[ULPIANUS libro sexagesimo primo ad edictum. ] §29.2.71.prSi seruum quis alienum ab hostibus redemerit et heredem eum cum libertate instituerit, magis puto fore eum liberum et necessarium heredem: nam cum scribit ei libertatem, uinculo suo resoluit.
[ULPIANUS, from the sixty-first book on the Edict.] If someone ransoms another's slave from enemies and appoints him heir with freedom, I rather think that he will become free and a necessary heir; for when he writes freedom for him, he releases him from his own bond.
et in hoc solum redit iure postliminii, ut non iterum seruus eius fiat, cuius erat antequam caperetur (hoc enim satis impium est), sed ut pristino domino suam aestimationem omnimodo offerat uel maneat ei obligatus, donec pretium soluat: quod libertatis fauore introductum est.
And he returns by the right of postliminium only in this respect: not that he becomes again the slave of him whose he was before he was captured (for this is impious enough), but that he must by all means offer his valuation to his former master, or remain obligated to him until he pays the price; which was introduced in favor of freedom.
§29.2.71.1Si quis hac lege emptus sit, ut intra certum diem manumittatur, et cum libertate heres institutus sit, an ei succurrendum sit, ut se abstineat, uideamus.
If anyone was bought under this law, that he should be manumitted within a certain day, and has been appointed heir with freedom, let us see whether he should be relieved so that he may abstain.
magisque est, ut, donec dies non exstiterit, possit ei necessarius heres effici et non possit sese abstinere: sin autem dies praeteritus fuerit, tunc non necessarius, sed uoluntarius heres efficitur et potest se abstinere secundum exemplum eius, cui fideicommissaria libertas sub condicione debebatur.
And it is more reasonable that, as long as the day has not arrived, he can be made a necessary heir to him and cannot abstain; but if the day has passed, then he is made not a necessary, but a voluntary heir, and can abstain, following the example of one to whom trust-bequeathed freedom was owed under a condition.
§29.2.71.2Si quis dederit nummos domino, ut manummittatur, puto huic omnimodo esse succurrendum.
If anyone has given money to his master so that he might be manumitted, I think that he must be relieved by all means.
§29.2.71.3Praetor ait: 'si per eum eamue factum erit, quo quid ex ea hereditate amoueretur'. §29.2.71.4Si quis suus se dicit retinere hereditatem nolle, aliquid autem ex hereditate amouerit, abstinendi beneficium non habebit.
The praetor says: 'If it has been brought about through him or her that anything should be removed from that inheritance.' If any self-successor says that he does not want to retain the inheritance, but has removed something from the inheritance, he will not have the benefit of abstaining.
§29.2.71.5Non dixit praetor 'si quid amouerit', sed 'si per eum eamue factum erit, quo quid ex ea amoueretur': siue ergo ipse amouerit siue amouendum curauerit, edictum locum habebit.
The praetor did not say 'if he has removed anything', but 'if it has been brought about through him or her that anything should be removed from it'; therefore, whether he himself removed it or caused it to be removed, the edict will apply.
§29.2.71.6Amouisse eum accipimus, qui quid celauerit aut interuerterit aut consumpserit.
We understand that he has removed it, who has concealed, embezzled, or consumed anything.
§29.2.71.7Ait praetor 'quo quid ex ea amoueretur': siue autem una res siue plures fuerint amotae, edicto locus est, siue ex ea hereditate sint siue ad eam hereditatem pertineant.
The praetor says: 'that anything should be removed from it': but whether one thing or more have been removed, there is place for the edict, whether they are of that inheritance or belong to that inheritance.
§29.2.71.8Amouere non uidetur, qui non callido animo nec maligno rem reposuit: ne is quidem, qui in re errauit, dum putat non esse hereditariam.
He is not deemed to have removed it, who put the thing back without a crafty or malicious mind; nor indeed is he who was mistaken about the thing, thinking it was not part of the inheritance.
si igitur non animo amouendi, nec ut hereditati damnum det, rem abstulit, sed dum putat non esse hereditariam, dicendum est eum amouisse non uideri.
If, therefore, he took the thing away, not with the intention of removing it, nor to cause damage to the inheritance, but thinking it was not part of the inheritance, it must be said that he is not deemed to have removed it.
H §29.2.71.9aec uerba edicti ad eum pertinent, qui ante quid amouit, deinde se abstinet: ceterum si ante se abstinuit, deinde tunc amouit, hic uideamus an edicto locus sit.
These words of the edict pertain to him who first removed something and then abstains; but if he abstained first and then afterwards removed it, let us see here whether there is place for the edict.
magisque est, ut putem istic Sabini sententiam admittendam, scilicet ut furti potius actione creditoribus teneatur: etenim qui semel se abstinuit, quemadmodum ex post delicto obligatur?
And it is more reasonable that I think Sabinus' opinion should be admitted there, namely, that he should rather be liable to the creditors by the action for theft; for indeed, how is he who has once abstained bound by a subsequent delict?