[IDEM libro septimo ad Quintum Mucium. ] §28.5.69.prSi quis Sempronium heredem instituerit sub hac condicione 'si Titius in Capitolium ascenderit', quamuis non alias heres esse possit Sempronius, nisi Titius ascendisset in Capitolium, et hoc ipsum in potestate sit repositum Titii: quia tamen scriptura non est expressa uoluntas Titii, erit utilis ea institutio.
[THE SAME, on Quintus Mucius, book 7.] If anyone should institute Sempronius as heir under this condition 'if Titius should ascend the Capitol', although Sempronius cannot be heir otherwise than if Titius should have ascended the Capitol, and this very thing is placed within the power of Titius; yet, because the will of Titius is not explicitly expressed in the writing, that institution will be valid.
atquin si quis ita scripserit: 'si Titius uoluerit, Sempronius heres esto', non ualet institutio: quaedam enim in testamentis si exprimantur, effectum nullum habent, quando, si uerbis tegantur, eandem significationem habeant quam haberent expressa, et momentum aliquod habebunt.
But indeed, if anyone should write in this way: 'if Titius should wish, let Sempronius be heir', the institution is not valid; for certain things in testaments, if they are explicitly expressed, have no effect, whereas if they are veiled in words, although they would have the same meaning as they would have if explicitly expressed, they will have some effect.
sic enim filii exheredatio cum eo ualet, si quis heres existat: et tamen nemo dubitat, quin, si ita aliquis filium exheredauerit: 'Titius heres esto: cum heres erit Titius, filius exheres esto', nullius momenti esse exheredationem.
For in this way, the disinheriting of a son is valid on the condition that some heir exists; and yet no one doubts that, if someone should disinherit a son in this way: 'let Titius be heir: when Titius shall be heir, let the son be disinherited', the disinheriting is of no effect.