- 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-lat1:5.4.10.pr
- Generated
- Humanitext Reader · reader.humanitext.ai · 2026-11-11
Discusses the liability when a son, unaware of the death of his father who was instituted as a partial heir, administers and disposes of the inheritance in his father's name. It answers that if the son later becomes his father's heir and disputes the inheritance, he can be sued as a possessor of the right.
[PAPINIANUS libro sexto quaestionum.]
[PAPINIANUS, in the sixth book of his Questions.]
Cum heredis ex parte instituti filius, qui patrem suum ignorabat uiuo testatore1 decessisse, partem hereditatis nomine patris ut absentis administrauerit et pecunias distractis rebus acceperit, hereditas ab eo peti non potest, quia neque pro herede neque pro possessore pretia possidet, sed ut filius patris negotium curauit. negotiorum autem gestorum actio ceteris coheredibus, ad quos portio defuncti pertinet, dabitur. illud enim utique non est metuendum, ne etiam patris, a quo forte exheredatus est, teneatur heredibus, quasi negotia hereditaria gesserit, cum id quod administrauit non fuerit paternae hereditatis. nam etsi negotiorum gestorum actio sit ei, cuius nomine perceptum est: ei cuius nomine perceptum est perceptum alieno nomine restitui aequum est.2 sed in proposito neque patris negotia fuerunt, qui esse desierat, neque paternae successionis, quae fuerunt alterius hereditatis. quod si filius iste patri suo heres extitit et mouet controuersiam, quod pater eius, postquam heres extitit, mortem obierit, ille tractatus incurrit, an ipse sibi causam possessionis mutare3 uideatur. quoniam tamen qui negotia hereditaria gessit et debitor esse coepit, postea faciens controuersiam hereditatis ut iuris possessor conuenitur, idem etiam in hoc filio respondendum erit.
When the son of a person instituted as heir to a share, who was ignorant that his father had died during the lifetime of the testator, administered a part of the inheritance in the name of his father as if he were absent, and received money from the sale of the things, the inheritance cannot be claimed from him, because he does not possess the prices either as heir or as possessor, but has managed the business as a son of his father. However, an action for business management will be granted to the other co-heirs, to whom the share of the deceased belongs. For indeed, there is no need to fear that he might be held liable to the heirs of his father, by whom he might perhaps have been disinherited, as if he had managed the affairs of the inheritance, since what he administered did not belong to his father’s inheritance. For although an action for business management belongs to the person in whose name something was received, it is equitable that what was received in another’s name be restored to the person in whose name it was received. But in the case proposed, they were neither the business of the father, who had ceased to exist, nor of the father’s succession, which were affairs of another inheritance. But if this son became the heir to his father and raises a controversy, on the ground that his father died after he became the heir, the discussion arises whether he seems to change the cause of possession for himself. Since, however, one who has managed the affairs of an inheritance and begun to be a debtor, and afterwards raises a dispute over the inheritance, is sued as a possessor of the right, the same must be answered also in the case of this son.
- 5.4.10.pruiuo testatore
An ablative absolute construction consisting of a noun and an adjective, meaning "while the testator was still living." It describes the chronological circumstance showing that the father (the intended heir) had died before the testator, which would prevent him from becoming an heir.
- 5.4.10.prei cuius nomine perceptum est perceptum alieno nomine restitui aequum est
An accusative with infinitive construction introduced by the impersonal expression aequum est ("it is equitable"). The subject of the infinitive restitui is perceptum ("that which was received"), modified by alieno nomine ("in another's name"). ei is a dative depending on restitui, modified by the relative clause cuius nomine perceptum est. The structure is "it is equitable that what was received in another's name be restored to the person in whose name it was received."
- 5.4.10.prcausam possessionis mutare
This refers to the Roman law maxim that "no one can change the cause of his own possession for himself" (nemo sibi ipse causam possessionis mutare potest). Here, it points to the legal question (discussion, tractatus) of whether the son, who initially held possession on behalf of his father (detention/alien possession), is deemed to have changed his possession to autonomous possession (civil possession) by later claiming to be the heir himself.