Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §29.7.13.pr-29.7.13.1

Distinction Between Intent to Make a Will and a Codicil

Passage 4589 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

Papinian discusses the criteria for determining whether a deceased intended to make a will or merely a trust through a codicil, based on the deceased's written expressions and other testamentary actions.

[IDEM libro nono decimo quaestionum. ] §29.7.13.prIllud enim sine dubio dici non potest etiam filiam manumittere cogendam, cum ab ea nihil pater petierit et iure suo heres exstiterit.
[THE SAME, in his nineteenth book of Questions.] For indeed, it cannot without doubt be said that the daughter also is to be compelled to manumit, since the father has requested nothing from her and she has become heir by her own right.
§29.7.13.1Tractari solet de eo, qui, cum tabulas testamenti non fecisset, codicillis ita scripsit: 'Titium heredem esse uolo'. sed multum interest, utrum fideicommissariam hereditatem a legitimo per hanc scripturam, quam codicillorum instar habere uoluit, reliquerit an uero testamentum facere se existimauerit: nam hoc casu nihil a legitimo peti poterit.
It is customary to discuss the case of one who, when he had not made a written will, wrote thus in a codicil: "I wish Titius to be heir." But there is a great difference, whether he left a trust-inheritance from the intestate heir through this writing, which he wished to have the status of a codicil, or whether he believed himself to be making a will: for in the latter case nothing can be claimed from the intestate heir.
uoluntatis autem quaestio ex eo scripto plerumque declarabitur: nam si forte a Titio legata reliquit, substitutum adscripsit, heres si non exstitisset, sine dubio non codicillos, sed testamentum facere uoluisse intellegetur.
Moreover, the question of intention will for the most part be clarified from that writing: for if by chance he left legacies to be paid by Titius, or added a substitute heir in case he did not become heir, he will without doubt be understood to have wished to make a will, and not a codicil.

Notes

  1. §29.7.13.prIllud ... etiam filiam manumittere cogendam — "Illud" is a demonstrative pronoun anticipating the contents of the following accusative with infinitive clause "etiam filiam manumittere cogendam [esse]" (that the daughter also is to be compelled to manumit).
  2. §29.7.13.1utrum ... reliquerit an uero ... existimauerit — An indirect alternative question introduced by the conjunctions "utrum ... an ...", with both verbs in the perfect subjunctive ("reliquerit", "existimauerit"). It depends on the main clause's verbal expression "multum interest" (it makes a great difference).
  3. §29.7.13.1hoc casu — Refers to the latter of the two preceding alternatives ("an uero testamentum facere se existimauerit": if he believed himself to be making a will). Since a direct institution of an heir in a codicil is void under civil law, and no intention to create a trust (fideicommissum) is established, nothing can be claimed from the intestate heir ("legitimus").
  4. §29.7.13.1a Titio legata reliquit — The preposition "a" ("ab") indicates the person (here, Titius, who was assumed to be the heir) upon whom the obligation of paying the legacies is imposed. It means "left legacies to be paid by Titius", which serves as strong evidence that the deceased intended to treat him as a testamentary heir rather than a mere trustee under a codicil.

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §29.7.13.pr-29.7.13.1. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:29.7.13.pr-29.7.13.1

Please note the AI-draft status of the translation and the date accessed.

Translation, notes and summary are AI-generated drafts, revised through reader feedback.