[IDEM libro uicesimo quaestionum. ] §22.1.3.prIn fideicommissi persecutione, cum post iudicis sententiam moram fecisset heres, iussit imperator Marcus Antoninus, intermisso legitimo tempore quod condemnatis praestatur ut usque ad sententiam commoda fideicommissarius accipiat, quod decretum ita accipi oportet, si ante iudicis sententiam mora non interuenit: tametsi non facile euenire possit, ut mora non praecedente perueniatur ad iudicem: sed puta legis Falcidiae rationem interuenisse.
[THE SAME, Questions, Book 20] In a petition for a trust, when the heir had been in default after the judge’s decision, the Emperor Marcus Antoninus ordered that, leaving aside the statutory period which is granted to those condemned, the beneficiary of the trust should receive the benefits up to the decision. This decree must be understood in this way only if no default had occurred before the judge’s decision—even though it cannot easily happen that the parties come before a judge without default preceding, but suppose, for example, that the calculation of the Falcidian law intervened.
ceterum si ante, quam ad iudicem perueniretur, in mora heres fuit, exinde fructuum praestandorum necessitate adstrictus qua tandem ratione, quoniam et sententia uictus est, legitimi temporis spatio fructibus liberabitur, cum ea temporis intercapedo iudicato dilationem dare, non lucrum adferre debeat?
But if, before coming to the judge, the heir was already in default, and was thus bound by the obligation to provide the fruits from that moment, by what possible reason, since he was also defeated by the decision, will he be freed from the fruits during the statutory period, when that interval of time ought to grant a delay to the judgment-debtor, not to bring him a profit?
§22.1.3.1In his quoque iudiciis, quae non sunt arbitraria nec bonae fidei, post litem contestatam actori causa praestanda est in eum diem, quo sententia dicitur: certe post rem iudicatam tempus a fructibus dependendis immune est.
In those actions also which are neither arbitrary nor of good faith, after the joinder of issue, the accessory benefits must be provided to the plaintiff up to the day on which the decision is pronounced; certainly, after the judgment has been rendered, the period of time is exempt from the payment of fruits.
§22.1.3.2Nonnumquam euenit, ut, quamquam fructus hereditatis aut pecuniae usura nominatim relicta non sit, nihilo minus debeatur.
It sometimes happens that, although the fruits of an inheritance or the interest on money has not been expressly left, they are nevertheless owed.
ut puta si quis rogetur post mortem suam quidquid ex bonis supererit Titio restituere: ut enim ea quae fide bona deminuta sunt in causa fideicommissi non deprehenduntur, si pro modo ceterorum quoque bonorum deminuantur, ita quod ex fructibus supererit iure uoluntatis restitui oportebit.
For example, if someone is requested to restore to Titius whatever remains of the estate after his death; for just as those things which have been diminished in good faith are not found in the matter of the trust, if they are diminished in proportion to the rest of the property, so whatever remains from the fruits must be restored according to the rules of the testator’s will.
§22.1.3.3Cum Pollidius a propinqua sua heres institutus rogatus fuisset filiae mulieris, quidquid ex bonis eius ad se peruenisset, cum certam aetatem puella complesset, restituere, idque sibi mater ideo placuisse testamento comprehendisset, ne filiae tutoribus, sed potius necessitudini res committerentur, eundemque Pollidium fundum retinere iussisset: praefectis praetorii suasi fructus, qui bona fide a Pollidio ex bonis defunctae percepti essent, restitui debere, siue quod fundum ei tantum praelegauerat siue quod lubrico tutelae fideicommissi remedium mater praetulerat.
When Pollidius had been appointed heir by his female relative and was requested to restore to her daughter, when the girl should reach a certain age, whatever had come to him from her estate, and the mother had stated in her will that she was pleased with this arrangement so that the property should not be committed to her daughter’s tutors but rather to a relative, and she had ordered the same Pollidius to retain a certain estate; I advised the praetorian prefects that the fruits which had been gathered in good faith by Pollidius from the estate of the deceased ought to be restored, whether because she had pre-bequeathed only the land to him, or because the mother had preferred the remedy of a trust to the uncertainty of guardianship.
§22.1.3.4Si auro uel argento facto per fideicommissum relicto mora interuenerit, an usurarum aestimatio facienda sit, tractari solet.
If a default should occur regarding fashioned gold or silver left by way of trust, it is often discussed whether an estimation of interest ought to be made.
plane si materiam istam ideo relinquit, ut ea distracta pecuniaque refecta fideicommissa soluerentur aut alimenta praestarentur, non oportere frustrationem impunitam esse responderi oportet: quod si forte ideo relinquit, ut his uasis uteretur, non sine rubore desiderabuntur usurae ideoque non exigentur.
Clearly, if the testator left that material for the purpose that, after it was sold and money was raised, the trusts should be paid or alimony provided, it must be answered that the delay should not go unpunished; but if by chance he left it so that the beneficiary might use these vessels, interest will not be demanded without a sense of shame, and therefore will not be exacted.