[ULPIANUS libro uicensimo secundo ad edictum. ] §11.1.11.prDe aetate quoque interdum interrogatus respondere debebit.
[ULPIANUS, from the twenty-second book on the Edict.] On age also, a person who is interrogated will sometimes be obliged to answer.
§11.1.11.1Si quis, cum heres non esset, interrogatus responderit ex parte heredem esse, sic conuenietur, atque si ex ea parte heres esset: fides enim ei contra se habebitur.
If anyone, although he was not an heir, when interrogated, answers that he is an heir for a share, he shall be sued just as if he were an heir for that share; for faith shall be kept against him on his own word.
§11.1.11.2Qui ex quadrante heres uel omnino cum heres non esset responderit se heredem ex asse, in assem instituta actione conuenietur.
He who, being an heir for a quarter, or not being an heir at all, answers that he is an heir to the whole estate, shall be sued in an action brought for the whole.
§11.1.11.3Si, cum esset quis ex semisse heres, dixerit se ex quadrante, mendacii hanc poenam feret, quod in solidum conuenitur: non enim debuit mentiri, dum se minoris portionis heredem adseuerat.
If, when anyone was an heir for a half, he said he was for a quarter, he shall bear this penalty for his lie, that he is sued for the whole; for he ought not to have lied while asserting that he was an heir to a smaller portion.
interdum tamen iusta ratione potest opinari esse heredem ex minore parte: quid enim, si nescit sibi partem adcreuisse uel ex incerta parte fuit institutus? cur ei responsum noceat?
Sometimes, however, he can with just reason suppose that he is an heir for a smaller share; for what if he does not know that a share has accrued to him, or he was instituted for an uncertain share? Why should his answer prejudice him?
§11.1.11.4Qui tacuit quoque apud praetorem, in ea causa est, ut instituta actione in solidum conueniatur, quasi negauerit se heredem esse.
He also who kept silent before the praetor is in such a position that he is sued for the whole in an action brought against him, just as if he had denied that he was the heir.
nam qui omnino non respondit, contumax est: contumaciae autem poenam hanc ferre debet, ut in solidum conueniatur, quemadmodum si negasset, quia praetorem contemnere uidetur.
For he who did not answer at all is contumacious; and he ought to bear this penalty for his contumacy, to be sued for the whole, just as if he had denied, because he seems to contempt the praetor.
§11.1.11.5Quod autem ait praetor 'omnino non respondisse', posteriores sic exceperunt, ut omnino non respondisse uideatur, qui ad interrogatum non respondit, id est πρὸς ἔπος.
But as to what the praetor says, "not to have answered at all," subsequent jurists have construed it so that he who did not answer to the question, that is, to the point, is deemed not to have answered at all.
§11.1.11.6Si interrogatus quis, an ex asse heres esset, responderit ex parte, si ex dimidia esset, nihil ei nocere responsum: quae sententia humana est.
If anyone, when asked whether he was the heir to the whole estate, answered that he was so for a share, whereas he was for a half, his answer does not prejudice him; which opinion is humane.
§11.1.11.7Nihil interest, neget quis an taceat interrogatus an obscure respondeat, ut incertum dimittat interrogatorem.
It makes no difference whether a person, when interrogated, denies, or is silent, or answers obscurely so as to leave the interrogator in uncertainty.
§11.1.11.8Ex causa succurri ei, qui interrogatus respondit, non dubitamus: nam et si quis interrogatus, an patri heres esset, responderit, mox prolato testamento inuentus sit exheredatus, aequissimum est succurri ei: et ita Celsus scribit, hic quidem et alia ratione, quod ea quae postea emergunt auxilio indigent: quid enim si occultae tabulae et remotae postea prolatae sunt? cur noceat ei, qui id responderit, quod in praesentiarum uidebatur? idem dico et si qui heredem se responderit, mox falsum uel inofficiosum uel irritum testamentum fuerit pronuntiatum: non enim improbe respondit, sed scriptura ductus.
We do not doubt that, for a just cause, relief should be granted to one who has answered when interrogated. For even if someone, on being asked whether he was his father's heir, answered that he was, and soon after, a will having been produced, he was found to have been disinherited, it is most equitable that relief should be granted to him. And Celsus writes so, indeed in this case also for another reason, namely, because things which emerge later require relief. For what if a hidden and removed will was produced later? Why should it prejudice him who answered what seemed to be the case at present? I say the same even if someone answered that he was the heir, and soon after the will was declared forged, or inofficious, or void; for he did not answer wickedly, but was guided by the writing.
§11.1.11.9Qui interrogatus responderit, sic tenetur quasi ex contractu obligatus pro quo pulsabitur, dum ab aduersario interrogatur: sed et si a praetore fuerit interrogatus, nihil facit praetoris auctoritas, sed ipsius responsum siue mendacium.
He who, on being interrogated, answered, is bound just as if obligated by a contract, in respect of that for which he shall be sued while being interrogated by his adversary. But even if he was interrogated by the praetor, the authority of the praetor does nothing, but his own answer or lie does.
§11.1.11.10Qui iusto errore ductus negauerit se heredem, uenia dignus est.
He who, led by a just error, denied that he was the heir, is worthy of excuse.
§11.1.11.11Sed et si quis sine dolo malo, culpa tamen responderit, dicendum erit absolui eum debere, nisi culpa dolo proxima sit.
But even if anyone answered without malice, yet with negligence, it must be said that he ought to be acquitted, unless his negligence is very close to malice.
§11.1.11.12Celsus scribit licere responsi paenitere si nulla captio ex eius paenitentia sit: quod uerissimum mihi uidetur, maxime si quis postea plenius instructus quid faciat, instrumentis uel epistulis amicorum iuris sui edoctus.
Celsus writes that it is permitted to change one's mind about an answer, if no disadvantage arises from this change of mind; which seems to me most true, especially if someone, having later been more fully instructed as to what to do, has been informed of his rights by documents or letters from friends.