totum deminutio impedita
impedita is a perfect passive participle modifying the subject deminutio, conveying a conditional or hypothetical sense ('if a reduction is completely prevented'). in totum adverbially modifies impedita to mean 'completely' or 'entirely'.
- 5.3.5.1daret satis... et sic falsum dicat
In the ut clause introduced by the historical perfect rescripsit, the first verb daret (imperfect subjunctive) follows the sequence of tenses, whereas the subsequent dicat (present subjunctive) shifts away from the sequence. This tense shift highlights the act of pleading forgery (falsum dicere) as a distinct, subsequent, and direct procedural action following the giving of security.