[ULPIANUS libro uicensimo quinto ad edictum. ] §11.7.14.8Plerique filii cum parentes suos funerant, uel alii qui heredes fieri possunt, licet ex hoc ipso neque pro herede gestio neque aditio praesumitur, tamen ne uel miscuisse se necessarii uel ceteri pro herede gessisse uideantur, solent testari pietatis gratia facere se sepulturam.
When most sons bury their parents, or others who can become heirs do so, although neither management as heir nor entry on the inheritance is presumed from this very fact, nevertheless, lest the necessary heirs appear to have intermeddled or the others to have managed as heirs, they are accustomed to declare that they perform the burial out of affection.
quod si superuacuo fuerit factum, ad illud se munire uidentur, ne miscuisse se credantur, ad illud non, ut sumptum consequantur: quippe protestantur pietatis gratia id se facere.
But if this is done superfluously, they seem to secure themselves against the former, lest they be believed to have intermeddled, but not against the latter, so as to recover the expense; for indeed they protest that they do it out of affection.
plenius igitur eos testari oportet, ut et sumptum possint seruare.
Therefore, it is necessary for them to declare more fully, so that they may also be able to recover the expense.
§11.7.14.9Fortassis quis possit dicere interdum partem sumptus facti posse reciperari, ut quis pro parte quasi negotium gerens, pro parte pietatis gratia id faciat: quod est uerius: partem igitur sumptus consequetur, quem non donandi animo fecit.
Perhaps one might say that sometimes a part of the expense incurred can be recovered, so that a person does it partly as if managing business, and partly out of affection; which is nearer the truth. Therefore, he will recover that part of the expense which he did not incur with the intention of making a gift.
§11.7.14.10Iudicem, qui de ea aequitate cognoscit, interdum sumptum omnino non debere admittere modicum factum, si forte in contumeliam defuncti hominis locupletis modicus factus sit: nam non debet huius rationem habere, cum contumeliam defuncto fecisse uideatur ita eum funerando.
The judge, who inquires into that equity, sometimes ought not to allow even a moderate expense incurred, if perchance it was made in insult of a wealthy deceased person; for he ought not to take account of this, since he seems to have insulted the deceased by burying him in such a manner.
§11.7.14.11Si quis, dum se heredem putat, patrem familias funerauerit, funeraria actione uti non poterit, quia non hoc animo fecit, quasi alienum negotium gerens: et ita Trebatius et Proculus putat.
If anyone, while he thinks himself to be the heir, has buried a father of a family, he will not be able to use the funeral action, because he did not do this with the intention as if managing another's business; and so Trebatius and Proculus think.
puto tamen et ei ex causa dandam actionem funerariam.
I believe, however, that the funeral action should be granted to him as well, depending on the circumstances.
§11.7.14.12Labeo ait, quotiens quis aliam actionem habet de funeris impensa consequenda, funeraria eum agere non posse: et ideo si familiae erciscundae agere possit, funeraria non acturum: plane si iam familiae erciscundae iudicio actum sit, posse agi.
Labeo says that as often as anyone has another action to recover the funeral expense, he cannot sue by the funeral action; and therefore if he can sue by the action for partition of an inheritance, he will not sue by the funeral action; clearly, if a suit has already been brought in the action for partition of an inheritance, it is possible to sue by the funeral action.
§11.7.14.13Idem Labeo ait, si prohibente herede funeraueris testatorem, ex causa competere tibi funerariam: quid enim si filium testatoris heres eius prohibuit? huic contradici potest: 'ergo pietatis gratia funerasti'.
The same Labeo says that if you have buried the testator despite the prohibition of the heir, the funeral action is available to you depending on the circumstances; for what if the heir prohibited the son of the testator from being buried? To this it can be answered: 'therefore you buried him out of affection'.
sed pone me testatum: habiturum me funerariam actionem: de suo enim expedit mortuos funerari.
But suppose I have made a declaration; I will have the funeral action; for it is expedient that the dead be buried from their own property.
et quid si testator quidem funus mihi mandauit, heres prohibet, ego tamen nihilo minus funeraui? nonne aequum est mihi funerariam competere? et generaliter puto iudicem iustum non meram negotiorum gestorum actionem imitari, sed solutius aequitatem sequi, cum hoc ei et actionis natura indulget.
And what if the testator indeed entrusted the funeral to me, the heir prohibits it, but I nevertheless buried him? Is it not fair that the funeral action should be available to me? And generally, I think that a just judge does not merely imitate the action for unauthorized management of affairs, but follows equity more freely, since both the nature of the action and of the case allows this to him.
§11.7.14.14Diuus autem Marcus rescripsit eum heredem, qui prohibet funerari ab eo quem testator elegit, non recte facere: poenam tamen in eum statutam non esse.
Moreover, the Divine Marcus rescribed that that heir who prohibits a burial by the person whom the testator chose does not act rightly; however, no penalty has been established against him.
§11.7.14.15Qui mandatu alterius funerauit, non habet funerariam actionem, sed is scilicet, qui mandauit funerandum, siue soluit ei cui mandauit siue debet.
He who has buried by the mandate of another does not have the funeral action, but rather he who mandated the burial, whether he has paid the person whom he mandated or owes him.
quod si pupillus mandauit sine tutore auctore, utilem funerariam dandam aduersus heredem ei qui impendit: lucrari enim heredem iniquum est.
But if a ward mandated without the authority of his tutor, an equitable funeral action should be granted against the heir to the one who incurred the expense; for it is unjust that the heir should profit.
si autem pupillus funus ad se pertinens sine tutoris auctoritate mandauit, dandam in eum actionem arbitror, si et heres extitit ei qui funeratus est soluendoque hereditas est.
If, however, a ward mandated a funeral belonging to himself without the authority of his tutor, I think that the action should be granted against him, if he also stood as heir to the person buried and the inheritance is solvent.
contra si quis mandatu heredis funerauit, non posse eum funeraria agere Labeo scribit, quia habet mandati actionem.
On the contrary, Labeo writes that if anyone buried by the mandate of the heir, he cannot sue by the funeral action, because he has the action on mandate.
§11.7.14.16Si tamen quasi negotium heredis gerens funerauit, licet ratum non habeat, tamen funeraria eum agere posse Labeo scribit.
However, Labeo writes that if he buried as if managing the business of the heir, even though the heir does not ratify it, he can nevertheless sue by the funeral action.
§11.7.14.17Datur autem haec actio aduersus eos ad quos funus pertinet, ut puta aduersus heredem bonorumue possessorem ceterosque successores.
Moreover, this action is given against those to whom the funeral belongs, as, for example, against the heir, the possessor of goods, and other successors.