[ULPIANUS libro secundo disputationum. ] §10.2.49.prQui erat heres ex parte institutus, testatorem iussus a praetore sepelire seruum, cui erat testamento data libertas, ideo distraxit duplamque promissit et ex ea cautione conuentus praestitit: quaesitum est, an familiae erciscundae iudicio consequatur, quod ex duplae stipulatione abest.
[ULPIANUS, from the second book of disputations.] A person who had been appointed heir to a share, being ordered by the praetor to bury the testator, for that purpose sold a slave who had been granted freedom by the will, and promised double the price, and, having been sued on that guarantee, paid it. The question arose whether he can recover through the action for the partition of an inheritance what he lost under the stipulation for double the price.
primo uideamus, an hic debuerit duplam cauere.
First, let us see whether he ought to have given security for double the price.
et mihi uidetur non debuisse: hi enim demum ad duplae cautionem compelluntur, qui sponte sua distrahunt: ceterum si officio distrahentis fungitur, non debet adstringi, non magis quam si quis ad exsequendam sententiam a praetore datus distrahat: nam et hic in ea condicione est, ne cogatur implere quod coguntur hi qui suo arbitrio distrahunt: nam inter officium suscipientis et uoluntatem distrahentis multum interest.
And it seems to me that he ought not to have done so; for only those who sell of their own free will are compelled to provide security for double the price. But if he is discharging the duty of a seller, he ought not to be bound, any more than someone who sells being appointed by the praetor to execute a judgment. For he too is in such a position that he is not forced to perform what those who sell of their own choice are forced to perform; for there is a great difference between the duty of one who undertakes an obligation and the free will of a seller.
quapropter re quidem integra stipulationem duplae interponere non debuit, sed decernere praetor debet esse emptori aduersus heredem existentem actionem ex empto, si res distracta fuisset euicta.
Therefore, while the matter was still intact, he ought not to have entered into the stipulation for double the price, but the praetor ought to decree that the buyer should have an action on purchase against the existing heir if the property sold were evicted.
si autem heres errauit et cauit et seruus perueniat ad libertatem, stipulatio committetur: quae si fuerit commissa, aequum erit utilem actionem ei aduersus coheredem dari deficiente directo iudicio familiae erciscundae, ne in damno moretur.
If, however, the heir made a mistake and gave security, and the slave attains freedom, the stipulation will be committed. If it has been committed, it will be equitable that a beneficial action be granted to him against his co-heir, in the absence of a direct action for the partition of an inheritance, so that he may not remain in loss.
nam ut familiae erciscundae iudicio agere quis possit, non tantum heredem esse oportet, uerum ex ea causa agere uel conueniri, quam gessit quodque admisit, posteaquam heres effectus sit: ceterum cessat familiae erciscundae actio.
For in order that anyone can bring an action for the partition of an inheritance, it is necessary not only that he be an heir, but also that he bring the action or be sued on account of some transaction which he conducted or some act which he admitted after he became heir; otherwise, the action for the partition of an inheritance does not apply.
et ideo si ante, quam quis sciret se heredem esse, in hereditate aliquid gesserit, familiae erciscundae iudicio non erit locus, quia non animo heredis gessisse uidetur.
And therefore, if before anyone knew that he was an heir, he did anything in the inheritance, there will be no place for the action for the partition of an inheritance, because he is not deemed to have acted with the intention of an heir.
quare qui ante aditam hereditatem quid gessit, ueluti si testatorem sepeliuit, familiae erciscundae iudicium non habet: sed si post aditam hereditatem id fecit, consequenter dicemus familiae erciscundae iudicio consequi eum posse sumptum quem fecit in funus.
Wherefore, he who did anything before accepting the inheritance, for example, if he buried the testator, does not have the action for the partition of an inheritance; but if he did so after accepting the inheritance, we shall consequently say that he can recover through the action for the partition of an inheritance the expense which he incurred for the funeral.