[ULPIANUS libro uicensimo nono ad edictum. ] §15.2.1.prPraetor ait: 'Post mortem eius qui in alterius potestate fuerit, posteaue quam is emancipatus manumissus alienatusue fuerit, dumtaxat de peculio et si quid dolo malo eius in cuius potestate est factum erit, quo minus peculii esset, in anno, quo primum de ea re experiundi potestas erit, iudicium dabo'.
[ULPIANUS in the twenty-ninth book on the edict.] The praetor says: 'After the death of him who was in the power of another, or after he has been emancipated, manumitted, or alienated, I will grant an action within a year from the time when there first is an opportunity of suing on that matter, but only concerning the peculium and if anything has been done by the malicious intent of him in whose power he was, whereby the peculium was diminished.' As long as a slave or a son is in power, the action concerning the peculium is perpetual; but after his death, or after he has been emancipated, manumitted, or alienated, it begins to be temporary, that is, for a year.
§15.2.1.1Quamdiu seruus uel filius in potestate est, de peculio actio perpetua est: post mortem autem eius uel postquam emancipatus manumissus alienatusue fuerit, temporaria esse incipit, id est annalis. §15.2.1.2Annus autem utilis computabitur: et ideo et si condicionalis sit obligatio, Iulianus scripsit ex eo computandum annum, non ex quo emancipatus est, sed ex quo peti potuit condicione exsistente.
Moreover, this year shall be computed as an available year (annus utilis); and therefore, even if the obligation is conditional, Julian writes that the year is to be computed not from the time he was emancipated, but from the time when, the condition having been fulfilled, the claim could be made.
§15.2.1.3Merito autem temporariam in hoc casu fecit praetor actionem: nam cum morte uel alienatione extinguitur peculium, sufficiebat usque ad annum produci obligationem.
Moreover, the praetor with good reason made the action temporary in this case; for since the peculium is extinguished by death or alienation, it was sufficient for the obligation to be extended up to a year.
§15.2.1.4Alienatio autem et manumissio ad seruos pertinet, non ad filios, mors autem tam ad seruos quam ad filios refertur, emancipatio uero ad solum filium.
Now, alienation and manumission apply to slaves, not to sons, whereas death refers to both slaves and sons, and emancipation only to a son.
sed et si alio modo sine emancipatione desierit esse in potestate, annalis erit actio.
But even if he ceases to be in power in some other way without emancipation, the action will be for a year.
sed et si morte patris uel deportatione sui iuris fuerit effectus filius, de peculio intra annum heres patris uel fiscus tenebuntur.
Furthermore, if a son becomes independent (sui iuris) by the death of his father or by deportation, the heir of the father or the treasury will be liable concerning the peculium within a year.
§15.2.1.5In alienatione accipitur utique uenditor, qui actione de peculio intra annum tenetur: §15.2.1.6sed et si donauit seruum uel permutauit uel in dotem dedit, in eadem causa est: §15.2.1.7item heres eius, qui seruum legauit non cum peculio.
Under 'alienation,' the seller is especially understood, who is liable within a year to the action concerning the peculium; but also if he has donated the slave, or exchanged him, or given him as dowry, he is in the same position; likewise the heir of one who bequeathed a slave without his peculium.
nam si cum peculio uel legauit uel liberum esse iussit, quaestionis fuit: et mihi uerius uidetur non dandam neque in manumissum neque in eum, cui legatum sit peculium, de peculio actionem.
For if he bequeathed him with his peculium or ordered him to be free, it was a matter of question; and to me it seems more correct that the action concerning the peculium should not be granted either against the manumitted person or against him to whom the peculium was bequeathed.
an ergo teneatur heres? et ait Caecilius teneri, quia peculium penes eum sit, qui tradendo id legatario se liberauit.
Is the heir therefore liable? Caecilius says he is liable, because the peculium was in his possession, and he freed himself by delivering it to the legatee.
Pegasus autem caueri heredi debere ait ab eo, cui peculium legatum sit, quia ad eum ueniunt creditores: ergo si tradiderit sine cautione, erit conueniendus.
Pegasus, however, says that security ought to be given to the heir by the person to whom the peculium was bequeathed, because the creditors come to him; therefore, if the heir delivers it without security, he will have to be sued.
§15.2.1.8Si praecepto seruo et peculio rogatus sit heres restituere hereditatem, si de peculio conueniatur, Trebelliani exceptione non utetur, ut Marcellus tractans admittit: is autem cui restituta est hereditas non tenetur, ut Scaeuola ait, cum peculium non habeat nec dolo fecerit quo minus haberet.
If the heir, having prefatorily taken the slave and his peculium, is requested to restore the inheritance, and is sued concerning the peculium, he will not use the exception of the Senatusconsultum Trebellianum, as Marcellus admits in discussing this; but he to whom the inheritance has been restored is not liable, as Scaevola says, since he does not have the peculium, nor has he acted with malicious intent to avoid having it.
§15.2.1.9Usu fructu quoque exstincto intra annum actionem dandam in usufructuarium Pomponius libro sexagensimo primo scripsit.
Pomponius also wrote in his sixty-first book that even when a usufruct is extinguished, the action should be granted against the usufructuary within a year.
§15.2.1.10Quaesitum est apud Labeonem, si, cum filius uiueret, tu credens eum mortuum annali actione egeris et, quia annus praeterierat, exceptione sis repulsus, an rursus experiri tibi comperto errore permittendum est.
It was asked in the works of Labeo whether, if while the son was alive, you, believing him to be dead, brought the one-year action and were repelled by an exception because the year had elapsed, you ought to be permitted to sue again upon discovering the mistake.
et ait permitti debere dumtaxat de peculio, non etiam de in rem uerso: nam priore iudicio de in rem uerso recte actum est, quia annua exceptio ad peculium, non ad in rem uersum pertinet.
And he says that it should be permitted only concerning the peculium, not also concerning what has been turned to profit (de in rem verso); for in the prior judgment, the action concerning what had been turned to profit was correctly brought, since the one-year exception applies to the peculium, not to what has been turned to profit.