Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §31.0.43.pr-31.0.43.3

Ambiguous Terms in Legacies and Entitlement to Fruits

Passage 4770 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

Pomponius explains the interpretation of ambiguous phrases in legacies and trusts, covering cases with multiple co-heirs, the allocation of fruits in trusts with a future date based on whose interest the delay serves, and the debtor-favorable choice in alternative legacies.

[POMPONIUS libro tertio ad Quintum Mucium. ] §31.0.43.prSi ita relictum fuerit: 'quantum heres meus habebit, tantum Tithaso dari uolo', pro eo est, quasi ita sit scriptum: 'quantum omnes heredes habebunt'. §31.0.43.1Quod si ita fuerit: 'quantum unus heres habebit, tantum Tithaso heredes meos dare uolo', minor pars erit accipienda, quae uenit in legato. §31.0.43.2Pegasus solitus fuerat distinguere, si in diem fideicommissum relictum sit, ueluti post annos decem, interesse, cuius causa tempus dilatum sit, utrumne heredis, quo casu heredem fructum retinere debere, an legatarii, ueluti si in tempus pubertatis ei qui impubes sit fideicommissum relictum sit, tunc enim fructus praestandos et antecedentis temporis.
[POMPONIUS in the third book on Quintus Mucius.]\n If a legacy has been left in these terms: 'I wish as much to be given to Tithasus as my heir will have,' it is to be treated as if it were written: 'as much as all the heirs will have.'\n But if it has been in these terms: 'I wish my heirs to give to Tithasus as much as one heir will have,' the smaller share is to be accepted as that which comes into the legacy.\n Pegasus had been accustomed to distinguish, if a trust has been left with a future date, as for instance after ten years, whether it is of importance for whose sake the time was delayed—whether that of the heir (in which case the heir ought to retain the fruits) or that of the legatee (for example, if a trust has been left to someone who is under puberty, to the time of puberty, for then the fruits of the preceding time also must be provided).
et haec ita intellegenda sunt, si non nominatim adiectum est, ut cum incremento heres fideicommissum praestet.
And these rules are to be understood in this way only if it was not expressly added that the heir should discharge the trust with its increase.\n If it is written: 'Let my heir give ten or fifteen,' it is to be treated as if ten only had been bequeathed.
§31.0.43.3Si ita scriptum sit: 'decem aut quindecim heres dato', pro eo est ac si decem sola legata sint: aut si ita sit: 'post annum aut post biennium, quam ego decessero, heres dato', post biennium uidetur legatum, quia heredis esset potestas in eligendo.
Or if it is: 'Let my heir give one year or two years after my death,' the legacy is deemed to be due after two years, because the power of choosing would belong to the heir.

Notes

  1. 31.0.43.prquantum heres meus habebit — Although the singular form 'heres' is used, in the case of multiple co-heirs, it is treated as a fiction referring to the total sum held by all the heirs (the entire estate), as indicated by 'quasi... quantum omnes heredes habebunt'. In contrast, in §31.0.43.1, 'quantum unus heres' is interpreted as referring to the smallest share among the individual co-heirs (minor pars).
  2. 31.0.43.2interesse, cuius causa tempus dilatum sit — In this indirect discourse (accusative with infinitive construction), the impersonal verb 'interesse' is used with the indirect question clause 'cuius causa...' acting as its subject. This is further elaborated by the alternative clauses 'utrumne heredis... an legatarii...'. The entire complex structure is governed by 'Pegasus solitus fuerat distinguere...'.

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §31.0.43.pr-31.0.43.3. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:31.0.43.pr-31.0.43.3

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.