[SCAEUOLA libro octauo quaestionum. ] §29.7.14.prQuidam referunt, quantum repeto apud Uiuianum, Sabini et Cassii et Proculi expositam esse in quaestione huiusmodi controuersiam: an legata, quae posteaquam instituti mortem obierunt codicillis adscripta uel adempta sunt, a substitutis debeantur, id est an perinde datio et ademptio etiam hoc tempore codicillis facta ualeat ac si testamento facta esset.
[SCAEVOLA, in his eighth book of Questions.] Some report, as far as I recall from Vivianus, that a controversy of the following kind was set forth in a question between Sabinus, Cassius, and Proculus: whether legacies which were added or taken away by a codicil after the death of the instituted heirs are owed by the substitutes; that is, whether a gift and a revocation made by a codicil even at this time are just as valid as if they had been made by a will.
quod Sabinum et Cassium respondisse aiunt Proculo dissentiente.
They say that Sabinus and Cassius answered in the affirmative, while Proculus dissented.
nimirum autem Sabini et Cassii collectio, quam et ipsi reddunt, illa est, quod codicilli pro parte testamenti habentur obseruationemque et legem iuris inde traditam seruent.
Indeed, the reasoning of Sabinus and Cassius, which they themselves also offer, is that a codicil is considered part of a will and therefore preserves the observance and rule of law handed down from it.
ego autem ausim sententiam Proculi uerissimam dicere.
But I would venture to say that the opinion of Proculus is most true.
nullius enim momenti est legatum, quod datum est ei, qui tempore codicillorum in rebus humanis non est, licet testamenti fuerit: esse enim debet cui detur, deinde sic quaeri, an datum consistat, ut non ante iuris ratio quam persona quaerenda sit.
For a legacy is of no force which is given to one who, at the time of the codicil, is no longer among human affairs, even though he was so at the time of the will: for there must be someone to whom it is given, and then it is to be asked whether the gift stands, so that the person must be inquired into before the rule of law.
et in proposito igitur quod post obitum heredis codicillis legatum uel ademptum est, nullius momenti est, quia heres, ad quem sermonem conferat, in rebus humanis non est eaque ademptio et datio nunc uana efficietur.
Therefore, in the case proposed, what is bequeathed or revoked by a codicil after the death of the heir is of no force, because the heir to whom the codicil addresses its words is not among human affairs, and that revocation and gift will now be rendered void.
haec in eo herede, qui ex asse institutus erit dato substituto, ita ut ab instituto codicilli confirmarentur.
This applies to an heir who was instituted for the whole estate with a substitute given, in such a way that the codicil was confirmed by the instituted heir.
§29.7.14.1quod si duo instituti sint substitutis datis unusque eorum decesserit, utilia uidentur legata: sed circa coheredem erit tractatus, numquid totum legatum debeat, si 'quisquis mihi heres erit' legatum erit, an uero non, quia sit substitutus heres, qui partem faciat, licet ipse non debeat.
But if two heirs have been instituted with substitutes given, and one of them has died, the legacies seem to be valid; but concerning the co-heir there will be a discussion, whether he owes the whole legacy, if the legacy was 'whoever shall be my heir', or indeed not, because there is a substitute heir who makes up a share, even though he himself does not owe it.
idem etiam potest circa nomina expressa tractari.
The same can also be discussed concerning specified names.
multoque magis solum coheredem totum debere puto, quia is adiunctus sit, qui etiam tunc cum adiungebatur in rebus humanis non erat.
And I think much more that the sole co-heir owes the whole, because the one who was joined was not among human affairs even at the time when he was being joined.