[ULPIANUS libro quinquagesimo ad edictum. ] §29.4.6.prQuia autem is qui ab intestato possidet hereditatem conueniri potest, si omittit causam testamenti, quaesitum est, si quasi ex uoluntate testatoris uideatur omisisse, an cogatur praestare.
But because a person who possesses an inheritance on intestacy can be sued if he bypasses the cause of the will, it has been asked, if he is deemed to have bypassed it as if in accordance with the wish of the testator, whether he is compelled to perform.
ut puta fratrem suum scripsit heredem et codicillos fecit ab intestato petitque a fratre, ut, si legitima hereditas ad eum pertinuerit, fideicommissa praestaret quibusdam: si igitur omissa causa testamenti ab intestato possideat hereditatem, uidendum est, an legatariis cogatur respondere.
For example, he wrote his brother as heir and made codicils on intestacy and asked his brother that, if the statutory inheritance should belong to him, he should perform fideicommissa to certain persons: if therefore, having bypassed the cause of the will, he possesses the inheritance on intestacy, it must be seen whether he is compelled to answer to the legatees.
et Iulianus libro trigesimo primo digestorum scribit cogendum primum legata praestare, mox dimissis legatis si quid superfuerit ex dodrante, tunc fideicommissa cogi praestare: ceterum si legata absumant dodrantem, tunc nihil fideicommissariis praestandum: habere enim integrum quadrantem legitimum heredem oportet.
And Julian writes in the thirty-first book of his Digests that he must first be compelled to perform the legacies, and soon, once the legacies have been paid, if anything remains from the three-quarters, then he is compelled to perform the fideicommissa; but if the legacies consume the three-quarters, then nothing is to be performed to the fideicommissaries: for the statutory heir ought to have a whole quarter.
ordo igitur a Iuliano adhibetur, ut prius legata praestentur, deinde ex superfluo fideicommissa, dummodo quadrans non tangatur.
Therefore, a sequence is applied by Julian, so that legacies are performed first, then the fideicommissa from the surplus, provided that the quarter is not touched.
ego puto Iuliani sententiam ita accipiendam, ut, si omissa causa testamenti ab intestato possideat hereditatem, cogatur omnimodo legata praestare: nec enim utique omittere ei hereditatem permisit, qui fideicommissa ab eo relinquit ab intestato.
I think that Julian's opinion is to be understood in this way, that if, having bypassed the cause of the will, he possesses the inheritance on intestacy, he is compelled in any event to perform the legacies: for he who leaves fideicommissa from him on intestacy did not by any means permit him to bypass the inheritance.
§29.4.6.1Plane si nominatim id ei permisit, dicemus non eum incidere in edictum, quia usus est facultate ea, quam ei testator concessit: quod si non ei concessit specialiter testator omittere, is ordo erit sequendus, quem Iulianus ostendit.
Clearly, if the testator nominatedly permitted him this, we shall say that he does not fall under the edict, because he made use of the power which the testator granted him; but if the testator did not specifically grant him permission to bypass, that sequence must be followed which Julian showed.
Quid deinde dicemus, si §29.4.6.2isdem et ex testamento legata et fideicommissa ab intestato fuerint relicta et praeterea aliis fideicommissa? an ordinem illum debeamus facere, quem Iulianus monstrat, an uero contribuemus omnes fideicommissarios quasi aequales? et magis est, ut ita distinguamus multum interesse, utrum incidit in edictum heres an non.
What then shall we say if legacies by will and fideicommissa on intestacy have been left to the same persons, and besides, fideicommissa to others? Should we establish that sequence which Julian points out, or indeed shall we class all fideicommissaries together as equal? And it is more correct to distinguish that it makes a great difference whether the heir falls under the edict or not.
nam si incidit, praeferendi erunt hi quibus testamento relicta fuerunt quaedam: sin uero non incidit, quia haec fuit testatoris uoluntas, ut daret ei facultatem et ab intestato succedendi, uel quia alia causa intercessit, quae secundum ea quae supra scripta sunt non offendit edictum, dicendum est contribui fideicommissa debere quasi exaequata.
For if he falls under it, those to whom certain things were left by the will must be preferred; but if he does not fall under it, because this was the wish of the testator, to give him the power of succeeding also on intestacy, or because some other cause intervened which, according to what has been written above, does not violate the edict, we must say that the fideicommissa ought to be classed together as equal.
§29.4.6.3Non simpliciter autem praetor pollicitus est se daturum actionem, sed causa cognita: nam siue inuenerit testatorem huius rei auctorem esse ipsumque permississe ab intestato succedere aut si qua alia iusta causa omittendi interuenerit, utique non dabit actionem in eum legatorum.
But the praetor did not promise simply that he would grant an action, but after inquiry into the case: for whether he finds that the testator himself was the author of this matter and permitted him to succeed on intestacy, or if any other just cause for bypassing intervened, he will certainly not grant an action for legacies against him.
§29.4.6.4Item si inuenerit bona ad alium pertinere, non dabit actionem, si uero nulla suspicio collusionis religionem praetoris instruxerit.
Likewise, if he finds that the property belongs to another, he will not grant the action, provided however that no suspicion of collusion instructs the conscience of the praetor.
§29.4.6.5Si autem is, cui auferri hereditas potest, aliquid possideat de hereditate et possidere desierit sine dolo malo, magis est, ut desinat conueniri.
But if he from whom the inheritance can be taken away possesses something of the inheritance and ceases to possess without fraud, it is more correct that he ceases to be sued.
§29.4.6.6Quod ergo tempus spectabimus, possideat nec ne? litis contestatae tempus spectari debet.
What time then shall we look to, whether he possesses or not? The time of joinder of issue ought to be looked to.
§29.4.6.7Certe si uacantia bona quis possederit et quadriennium praeterierit, indubitate conueniri poterit ex hac parte edicti, quia et omisit causam testamenti et quia ab intestato possedit et quidem sic, ut praescriptione quadriennii tutus sit.
Certainly, if someone has possessed vacant property and four years have elapsed, he can undoubtedly be sued under this part of the edict, because he both bypassed the cause of the will and possessed on intestacy, and indeed in such a way that he is protected by the prescription of four years.
§29.4.6.8Si patronus ex debita sibi portione heres scriptus dato sibi coherede ex alia parte omiserit institutionem, quia debita pars eius erat exhausta, omiserit et coheres, deinde possideat patronus ab intestato legitimam hereditatem totam, dandam in eum legatorum actionem Celsus libro sexto decimo digestorum ait, quae in Titium competeret, sufficeretque patrono, quod integram debitam sibi portionem habeat.
If a patron, designated as heir for his due share, having been given a co-heir for another share, has bypassed the institution because his due share was exhausted, and the co-heir also bypassed, and then the patron possesses the entire statutory inheritance on intestacy, Celsus says in the sixteenth book of his Digests that the action for legacies which would lie against Titius must be granted against him, and it would suffice for the patron that he has his due share unimpaired.
haec autem ita sunt, si coheres collusit cum patrono: aliter enim non esse patronum cogendum legata praestare: neque enim interdictum est, ut quis omittat hereditatem, si sine fraude id fiat.
But these things are so if the co-heir colluded with the patron; for otherwise the patron is not to be compelled to perform legacies: for it is not forbidden for anyone to bypass an inheritance, if it is done without fraud.
H §29.4.6.9oc edictum etiam ad contra tabulas bonorum possessionem pertinere magis dicendum est, scilicet ut qui accipiendo contra tabulas bonorum possessionem liberis parentibusque legata praestaret si omiserit eam bonorum possessionem et ab intestato possideat hereditatem, cogatur ea praestare, quae praestaret, si contra tabulas possessionem accepit.
It must rather be said that this edict also applies to possession of goods contrary to the will; namely, that he who, by accepting possession of goods contrary to the will, would perform legacies to children and parents, if he bypasses that possession of goods and possesses the inheritance on intestacy, is compelled to perform those things which he would perform if he had accepted possession contrary to the will.
§29.4.6.10Si libertas sub condicione fuerit data 'si decem dederit' et omissa causa testamenti fuerit, non aliter libertas competet, quam si condicioni paritum sit.
If freedom was given under a condition "if he gives ten," and the cause of the will is bypassed, freedom will not apply unless the condition has been complied with.