[IDEM libro quarto disputationum. ] §28.4.2.prCancellauerat quis testamentum uel induxerat et si propter unum heredem facere dixerat: id postea testamentum signatum est.
[IDEM, Book 4 of the Disputations.] Someone had cancelled or crossed out a testament, and had said that he did so on account of one heir; afterward, this testament was sealed.
quaerebatur de uiribus testamenti deque portione eius, propter quem se cancellasse dixerat.
Inquiry was made concerning the validity of the testament, and concerning the portion of him on account of whom he had said he cancelled it.
dicebam, si quidem unius ex heredibus nomen induxerit, sine dubio ceteram partem testamenti ualere et ipsi soli denegari actiones: sed legata ab eo nominatim relicta debebuntur, si uoluntas ea fuit testantis, ut tantum heredis institutio inprobetur.
I used to say that, if indeed he crossed out the name of one of the heirs, there is no doubt that the remaining part of the testament is valid, and actions are denied to him alone; but legacies left specifically by him [the cancelled heir] will be due, if such was the will of the testator, that only the institution of the heir should be rejected.
sed si instituti nomen induxit et substituti reliquit, institutus emolumentum hereditatis non habebit.
But if he crossed out the name of the instituted heir and left that of the substitute, the instituted heir will not have the benefit of the inheritance.
sed si omnia nomina induxerit, ut proponitur, adscripserit autem idcirco se id fecisse, quia unum heredem offensum habuit, multum interesse arbitror, utrum illum tantum fraudare uoluit hereditate an uero causa illius totum testamentum infirmare, ut licet unus inductionis causam praebuerit, uerum omnibus offuerit.
But if he crossed out all the names, as is proposed, but wrote down that he did so for the reason that he was offended by one heir, I think it makes a great difference whether he wished to deprive him alone of the inheritance, or indeed on his account to invalidate the whole testament, so that although only one provided the cause for the erasure, yet in truth it harmed all.
et si quidem soli ei ademptam uoluit portionem, ceteris nihil nocebit inductio, non magis quam si uolens unum heredem inducere inuitus et alium induxerit.
And if indeed he wished the portion to be taken away from him alone, the erasure will not harm the others at all, no more than if, wishing to cross out one heir, he crossed out another against his will.
quod si putauit totum testamentum delendum ob unius malum meritum, omnibus denegantur actiones: sed an legatariis denegari actio debeat, quaestio est.
But if he thought the entire testament should be destroyed on account of the bad conduct of one, actions are denied to all; but whether action ought to be denied to the legatees is a question.
in ambiguo tamen interpretandum erit et legata deberi et coheredum institutionem non esse infirmandam.
In case of doubt, however, it must be interpreted that both the legacies are due and the institution of the co-heirs is not to be invalidated.