[IDEM libro primo ad Sabinum. ] §28.2.3.prEt si pepercerit filium dicere, ex Seia autem natum dixit, recte exheredat: et si cum conuicio dixerit 'non nominandus' uel 'non filius meus', 'latro', 'gladiator', magis est, ut recte exheredatus sit, et si ex adultero natum dixerit. §28.2.3.1Pure autem filium exheredari Iulianus putat, qua sententia utimur. §28.2.3.2Filius inter medias quoque heredum institutiones recte exheredatur et erit a toto gradu summotus, nisi forte ab unius persona eum testator exheredauerit: nam si hoc fecit, uitiosa erit exheredatio.
[THE SAME, Book 1 on Sabinus.]\n\nAnd even if he refrains from calling him "son," but says "born of Seia," he disinherits him rightly; and even if he says with abuse "not to be named," or "not my son," "robber," "gladiator," it is more appropriate that he has been rightly disinherited, and also if he says "born of an adulterer."\n\nMoreover, Julian thinks that a son should be disinherited unconditionally, which opinion we follow.\n\nA son is also rightly disinherited between the middle of the institution of heirs, and he will be excluded from the entire degree, unless by chance the testator disinherited him from the person of only one; for if he did this, the disinheritance will be defective.
quemadmodum si ita eum exheredauerit 'quisquis heres mihi erit, filius exheres esto': nam, ut Iulianus scribit, huiusmodi exheredatio uitiosa est, quoniam post aditam hereditatem uoluit eum summotum, quod est inpossibile. §28.2.3.3Ante heredis institutionem exheredatus ab omnibus gradibus summotus est. §28.2.3.4Inter duos autem gradus exheredatus ab utroque remotus est secundum Scaeuolae sententiam, quam puto ueram. §28.2.3.5In eo, qui miscuit duos gradus, exheredationem ualere Mauricianus recte putat, ueluti: 'Primus heres esto ex semisse.
Just as if he disinherited him thus: "whoever shall be my heir, let my son be disinherited"; for, as Julian writes, a disinheritance of this kind is defective, because he wanted him to be excluded after the inheritance was accepted, which is impossible.\n\nOne who is disinherited before the institution of an heir is excluded from all degrees.\n\nBut one who is disinherited between two degrees is removed from both, according to the opinion of Scaevola, which I think is correct.\n\nIn the case of one who mixed two degrees, Mauricianus rightly thinks that the disinheritance is valid, as for example: "Let Primus be heir to one-half.
si Primus heres non erit, Secundus ex semisse heres esto.
If Primus is not heir, let Secundus be heir to one-half.
Tertius ex alio semisse heres esto.
Let Tertius be heir to the other half.
filius exheres esto.
Let my son be disinherited.
si Tertius heres non erit, Quartus heres esto': nam ab utroque gradu summotus est. §28.2.3.6Si ita testatus sit pater familias, ut a primo quidem gradu filium praeteriret, a secundo solo exheredaret, Sabinus et Cassius et Iulianus putant perempto primo gradu testamentum ab eo gradu exordium capere, unde filius exheredatus est: quae sententia comprobata est.
If Tertius is not heir, let Quartus be heir"; for he is excluded from both degrees.\n\nIf a paterfamilias should make his will in such a way that he passed over his son in the first degree, but disinherited him only in the second, Sabinus, Cassius, and Julian think that when the first degree is extinguished, the will begins to take effect from that degree from which the son was disinherited; and this opinion is approved.