Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §28.2.2.pr

Validity of Disinheriting 'My Son' Without Name

Passage 4123 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

Ulpian states that a disinheritance expressed as 'my son' without stating the name is valid if there is only one son, but if there are multiple sons, it is interpreted that none of them is disinherited.

[IDEM libro sexto regularum. ] §28.2.2.prNominatim exheredatus filius et ita uidetur 'filius meus exheres esto', si nec nomen eius expressum sit, si modo unicus sit: nam si plures sunt filii, benigna interpretatione potius a plerisque respondetur nullum exheredatum esse.
[THE SAME, Book 6 of Rules.] A son is also deemed to have been disinherited by name in this way, "let my son be disinherited," even if his name is not expressly stated, provided only that he is an only son; for if there are several joys, it is answered by most, rather on a liberal interpretation, that none of them is disinherited.

Notes

  1. §28.2.2.prNominatim exheredatus filius et ita uidetur — uidetur is used in a personal construction (with a nominative predicate), where the subject is filius and the predicate is nominatim exheredatus [esse]. The quoted phrase 'filius meus exheres esto' provides the concrete wording indicated by et ita ("and in this way...").
  2. §28.2.2.prsi nec — nec here functions with a concessive force akin to ne ... quidem ("not even"), rather than a simple "and not," introducing the concessive conditional clause "even if his name is not expressly stated."

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §28.2.2.pr. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:28.2.2.pr

Please note the AI-draft status of the translation and the date accessed.

Translation, notes and summary are AI-generated drafts, revised through reader feedback.