Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §28.5.49.pr-28.5.49.3

Form of Words and Validity in Heir Designation

Passage 4228 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

This section examines the validity of instituting an heir, establishing that specifying an heir as 'owner of the inheritance' is valid, an unfilial son can be appointed with insults, a slave accused of adultery with his mistress cannot be validly designated by her, and minor errors in personal details do not invalidate the appointment if identity is clear.

[MARCIANUS libro quarto institutionum. ] §28.5.49.pris uerbis: 'Titius hereditatis meae dominus esto', recte institutio fit.
By these words: 'Let Titius be owner of my inheritance', the institution of an heir is validly made.
§28.5.49.1Illa institutio ualet: 'filius meus inpiissimus male de me meritus heres esto': pure enim heres instituitur cum maledicto et omnes huiusmodi institutiones receptae sunt.
The following institution is valid: 'Let my most impious son, who has deserved poorly of me, be my heir'; for he is instituted heir unconditionally, though with an insult, and all institutions of this kind have been accepted.
§28.5.49.2Interdum nec cum libertate utiliter seruus a domina heres instituitur, ut constitutione diuorum Seueri et Antonini significatur, cuius uerba haec sunt: 'seruum adulterii accusatum non iure testamento manumissum ante sententiam ab ea muliere uideri, quae rea fuerit eiusdem criminis postulata, rationis est'. quare sequitur, ut in eundem a domina collata institutio nihil momenti habeat.
Sometimes a slave is not even with freedom validly appointed heir by his mistress, as is indicated by a constitution of the divine Severus and Antoninus, the words of which are as follows: 'It is reasonable that a slave accused of adultery, who has been manumitted in a will before judgment by that woman who was prosecuted as a defendant for the same crime, should not be seen as lawfully manumitted.' Therefore, it follows that the institution of him as heir by his mistress has no validity.
§28.5.49.3Si in patre uel patria uel alia simili adsumptione falsum scriptum est, dum de eo qui demonstratus sit constet, institutio ualet.
If a mistake is written in regard to the father, or native country, or any other similar addition, as long as there is no doubt about the person who was designated, the institution is valid.

Notes

  1. 28.5.49.2seruum adulterii accusatum non iure testamento manumissum ante sententiam ab ea muliere uideri... rationis est — The phrase 'rationis est' (it is reasonable) is an impersonal expression using the genitive of characteristic 'rationis', which takes the accusative with infinitive (AcI) clause as its subject. The main verb of this AcI clause is the infinitive 'uideri', and its subject accusative is 'seruum... manumissum' (referring to 'seruum... manumissum esse', that the slave was manumitted). Thus, the entire clause means 'it is reasonable that [the slave]... should not be seen [as lawfully manumitted].'
  2. 28.5.49.3dum de eo qui demonstratus sit constet — The conjunction 'dum' is used here to express a limitation or condition ('as long as', 'provided that') and governs the present subjunctive 'constet'. The impersonal verb 'constat' (it is clear/established) appears in the subjunctive, and the prepositional phrase 'de eo' (concerning the person) indicates the subject of clarification, with 'eo' being modified by the relative clause 'qui demonstratus sit' (who has been designated).

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §28.5.49.pr-28.5.49.3. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:28.5.49.pr-28.5.49.3

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.