Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §29.7.3.pr-29.7.3.2

Trusts by Codicil in Intestacy and Dependence on a Will

Passage 4579 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

Discusses the validity of trusts in a codicil when there is no will, the effect of an heir born after the codicil, and how codicils depend entirely on the will's validity if a will exists.

[IDEM libro trigensimo nono digestorum. ] §29.7.3.prSi quis cum testamentum nullum habebat, codicillis fideicommissa hoc modo dedit: 'quisquis mihi heres erit bonorumue possessor, eius fidei committo', fideicommissa praestari debent, quia pater familias, qui testamenti factionem habet et codicillos faceret, perinde haberi debet, ac si omnes heredes eius essent, ad quos legitima eius hereditas uel bonorum possessio peruentura esset.
[THE SAME AUTHOR, in his thirty-ninth book of Digests.] If someone, when he had no will, gave trusts in a codicil in this manner: "whoever is my heir or possessor of my goods, I commit to his trust," the trusts must be performed, because a paterfamilias who has the capacity to make a will and made a codicil ought to be treated just as if all those to whom his intestate inheritance or possession of goods would come were his heirs.
§29.7.3.1Sed et si post codicillos factos natus quis esset proximus adgnatus uel suus heres, fideicommissum praestari debebit: intellegitur enim is quoque heres scriptus et ideo non perinde habendus est ac si rupisset hos codicillos.
But even if, after the codicil was made, a next agnate or a self-successor should be born, the trust must still be performed: for he too is understood to be written as an heir, and therefore he is not to be treated as if he had broken this codicil.
§29.7.3.2Testamento facto etiamsi codicilli in eo confirmati non essent, uires tamen ex eo capient.
When a will has been made, even if the codicils were not confirmed in it, they will nevertheless derive their force from it.
denique si ex testamento hereditas adita non fuisset, fideicommissum ex huiusmodi codicillis nullius momenti erit.
Consequently, if the inheritance under the will has not been entered upon, a trust based on a codicil of this kind will be of no effect.

Notes

  1. §29.7.3.prfaceret — While the preceding habet is in the present indicative, faceret is in the imperfect subjunctive to convey a hypothetical or conditional nuance ('if he were to make a codicil'), corresponding to the general application of the rule.
  2. §29.7.3.1rupisset — From the verb rumpere ('to break/annul'). Under Roman law, if a self-successor (suus heres) is born after a will is made, the will is legally broken (testamentum ruptum). However, in the case of a codicil made without a will, the newly born heir is treated as if written as an heir (heres scriptus), and thus the codicil is not invalidated.
  3. §29.7.3.2Testamento facto — An ablative absolute. Followed by etiamsi, it sets up a conditional context: 'In a case where a will has been made, even if...'. It introduces the rule that when a will exists, the validity of any codicil is entirely dependent on the validity of that will (i.e., if the inheritance is not entered upon, the codicil fails).

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §29.7.3.pr-29.7.3.2. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:29.7.3.pr-29.7.3.2

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.