[IDEM libro secundo responsorum. ] §2.14.35.prTres fratres Titius et Maeuius et Seia communem hereditatem inter se diuiserunt instrumentis interpositis, quibus diuisisse maternam hereditatem dixerunt nihilque sibi commune remansisse cauerunt.
[THE SAME, Responsas, book 2] Three siblings, Titius, Maeuius, and Seia, divided a common inheritance among themselves by drawing up written instruments, in which they stated that they had divided their mother's inheritance and provided that nothing remained in common between them.
sed postea duo de fratribus, id est Maeuius et Seia, qui absentes erant tempore mortis matris suae, cognouerunt pecuniam auream a fratre suo esse subtractam, cuius nulla mentio instrumento diuisionis continebatur.
But later, two of the siblings, namely Maeuius and Seia, who were absent at the time of their mother's death, learned that gold coins had been secretly taken by their brother, of which no mention was contained in the instrument of division.
quaero an post pactum diuisionis de subrepta pecunia fratribus aduersus fratrem competit actio.
I ask whether, after the agreement of division, an action is available to the siblings against their brother regarding the stolen money.
Modestinus respondit, si agentibus ob portionem eius, quod subreptum a Titio dicitur, generalis pacti conuenti exceptio his, qui fraudem a Titio commissam ignorantes transegerunt, obiciatur, de dolo utiliter replicari posse.
Modestinus replied that if, against those who bring an action for their share of what is said to have been stolen by Titius, an objection of a general agreement is raised against them who settled in ignorance of the fraud committed by Titius, a replication of fraud can be successfully pleaded.