[ULPIANUS libro trigesimo secundo ad Sabinum. ] §24.1.5.9Haec res et illud suadet, si uxori maritus sepulturae causa donauerit, ita demum locum fieri intellegi mulieris, cum corpus humatur: ceterum antequam fiet religiosus, donantis manet.
This circumstance also suggests that if a husband has donated a place to his wife for the sake of burial, the place is understood to become the woman's only when the body is buried; otherwise, before it becomes religious, it remains the donor's.
proinde si distraxerit mulier, manet locus donatoris.
Accordingly, if the woman has sold it, the place remains the donor's.
§24.1.5.10Secundum haec si uxori suae monumentum purum maritus magni pretii donauerit, ualebit donatio, sic tamen, ut, cum fit religiosus, ualeat.
According to this, if a husband has donated to his wife an unused monument of great price, the donation will be valid, but only in such a way that it becomes valid when the place becomes religious.
§24.1.5.11Sed et si ipsa fuerit illo illata, licet morte eius finitum est matrimonium, fauorabiliter tamen dicetur locum religiosum fieri.
But even if she herself was brought into it, although the marriage was dissolved by her death, it will nevertheless be favorably said that the place becomes religious.
§24.1.5.12Proinde et si maritus ad oblationem dei uxori donauit, uel locum, in quo opus publicum quod promiserat facere, uelut aedem publicam, dedicaret, fiet locus sacer.
Likewise, if a husband has made a donation to his wife for an offering to God, or a place where she might dedicate a public work that he had promised to build, such as a public temple, the place will become sacred.
sed et si quid ei det, ut donum deo detur uel consecretur, dubium non est, quin debeat ualere: quare et si oleum pro ea in aede sacra posuerit, ualet donatio.
But even if he gives her something so that a gift may be given or consecrated to God, there is no doubt that it ought to be valid; wherefore, even if he has placed oil on her behalf in a sacred temple, the donation is valid.
§24.1.5.13Si maritus heres institutus repudiet hereditatem donationis causa, Iulianus scripsit libro septimo decimo digestorum donationem ualere: neque enim pauperior fit, qui non adquirat, sed qui de patrimonio suo deposuit, repudiatio autem mariti mulieri prodest, si uel substituta sit mulier uel etiam ab intestato heres futura.
If a husband, having been instituted heir, should repudiate the inheritance for the sake of a donation, Julian wrote in the seventeenth book of his Digests that the donation is valid; for he is not made poorer who does not acquire, but he who has parted with something from his own patrimony, and the husband's repudiation benefits the woman if she is either substituted or is to be the heir ab intestato.
§24.1.5.14Simili modo et si legatum repudiet, placet nobis ualere donationem, si mulier substituta sit in legato uel etiam si proponas eam heredem ininstitutam.
In like manner, even if he should repudiate a legacy, we agree that the donation is valid, if the woman has been substituted in the legacy, or even if you propose that she was instituted heir.
§24.1.5.15Si quis rogatus sit praecepta certa quantitate uxori suae hereditatem restituere et is sine deductione restituerit, Celsus libro decimo digestorum scripsit magis pleniore officio fidei praestandae functum maritum quam donasse uideri: et rectam rationem huic sententiae Celsus adiecit, quod plerique magis fidem exsoluunt in hunc casum quam donant nec de suo putant proficisci, quod de alieno plenius restituunt uoluntatem defuncti secuti: nec immerito saepe credimus aliquid defunctum uoluisse et tamen non rogasse.
If someone has been requested to restore the inheritance to his wife, after having first taken a certain quantity, and he has restored it without deduction, Celsus wrote in the tenth book of his Digests that the husband is seen to have discharged a fuller duty of fulfilling a trust rather than to have made a donation; and Celsus added a correct reason to this opinion, because most people in this case discharge a trust rather than make a donation, and they do not think that what they restore more fully from another's property, following the will of the deceased, proceeds from their own; nor is it without reason that we often believe the deceased wanted something and yet did not request it.
quae sententia habet rationem magis in eo, qui non erat deducta quarta rogatus restituere et tamen integram fidem praestitit omisso senatus consulti commodo: hic enim uere fidem exsoluit uoluntatem testatoris obsecutus.
This opinion has more reason in the case of one who was requested to restore without deducting the fourth part, and yet fulfilled the trust in full, waiving the benefit of the senate's decree; for this man truly discharged the trust, obeying the will of the testator.
hoc ita, si non per errorem calculi fecit: ceterum indebiti fideicommissi esse repetitionem nulla dubitatio est.
This is so, provided he did not do it through an error of calculation; but there is no doubt that there is a recovery of a fideicommissum not due.
§24.1.5.16Cum igitur nihil de bonis erogatur, recte dicitur ualere donationem.
Therefore, when nothing is expended from the property, it is correctly said that the donation is valid.
ubicumque igitur non deminuit de facultatibus suis qui donauit, ualet, uel, etiamsi deminuat, locupletior tamen non fit qui accepit, donatio ualet.
Wherever, then, he who donated has not diminished his resources, the donation is valid, or, even if he should diminish them, if the recipient is nevertheless not made richer, the donation is valid.
§24.1.5.17Marcellus libro septimo digestorum quaerit, si mulier acceptam a marito pecuniam in sportulas pro cognato suo ordini erogauerit, an donatio ualeat? et ait ualere nec uideri locupletiorem mulierem factam, quamuis mutuam pecuniam esset acceptura et pro adfine erogatura.
Marcellus, in the seventh book of his Digests, asks whether, if a woman has expended money received from her husband on hand-outs to an order on behalf of her relative, the donation is valid? And he says that it is valid, and that the woman is not seen to have been made richer, even though she would have borrowed the money and expended it for her relative by marriage.
§24.1.5.18In donationibus autem iure ciuili impeditis hactenus reuocatur donum ab eo ab eaue cui donatum est, ut, si quidem exstet res, uindicetur, si consumpta sit, condicatur hactenus, quatenus locupletior quis eorum factus est:
In donations prohibited by the civil law, however, the gift is revoked from the one to whom it was donated only to this extent: that if indeed the thing exists, it may be recovered by a vindicatio, and if it has been consumed, its return may be sought by a condictio to the extent that either of them has been made richer.