[ULPIANUS libro nono decimo ad edictum. ] §10.2.18.prHis consequenter Iulianus ait: si ex pluribus heredibus uni seruus sit generaliter per optionem legatus et heredes Stichum tabulas hereditarias interleuisse dicant uel corrupisse et propter hoc renuntiauerint, ne optaretur seruus, deinde optatus uindicetur, poterunt, si ab eis uindicetur, doli mali exceptione uti et de seruo quaestionem habere.
[ULPIAN, On the Edict, book 19] Consistent with this, Julian says: if a slave was bequeathed generally by option to one of several heirs, and the heirs allege that the slave Stichus tampered with or corrupted the tablets of the inheritance and for this reason registered their protest lest the slave be chosen, and then, having been chosen, the slave is claimed, they will be able, if he is claimed from them, to use the exception of fraud and to have an inquiry concerning the slave.
§10.2.18.1Sed an in familiae erciscundae iudicium de morte testatoris uel de morte uxoris liberorumque suorum habebunt quaestionem heredes, quaeritur: et rectissime Pomponius ait haec ad diuisionem rerum hereditariarum non pertinere.
But it is asked whether the heirs will have an inquiry concerning the death of the testator or the death of his wife and children in the trial for dividing a family inheritance: and Pomponius most correctly says that these matters do not pertain to the division of the inheritance assets.
§10.2.18.2Idem quaerit, si quis testamento cauerit, ut seruus exportandus ueneat, officio familiae erciscundae iudicis contineri, ut uoluntas defuncti non intercidat.
The same asks: if anyone provided in a will that a slave should be sold on condition of being exported, is it contained in the duty of the judge of family inheritance division that the will of the deceased should not fail?
sed et cum monumentum iussit testator fieri, familiae erciscundae agent, ut fiat.
But also, when the testator has ordered a monument to be made, they will sue under the action for dividing family inheritance so that it may be made.
idem tamen temptat, quia heredum interest, quos ius monumenti sequitur, praescriptis uerbis posse eos experiri, ut monumentum fiat.
The same writer, however, suggests that, because it is of interest to the heirs whom the right of the monument follows, they can proceed by an action in prescribed words to have the monument made.
§10.2.18.3Sumptuum, quos unus ex heredibus bona fide fecerit, usuras quoque consequi potest a coherede ex die morae secundum rescriptum imperatorum Seueri et Antonini.
Of the expenses which one of the heirs has incurred in good faith, he can also obtain interest from his co-heir from the day of default, according to the rescript of the Emperors Severus and Antoninus.
§10.2.18.4Celsus etiam illud eleganter adicit coheredem et si non soluit habere familiae erciscundae iudicium, ut cogatur coheres soluere, cum alias non sit liberaturus rem creditor, nisi in solidum ei satisfiat.
Celsus also elegantly adds this: that a co-heir, even if he has not paid, has the action for dividing family inheritance so that the co-heir may be compelled to pay, since otherwise the creditor is not going to release the thing unless satisfaction is made to him in full.
§10.2.18.5Si filius familias patri heres pro parte extitisset et a creditoribus peculiaribus conueniretur, cum paratus sit soluere id omne quod debetur, per doli exceptionem consequetur a creditoribus mandari sibi actiones: sed etiam familiae erciscundae iudicium cum coheredibus haberet.
If a son-in-power had stood as heir to his father for a share and was sued by the creditors of his peculium, since he is ready to pay all that is owed, he will obtain through the exception of fraud that the actions be assigned to him by the creditors; but he would also have the action for dividing family inheritance against the co-heirs.
§10.2.18.6Cum unus ex heredibus legatum exsoluit ei, qui missus fuerat in possessionem legatorum seruandorum causa, putat Papinianus, et uerum est, familiae erciscundae iudicium ei competere aduersus coheredes, quia non alias discederet legatarius a possessione, quam uice pignoris erat consecutus, quam si totum ei legatum fuisset exsolutum.
When one of the heirs has paid a legacy to him who had been put in possession for the sake of preserving legacies, Papinian thinks, and it is true, that the action for dividing family inheritance is available to him against the co-heirs, because the legatee would not otherwise depart from the possession, which he had obtained in place of a pledge, unless the legacy had been paid to him in full.
§10.2.18.7Sed et si quis Titio debitum soluerit, ne pignus ueniret, Neratius scribit familiae erciscundae iudicio eum posse experiri.
But also, if anyone has paid a debt to Titius lest a pledge be sold, Neratius writes that he can sue under the action for dividing family inheritance.