[IDEM libro primo ad Urseium Ferocem. ] §30.1.104.prAb omnibus heredibus legatum ita erat: 'quisquis mihi heres erit, damnas esto Titio dare centum': deinde infra conprehensum erat, ne unus ex heredibus ei daret: quaeritur, reliqui heredes utrum tota centum dare deberent an deducta unius illius hereditaria portione.
[THE SAME, from the first book on Urseius Ferox.] A legacy had been charged on all the heirs as follows: 'Whoever shall be my heir, let him be under obligation to give one hundred to Titius.' Subsequently, it was subjoined below that one of the heirs should not give it to him. The question is whether the remaining heirs ought to pay the whole one hundred, or with the deduction of the hereditary share of that single heir.
respondit uerius esse reliquos heredes tota centum debere, cum et significatio uerborum non repugnet huic sententiae et uoluntas testatoris congruat.
He answered that it is more correct that the remaining heirs owe the whole hundred, since both the meaning of the words is not repugnant to this opinion and the intention of the testator is in agreement with it.
§30.1.104.1In testamento sic erat scriptum: 'Lucio Titio, si is heredi meo tabellas, quibus ei pecuniam expromiseram, dederit, centum dato': Titius deinde antequam tabellas heredi redderet, decesserat: quaesitum est, an heredi eius legatum deberetur.
In a will it was written as follows: 'To Lucius Titius, if he shall have delivered to my heir the tablets by which I had promised money to him, let one hundred be given.' Titius subsequently died before he could return the tablets to the heir. The question was raised whether the legacy was due to his heir.
Cassius respondit, si tabulae fuissent, non deberi, quia non redditis his dies legati non cessit.
Cassius answered that if the tablets had existed, it was not due, because, as they had not been returned, the date of the legacy did not arrive.
IULIANUS notat: si testamenti faciendi tempore tabulae nullae fuerunt, una ratione dici potest legatum Titio deberi, quod ἀδύνατος condicio pro non scripta habetur.
JULIAN notes: if at the time of making the will there were no tablets, it can be said on one ground that the legacy is due to Titius, because an impossible condition is held as not written.
§30.1.104.2Etiam rem hostium posse legari Sabinus ait, si aliquo casu emi possit.
Sabinus says that even property of enemies can be bequeathed, if by some chance it can be purchased.
§30.1.104.3Si Attio ita legatum fuerit: 'quisquis mihi heres erit, damnas esto Attio heredi decem dare', deducta sua parte Attius decem petet.
If a legacy was left to Attius as follows: 'Whoever shall be my heir, let him be under obligation to give ten to Attius my heir,' Attius will claim the ten with the deduction of his own share.
§30.1.104.4Item si iussus fuisset heres decem dare et fundum sibi habere, deducta sua parte decem dabit.
Likewise, if an heir had been ordered to give ten and to keep the estate for himself, he will give the ten with the deduction of his own share.
§30.1.104.5Denique constitit, cum ita legatum fuisset: 'quisquis mihi heres erit, damnas esto heredi meo decem dare', exaequari omnium heredum partes eo, quod unusquisque et sibi et coheredi suo dari damnatus uidetur.
Finally, it was settled that when a legacy was left as follows: 'Whoever shall be my heir, let him be under obligation to give ten to my heir,' the shares of all the heirs are equalized, because each one is deemed to have been bound to give both to himself and to his co-heir.
§30.1.104.6Cum quidam heredem instituit, quandoque mater eius decessisset, deinde secundus heres scriptus fuisset et ab eo legata ei, qui sub condicione heres institutus fuisset, relicta essent isque uiua matre decessisset, postquam dies legati cesserit, quaesitum est, an heredi eius legata deberentur.
When someone instituted an heir to take effect whenever his mother should die, and subsequently a second heir was written in, and from him legacies were left to the person who had been instituted heir under the condition, and that person died while the mother was still living, the question was raised, after the date of the legacy arrived, whether the legacies were due to his heir.
uerius est legatum heredi deberi, siue pure a substituto legatum datum est primo heredi siue sub hac condicione 'si heres non fuerit', quia moriente eo condicio impletur.
It is more correct that the legacy is due to the heir, whether the legacy was given by the substitute to the first heir unconditionally, or under this condition 'if he shall not have been the heir,' because by his death the condition is fulfilled.
§30.1.104.7Si socero a genero suo herede instituto pars hereditatis alii legata fuisset, deducta dote eum debiturum esse partem hereditatis legatam Sabinus respondit, quemadmodum, si pecunia ex crediti causa socero debita fuisset, ea deducta partem hereditatis daturus fuisset.
Sabinus answered that if a father-in-law, who was instituted heir by his son-in-law, was charged with a legacy of a part of the inheritance to another, he would owe the legacy of the part of the inheritance after deducting the dowry, just as, if money had been owed to the father-in-law on account of a loan, he would have given the part of the inheritance after deducting that sum.