[IDEM libro octauo ad Sabinum. ] §29.2.25.prSi quis mihi bona fide seruiat seruus alienus, iussu meo hereditatem adeundo nihil promouebit nec adquiret mihi, nec fructuarius quidem seruus.
[THE SAME in the eighth book on Sabinus.] If another person's slave serves me in good faith, he will achieve nothing and acquire nothing for me by entering upon an inheritance by my order; and the same applies to a slave in whom there is a usufruct.
§29.2.25.1Seruus municipum uel collegii uel decuriae heres institutus manumissus uel alienatus adibit hereditatem.
A slave of citizens of a municipality, or of a corporation, or of a decury, who has been instituted heir, will enter upon the inheritance after being manumitted or alienated.
§29.2.25.2Si fisci seruus sit, iussu procuratoris Caesaris adibit hereditatem, ut est saepe rescriptum.
If he is a slave of the imperial treasury, he will enter upon the inheritance by order of the procurator of Caesar, as has often been stated in rescripts.
§29.2.25.3Si quis plane seruus poenae fuerit effectus ad gladium uel ad bestias uel in metallum damnatus, si fuerit heres institutus, pro non scripto hoc habebitur: idque diuus Pius rescripsit.
If someone has been fully made a slave of punishment, having been condemned to the sword, to beasts, or to the mines, if he has been instituted heir, this will be held as not written; and the deified Pius so replied by rescript.
§29.2.25.4Iussum eius qui in potestate habet non est simile tutoris auctoritati, quae interponitur perfecto negotio, sed praecedere debet, ut Gaius Cassius libro secundo iuris ciuilis scribit: et putat uel per internuntium fieri posse uel per epistulam.
The order of one who has someone in his power is not like the authority of a tutor, which is interposed when the transaction is completed, but it must precede, as Gaius Cassius writes in the second book on civil law; and he thinks that it can be given either through a messenger or by letter.
§29.2.25.5Sed utrum generaliter 'quaecumque tibi hereditas fuerit delata', an specialiter? et magis placet, ut Gaius Cassius scribit, specialiter debere mandare.
But should it be given generally, 'whatever inheritance shall be offered to you', or specifically? And it is more approved, as Gaius Cassius writes, that he must command specifically.
§29.2.25.6An nominatim de uiui hereditate mandari possit, quaeritur: sed ego non puto recipiendum, ut de uiui hereditate mandetur.
It is asked whether a command can be given by name concerning the inheritance of a living person; but I do not think it should be accepted that a command is given concerning the inheritance of a living person.
plane si rumor fuit Lucium Titium decessisse, poterit ei mandare, ut, si scripsit eum, adeat: aut si clusae adhuc tabulae sunt et sit incertum, an filius scriptus sit heres.
Obviously, if there was a rumor that Lucius Titius had died, he will be able to command his son that, if Titius has designated him, he should enter upon it; or if the tablets are still sealed and it is uncertain whether the son has been written as heir.
§29.2.25.7Sed quid si mandauit, ut hereditatem colligat, an uidetur mandasse, ut adeat? quid si ut petat bonorum possessionem? aut ut rem hereditariam distrahat? aut quid si petitam bonorum possessionem ratam habuit, mox filius adeat hereditatem? uel quid si pro herede gerere mandauit, filius adiit hereditatem? an iussu uideatur adisse, dubitari potest.
But what if he commanded him to collect the inheritance, is he deemed to have commanded him to enter upon it? What if to seek the possession of goods? Or to sell an inherited thing? Or what if he ratified the sought possession of goods, and soon after the son enters upon the inheritance? Or what if he commanded him to act as heir, and the son entered upon the inheritance? It can be doubted whether he is deemed to have entered by order.
immo uerius est ex his omnibus aditionem esse introducendam.
Indeed, it is more correct that in all these cases the entry should be admitted.
§29.2.25.8Pater filio ita scripsit: 'scio, fili, quod pro tua prudentia inuigilabis hereditati delatae tibi Lucii Titii'.
A father wrote to his son as follows: 'scio, fili, quod pro tua prudence inuigilabis hereditati delatae tibi Lucii Titii'.
puto iussu patris adisse.
I think that he entered by order of his father.
§29.2.25.9Quid si mandauit: 'si expedit adire, adito'? 'si putas expedire adire, adito'? erit iussu aditum.
What if he commanded: 'if it is expedient to enter, enter'? 'if you think it is expedient to enter, enter'? The entry will be by order.
§29.2.25.10Si 'coram Titio' iussit adire, si 'arbitrio Lucii Titii', recte puto iussisse.
If he ordered him to enter 'in the presence of Titius', or 'at the discretion of Lucius Titius', I think he ordered rightly.
§29.2.25.11Sed si mandauit quasi ex asse instituto et inueniatur ex parte, non puto ex iussu adisse.
But if he commanded him as if instituted for the whole estate, and he is found to be instituted for a part, I do not think he entered by order.
quod si ex parte iussit, potest ex asse adire.
But if he ordered for a part, the son can enter for the whole.
aliter atque si mandauit quasi ab intestato et ex testamento adiit: nam non puto quicquam egisse.
It is otherwise than if he commanded as if on intestacy and the son entered under a will; for I do not think he has done anything of effect.
at si ex testamento mandauit, poterit et ab intestato, quoniam non fecit deteriorem condicionem patris.
But if he commanded under a will, he will also be able to enter on intestacy, since he did not make the condition of his father worse.
idemque et si quasi instituto praecepit et inueniatur substitutus, uel contra.
And the same applies if he commanded as if to an instituted heir and he is found to be a substitute, or vice versa.
§29.2.25.12Sed si mandauit, ut patris adiret, sit autem et impuberi substitutus, non sufficit iussum.
But if he commanded that he should enter upon his father's inheritance, and the son is also substituted to an impuber, the order is not sufficient.
§29.2.25.13Plane si sic mandauit 'si qua ex testamento Lucii Titii deferatur hereditas', potest defendi iussu adisse.
Obviously, if he commanded thus: 'if any inheritance should be offered from the will of Lucius Titius', it can be maintained that he entered by order.
§29.2.25.14Sed si posteaquam iussit, paenitentiam egit prius quam adiret, nihil agit adeundo.
But if, after he ordered, he changed his mind before the son entered, he achieves nothing by entering.
§29.2.25.15Item si se adrogandum dederit prius quam filius adiret, non est adquisita hereditas.
Likewise, if he gave himself to be arrogated before the son entered, the inheritance is not acquired.