[IDEM libro quinto quaestionum. ] §28.6.35.prEtsi contra tabulas patris petita sit a pupillo bonorum possessio, in substitutum tamen eius actionem legati dandam esse ita, ut augeantur praeter ea quod filius extraneis non debuerit.
[THE SAME, from the Fifth Book of Questions.] if possession of goods contrary to the tablets of the father has been demanded by the pupil, an action for a legacy must nevertheless be granted against his substitute in such a way that the legacies are increased, except for that which the son would not have owed to outsiders.
sic et crescere a substituto data legata, si per bonorum possessionem plus ad filium peruenisset, quemadmodum et ipse filius plus exceptis deberet.
In the same way, the legacies given by the substitute also increase if more had come to the son through the possession of goods, just as the son himself would have owed more, with the exceptions deducted.
his consequens esse existimo, ut, si impubes ex asse scriptus sit et per bonorum possessionem semis ei ablatus sit, substitutus in partem legati nomine exoneretur, ut, quemadmodum portio, quae per bonorum possessionem accesserit, auget legata, ita et hic quae abscesserit minuat.
From this I think it follows that, if the impuber was appointed heir to the whole estate and half of it was taken from him through the possession of goods, the substitute should be discharged in part in respect of the legacy, so that, just as the portion which accrued through the possession of goods increases the legacies, so also here that which was lost should diminish them.