Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §29.2.34.pr-29.2.34.1

Acceptance under Doubts of Status or Mistake of Condition

Passage 4437 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

Ulpian discusses the difference in the validity of acceptance when doubting one's own status versus the testator's status, and argues that an unconditional heir who mistakenly accepts after the assumed condition is fulfilled can still validly acquire the inheritance.

[ULPIANUS libro octauo ad Sabinum. ] §29.2.34.prSed et si de sua condicione quis dubitet, an filius familias sit, posse eum adquirere hereditatem iam dictum est.
[ULPIANUS in the eighth book on Sabinus.] But also if anyone should doubt his own status, whether he is a filius familias, it has already been said that he can acquire the inheritance.
cur autem, si suam ignoret condicionem, adire potest, si testatoris, non potest? illa ratio est, quod qui condicionem testatoris ignorat, an ualeat testamentum dubitat, qui de sua, de testamento certus est.
But why is it that, if he is ignorant of his own status, he can accept, but if [he is ignorant] of the testator's, he cannot? The reason is that he who is ignorant of the testator's status doubts whether the will is valid, whereas he who [is in doubt] about his own is certain about the will.
§29.2.34.1Sed et si cum esset pure institutus, putauit sub condicione et impleta condicione, quam iniectam putauit, adiit, an possit adquirere hereditatem? consequens est dicere posse eum adire, maxime cum haec suspicio nihil ei offuerit nec periculum adtulerit.
But also if, although he had been appointed unconditionally, he thought he was appointed under a condition, and accepted when the condition had been fulfilled which he thought had been imposed, can he acquire the inheritance? It is consistent to say that he can accept, especially since this misconception did him no harm and brought no danger.
facilius quis admittet, si quis pure institutus putauit se sub condicione institutum condicionemque impletam quam in euentum putabat: nam in nullo haec suspicio offuit.
One will more easily admit it, if someone appointed unconditionally thought that he was appointed under a condition and that the condition was fulfilled which he believed had come to pass; for in no respect has this misconception done harm.

Notes

  1. §29.2.34.prqui de sua, de testamento certus est — In contrast to the preceding clause `qui condicionem testatoris ignorat`, a verb phrase such as `condicione dubitat` or `condicionem ignorat` is omitted after `qui de sua`. `de sua` stands for `de sua condicione`.
  2. §29.2.34.1cum esset pure institutus — The conjunction `cum` is used with the imperfect subjunctive `esset` to express concession ("although he had been..."). It denotes a state prior to the main verb `putauit`.
  3. §29.2.34.1quam in euentum putabat — `quam` is a relative pronoun (feminine accusative singular) with `condicionem` as its antecedent. `in euentum` is the accusative of `eventus` ("outcome, realization"). An infinitive such as `venisse` ("to have come") is omitted from the accusative and infinitive construction depending on `putabat`, meaning "the condition which he thought had come to realization."

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §29.2.34.pr-29.2.34.1. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:29.2.34.pr-29.2.34.1

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.