[ULPIANUS libro uicensimo secundo ad edictum. ] §11.1.9.prSi sine interrogatione quis responderit se heredem, pro interrogato habetur.
[ULPIANUS, from the twenty-second book on the Edict.] If anyone, without interrogation, answers that he is the heir, he is treated as having been interrogated.
§11.1.9.1Interrogatum non solum a praetore accipere debemus, sed et ab aduersario.
We must understand "interrogation" as coming not only from the praetor, but also from the adversary.
§11.1.9.2Sed si seruus interrogetur, nulla erit interrogatio, non magis quam si seruus interroget.
But if a slave is interrogated, there will be no interrogation, no more than if a slave interrogates.
§11.1.9.3Alius pro alio non debet respondere cogi, an heres sit: de se enim debet quis in iudicio interrogari, hoc est cum ipse conuenitur.
One person ought not to be compelled to answer for another as to whether he is the heir; for everyone ought to be interrogated in court concerning himself, that is, when he himself is sued.
§11.1.9.4Celsus libro quinto digestorum scribit: si defensor in iudicio interrogatus, an is quem defendit heres uel quota ex parte sit, falso responderit, ipse quidem defensor aduersario tenebitur, ipsi autem quem defendit nullum facit praeiudicium.
Celsus writes in the fifth book of his Digests: if a defender, interrogated in court whether the person whom he defends is the heir or for what share, answers falsely, the defender himself indeed will be liable to the opponent, but he does no prejudice to the person whom he defends.
ueram itaque esse Celsi sententiam dubium non est.
Therefore, there is no doubt that Celsus' opinion is true.
an ergo non uideatur defendere, si non responderit, uidendum: quod utique consequens erit dicere, quia non plene defendit.
We must therefore consider whether he does not seem to defend if he does not answer; which indeed it will be consistent to say, because he does not fully defend.
§11.1.9.5Qui interrogatus heredem se responderit nec adiecerit ex qua parte, ex asse respondisse dicendum est, nisi forte ita interrogatur, an ex dimidia parte heres sit, et responderit 'heres sum': hic enim magis eum puto ad interrogatum respondisse.
He who, having been interrogated, answers that he is the heir and does not add for what share, must be said to have answered for the whole estate, unless perchance he is interrogated in this way, whether he is the heir for a half share, and he answers "I am the heir"; for in this case I think rather that he answered to the question.
§11.1.9.6Illud quaeritur, an quis cogatur respondere, utrum ex testamento heres sit, et utrum suo nomine ei quaesita sit hereditas an per eos quos suo iuri subiectos habet uel per eum cui heres extitit.
The question is asked whether anyone is compelled to answer whether he is heir under a will, and whether the inheritance was acquired by him in his own name, or through those whom he has subject to his power, or through him to whom he has succeeded as heir.
summatim igitur praetor cognoscere debebit, cum quaeratur, an quis respondere debeat quo iure heres sit, ut, si ualde interesse compererit, plenius responderi iubeat.
Therefore, the praetor will have to investigate summarily, when the question is whether anyone ought to answer by what right he is heir, so that, if he finds it to be of great importance, he may order a fuller answer to be made.
quae optinere debent non solum in heredibus, sed etiam in honorariis successoribus.
These rules ought to hold not only in the case of heirs, but also in the case of honorary successors.
§11.1.9.7Denique Iulianus scribit eum quoque, cui est hereditas restituta, debere in iure interrogatum respondere, an ei hereditas sit restituta.
Finally, Julian writes that he also, to whom an inheritance has been restored, must, when interrogated in court, answer whether the inheritance has been restored to him.
§11.1.9.8Si de peculio agatur, non oportere responderi a patre uel domino, an in potestate habeat filium uel seruum, quia hoc solum quaeritur, an peculium apud eum cum quo agitur est.
If an action is brought concerning a peculium, the father or owner ought not to be required to answer whether he has the son or slave in his power, because this alone is investigated, whether the peculium is in the possession of him against whom the action is brought.