[IDEM libro sexto ad Sabinum. ] §28.7.2.prSi testamento comprehensum sit: 'ille seruus, si meus erit' (aut 'qui meus erit') 'cum moriar, heres esto', quatenus accipiatur 'meus', quaeritur.
[THE SAME, in the sixth book on Sabinus.] If it has been included in a will: 'Let that slave, if he is mine' (or 'who shall be mine') 'when I die, be [my] heir', it is asked to what extent 'mine' is to be understood.
et si quidem alienauit in eo usum fructum, nihilo minus ipsius est: si uero partem in eo alienauit, an deficiat condicio institutionis, quaeritur.
And if indeed he has alienated a usufruct in him, he is nonetheless his own: but if he has alienated a part in him, it is asked whether the condition of the institution fails.
et uerius est non defecisse condicionem, nisi euidentissimis probationibus testatorem uoluisse apparuerit pro hac condicione haec uerba inseruisse 'si totus seruus in dominio eius remanserit': tunc enim parte alienata condicio deficit.
And it is more correct [to say] that the condition has not failed, unless it appears by the clearest proofs that the testator, in place of this condition, wished to insert these words 'if the entire slave remains in his ownership'; for then, a part having been alienated, the condition fails.
§28.7.2.1Sed si duo serui ita sint heredes instituti: 'Primus et Secundus, si mei erunt cum moriar, liberi et heredes sunto' et alter ex his sit alienatus, Celsus recte putat sic accipiendum, atque si singulos separatim sub eadem condicione heredes instituisset.
But if two slaves have been instituted heirs in this manner: 'Primus and Secundus, if they are mine when I die, be free and heirs', and one of them has been alienated, Celsus rightly thinks that it is to be understood just as if he had instituted each of them separately under the same condition.