[ULPIANUS libro quarto disputationum. ] §29.2.42.prIulianus libro uicesimo sexto digestorum scripsit, si pupillus paterna hereditate se abstinuisset, deinde ei aliquis heres exstitisset, non esse eum compellendum creditoribus paternis respondere, nisi substitutus ei fuit: inclinat enim in hoc, ut putet substitutum etiam patris onera subiturum.
[ULPIAN, in the fourth book of Disputations.] Julian wrote in the twenty-sixth book of his Digests that if a pupillus had abstained from his father's inheritance, and then someone became his heir, that person should not be compelled to answer to the father's creditors, unless he was substituted for him; for he inclines to the view of thinking that the substitute would also undergo the burdens of the father.
quae sententia a Marcello recte notata est: impugnat enim utilitatem pupilli, qui ipse saltem potest habere successorem: metu enim onerum patris timidius quis etiam impuberis hereditatem adibit.
This opinion has been correctly noted by Marcellus; for it works against the interest of the pupillus, who himself at least is able to have a successor; for through fear of the father's burdens, one will enter upon even a minor's inheritance more timidly.
alioquin, inquit, et si frater fuit, omissa causa testamenti ab intestato possidebit hereditatem et quidem impune: nec enim uidetur uoluisse fraudare edictum, qui sibi prospicit, ne oneribus patris pupilli hereditas implicaretur.
Otherwise, he says, even if he was a brother, he will possess the inheritance on intestacy, abandoning the cause of the testament, and indeed with impunity; for he who looks out for himself, lest the inheritance of the pupillus be involved in the burdens of the father, is not deemed to have wished to defraud the edict.
sed quod in fratre scripsit, credo ita intellegendum, si non impuberis frater fuit, sed testatoris: ceterum utique si frater a patre fratri substitutus impuberi sit, sine dubio necessarius heres existet.
But as to what he wrote regarding a brother, I believe it is to be understood thus, if he was not the brother of the minor, but of the testator; otherwise, certainly, if a brother is substituted by a father for his minor brother, he will without doubt exist as a necessary heir.
§29.2.42.1Si in societate, quam uiuo patre inchoauerat, filius post mortem patris perseuerauerit, Iulianus recte distinguit interesse, utrum rem coeptam sub patre perficit an nouam inchoauit: nam si quid nouum in societate inchoauit, non uideri miscuisse hereditati patris scripsit.
If a son continues, after the death of his father, in a partnership which he had begun during his father's lifetime, Julian correctly distinguishes that it makes a difference whether he completes a matter commenced under his father or began a new one; for he wrote that if he began anything new in the partnership, he is not deemed to have intermeddled with the inheritance of his father.
§29.2.42.2Si seruum paternum filius manumiserit, sine dubio miscuisse se paternae hereditati uidebitur.
If a son manumits a slave of his father, he will without doubt be deemed to have intermeddled with his father's inheritance.
§29.2.42.3Proponebatur filius a patre de castrensi peculio seruos comparasse eosque a patre manumittere rogatus, cum heres esset ab eo institutus: quaerebatur, si se abstinuisset paterna hereditate eosque manumisisset, an miscuisse se paternae hereditati uideatur.
It was proposed that a son had purchased slaves from his castrense peculium, and, when he was instituted as heir by his father, was requested by his father to manumit them; the question was, if he had abstained from his father's inheritance and manumitted them, whether he would be deemed to have intermeddled with his father's inheritance.
dicebamus, nisi euidenter quasi heres manumiserit, non debere eum calumniam pati, quasi se miscuerit hereditati.
We used to say that, unless he manumitted them clearly as heir, he ought not to suffer vexation as if he had intermeddled with the inheritance.