[ULPIANUS libro quinquagesimo ad edictum. ] §29.4.1.prPraetor uoluntates defunctorum tuetur et eorum calliditati occurrit, qui omissa causa testamenti ab intestato hereditatem partemue eius possident ad hoc, ut eos circumueniant, quibus quid ex iudicio defuncti deberi potuit, si non ab intestato possideretur hereditas, et in eos actionem pollicetur.
[ULPIAN, book fifty on the Edict] The praetor protects the wishes of deceased persons and counteracts the craftiness of those who, having abandoned the basis of the testament, possess the inheritance or a part of it as on intestacy, for the purpose of defrauding those to whom something could have been due under the judgment of the deceased if the inheritance were not possessed as on intestacy; and he promises an action against them.
§29.4.1.1Et parui refert, utrum quis per semet ipsum an per alium adquirere potuit hereditatem: nam quomodocumque potuit, si non adquisiit hereditatem, in ea causa est, ut incidat in edictum praetoris:
And it matters little whether one was able to acquire the inheritance through oneself or through another; for in whatever way one was able, if one did not acquire the inheritance, one is in the position of falling under the edict of the praetor.
§29.4.1.2praetermittere autem causam testamenti uidetur, qui, cum posset iubere, noluit id facere.
But he who, when he was able to command, refused to do so, is deemed to abandon the basis of the testament.
§29.4.1.3Quid ergo si seruus eius cum iuberetur adire hereditatem, dicto audiens non fuit? sed compellendus est seruus hoc facere ideoque dominus ab intestato ueniens incidit in edictum.
What then if his slave, when ordered to enter upon the inheritance, was not obedient to the word? But the slave must be compelled to do this, and therefore the master, succeeding as on intestacy, falls under the edict.
§29.4.1.4Sin autem nec certioratus est dominus a seruo et postea ipse ab intestato possedit hereditatem, non debet incidere in edictum, nisi si fingit ignorantiam.
But if the master was not informed by the slave, and afterwards himself possessed the inheritance as on intestacy, he ought not to fall under the edict, unless he is feigning ignorance.
§29.4.1.5Si proponatur idem et institutus et substitutus et praetermiserit institutionem, an incidat in edictum, quaeritur.
If the same person is proposed as both instituted and substituted heir and has abandoned the institution, it is asked whether he falls under the edict.
et non puto incidere, quasi testator hanc ei dederit facultatem, qui eum substituit.
And I do not think he falls under it, as if the testator who substituted him had given him this choice.
§29.4.1.6Praetermittere est causam testamenti, si quis repudiauerit hereditatem.
To abandon the basis of the testament is when someone has repudiated the inheritance.
§29.4.1.7Qui sunt in potestate statim heredes sunt ex testamento nec quod se abstinere possunt, quicquam facit.
Those who are in power are immediately heirs under the testament, nor does the fact that they can abstain make any difference.
quod si postea miscuerunt, ex testamento uidentur heredes: nisi si abstinuerint quidem se testamento, uerum ab intestato petierint bonorum possessionem: hic enim incident in edictum.
But if they have subsequently meddled with the estate, they are deemed heirs under the testament; unless they have indeed abstained under the testament, but have sought possession of the goods as on intestacy, for in this case they will fall under the edict.
§29.4.1.8Qui sub condicione institutus heres potuit parere condicioni nec paruit, cum condicio talis sit, ut in arbitrio sit heredis instituti, deinde ab intestato possideat hereditatem, debebit edicto teneri, quia eiusmodi condicio pro pura debet haberi.
If one who was instituted heir under a condition was able to comply with the condition and did not, when the condition is such as to be in the power of the instituted heir, and afterwards possesses the inheritance as on intestacy, he ought to be bound by the edict, because a condition of this kind must be regarded as unconditional.
§29.4.1.9Non quaerimus, qui praetermissa causa testamenti ab intestato hereditatem possideant, utrum iure legitimo possideant an non: nam quoquo iure possideant hereditatem uel partem eius, conueniri ex edicto poterunt, utique si non ex alia causa possideant: ut puta si quis omisit quidem hereditatem, sed ex causa fideicommissi possidet missus in possessionem fideicommissorum seruandorum causa: uel si proponas eum crediti seruandi causa uenisse in possessionem: nam nec ex hac causa legatariis respondere cogetur.
We do not ask whether those who possess the inheritance as on intestacy, having abandoned the basis of the testament, possess by statutory right or not; for by whatever right they possess the inheritance or a part of it, they can be sued under the edict, at least if they do not possess on some other ground: as, for example, if someone has indeed abandoned the inheritance, but possesses on the ground of a trust-gift, having been put into possession for the sake of preserving trust-gifts; or if you propose that he came into possession for the sake of preserving a debt; for neither on this ground will he be compelled to answer to the legatees.
totiens igitur edictum praetoris locum habebit, quotiens aut quasi heres legitimus possidet aut quia bonorum possessionem accipit ab intestato aut si forte quasi praedo possideat hereditatem fingens sibi aliquem titulum ab intestato possessionis: quocumque enim modo hereditatem lucrifacturus quis sit, legata praestabit, sane interueniente cautione 'euicta hereditate legata reddi'.
Therefore, the edict of the praetor will have place only so often as one possesses either as a statutory heir, or because one receives possession of the goods as on intestacy, or if by chance one possesses the inheritance as a plunderer, feigning some title of possession as on intestacy; for in whatever way one is to make a profit from the inheritance, one shall perform the legacies, provided indeed that there is the security 'that the legacies are to be returned if the inheritance is evicted'.
§29.4.1.10Et si non possideat quis hereditatem, dolo autem malo fecerit quo minus possideat, eueniet, ut perinde teneatur atque si hereditatem adisset.
And if one does not possess the inheritance, but has acted with malicious intent so that he does not possess it, the result will be that he is held liable just as if he had entered upon the inheritance.
§29.4.1.11Dolo autem malo fecisse uidetur quo minus possideat, qui ad alium transtulit possessionem per fraudem, ut legatarii ceterique qui quid in testamento acceperunt careant his quae sibi relicta sunt.
But he is deemed to have acted with malicious intent so that he does not possess, who has transferred the possession to another through fraud, so that the legatees and others who received anything in the testament may be deprived of what was left to them.
§29.4.1.12Sane quaestionis fuit, utrum is demum dolo malo facere uideatur quo minus possideat, qui per dolum eam possessionem dimittat, quam aliquando habuit, an uero is quoque, qui hoc ipsum malitiose fecit, ne ab initio possidere inciperet.
Indeed, it was a question whether only he who through malicious intent parts with that possession which he once had is deemed to act with malicious intent so that he does not possess, or whether he also is so deemed who has acted maliciously for this very purpose, lest he should begin to possess from the beginning.
Labeo sibi uideri ait non minus delinquere eum, qui non incipiat possidere, quam eum qui desinat: quae sententia optinet.
Labeo says that it seems to him that he who does not begin to possess commits no less of an offense than he who ceases to possess; and this opinion prevails.
§29.4.1.13Si quis per fraudem omiserit hereditatem, ut ad legitimum perueniat, legatorum petitione tenebitur.
If anyone through fraud has abandoned the inheritance so that it may come to the statutory heir, he will be bound by the petition of the legatees.