[ULPIANUS libro quinquagesimo ad edictum. ] §29.4.10.prSi non solus, sed cum alio possidet hereditatem is qui omisit causam testamenti, rectissime Iulianus ait, quod et Marcellus probat, dandam in ipsum quoque legatorum actionem utilem: nec enim aspernari debet obesse sibi factum heredis scripti, cui etiam profuerit.
[ULPIANUS in the fiftieth book of his Commentary on the Edict] If a person who has rejected the cause of a will possesses the inheritance not alone, but with another, Julian very correctly says, and Marcellus also approves, that an action on the path of utility (actio utilis) for legacies should also be granted against him: for he ought not to reject that the act of the written heir should disadvantage him, since it also profited him.
hoc autem ita est, nisi si pecuniam accepit is qui omisit causam testamenti: tunc enim in solidum tenebitur.
But this is so unless the person who rejected the cause of the will accepted money: for then he will be liable for the whole (in solidum).
§29.4.10.1Cum substitutis ab institutis legata fuissent relicta et tam instituti quam substituti omissa causa testamenti possideant ab intestato hereditatem, diuus Pius rescripsit neque improbe neque imprudenter institutos legata recusare substitutis data: recte enim recusant in se dari legatorum fideiue commissorum petitionem substituto, cui liberum fuit adeunti hereditatem non fideicommissum petere, sed uniuersa bona optinere.
When legacies had been left to substitutes by the instituted heirs, and both the instituted and the substitutes, having rejected the cause of the will, possess the inheritance on intestacy, the deified Pius rescinded that the instituted heirs neither improperly nor imprudently refuse the legacies given to the substitutes: for they correctly refuse the petition of legacies or fideicommissa to be granted against themselves to a substitute who, upon entering the inheritance, was free not to seek a fideicommissum but to obtain the entire property.
§29.4.10.2Si duo sint heredes institutus et substitutus et ambo omissa causa testamenti ab intestato possideant hereditatem, quaestionis est, an ambo cogantur legata praestare et utrum unusquisque ea legata quae a se relicta sunt an uero ambo utraque legata cogantur praestare.
If there are two heirs, an instituted and a substitute, and both possess the inheritance on intestacy having rejected the cause of the will, the question is whether both are compelled to perform the legacies, and whether each is compelled to perform those legacies which were left by himself, or indeed both are compelled to perform both legacies.
ego puto in solidum aduersus singulos legatorum petitionem dandam: sed utrum eorum quae a se legata sunt an uero etiam eorum quae ab altero herede, uideamus.
I think that the petition of legacies should be granted against each individual for the whole (in solidum); but let us see whether for those which were bequeathed by themselves, or indeed also for those by the other heir.
et alias proponamus institutum solum possidere hereditatem: eorum legatorum, quae sunt a se relicta, an etiam eorum, quae sunt a substituto relicta, actionem patietur? dicendum est ita demum etiam eorum, si dolo substituti perueniat ad institutos hereditas sine pecunia: nam si pecuniam accepit substitutus, ipse erit conueniendus.
And otherwise let us propose that the instituted heir alone possesses the inheritance: will he suffer an action for those legacies which were left by himself, or also for those which were left by the substitute? It must be said that he will do so for those of the substitute only if the inheritance comes to the instituted without money through the malice (dolo) of the substitute; for if the substitute accepted money, he himself will have to be sued.
item si solus substitutus possideret, si quidem pecunia accepta institutus omisisset, dicemus institutum suis legatariis respondere debere, substitutum suis: si autem sine pecunia, aduersus substitutum dabimus actionem.
Likewise, if the substitute alone possessed, and if indeed the instituted, having accepted money, had rejected it, we will say that the instituted ought to answer to his own legatees, and the substitute to his own; but if without money, we will give an action against the substitute.
nunc cum ambo possideant, melius dicetur singulos suis legatariis respondere debere.
Now since both possess, it will be better said that each ought to answer to his own legatees.