[IDEM libro septimo decimo quaestionum. ] §31.0.66.prMacuius fundum mihi ac Titio sub condicione legauit, heres autem eius eundem sub eadem condicione mihi legauit.
[THE SAME in the seventeenth book of Questions.] Maevius bequeathed a tract of land to me and Titius under a condition, and his heir bequeathed the same tract to me under the same condition.
uerendum esse Iulianus ait, ne existente condicione pars eadem ex utroque testamento mihi debeatur.
Julianus says we must fear that, if the condition is fulfilled, the same share may be due to me under both testaments.
uoluntatis tamen quaestio erit: nam incredibile uidetur id egisse heredem, ut eadem portio bis eidem debeatur, sed nerisimile est de altera parte eum cogitasse.
Yet, it will be a question of intention; for it seems incredible that the heir acted to the end that the same share should be due twice to the same person, but it is likely that he was thinking of the other share.
sane constitutio principis, qua placuit eidem saepe legatum corpus non onerare heredem, ad unum testamentum pertinet.
To be sure, the imperial constitution, which established that a specific thing repeatedly bequeathed to the same person does not burden the heir, applies to a single testament.
debitor autem non semper quod debet iure legat, sed ita, si plus sit in specie legati: si enim idem sub eadem condicione relinquitur, quod emolumentum legati futurum est?
On the other hand, a debtor does not always legally bequeath what he owes, but only if there is something more in the form of the legacy; for if the same thing is left under the same condition, what benefit of the legacy is there to be?
§31.0.66.1Duorum testamentis pars fundi, quae Maeuii est, Titio legata est: non ineleganter probatum est ab uno herede soluta parte fundi, quae Maeuii fuit, ex alio testamento liberationem optingere, neque postea parte alienata reuocari actionem semel extinctam.
By the testaments of two persons, a share of a tract of land which belongs to Maevius was bequeathed to Titius. It was not inelegantly decided that, upon the payment of the share of the land which had belonged to Maevius by one heir, release is obtained from the other testament, and that the action, once extinguished, is not revived after the share is subsequently alienated.
§31.0.66.2Sed si pars fundi simpliciter, non quae Maeuii fuit, legetur, solutio prior non peremit alteram actionem, atque etiam hanc eandem partem aliquo modo suam factam poterit alter heres soluere; neque plures in uno fundo dominium iuris intellectu, non diuisione corporis optinent.
But if a share of the land is bequeathed simply, and not as that which had belonged to Maevius, the first payment does not destroy the other action, and the other heir will also be able to pay this same share, having made it his own in some way; for several people hold ownership in one tract of land by legal concept, not by division of the physical body.
§31.0.66.3Non idem respondetur, cum duobus testamentis generatim homo legatur: nam qui soluente altero legatarii factus est quamuis postea sit alienatus, ab altero herede idem solui non poterit: eademque ratio stipulationis est.
The same answer is not given when a slave is bequeathed generally by two testaments; for a slave who has become the property of the legatee upon payment by one heir, even if subsequently alienated, cannot be paid by the other heir; and the same rule applies to a stipulation.
hominis enim legatum orationis compendio singulos homines continet utque ab initio non consistit in his qui legatarii fuerunt, ita frustra soluitur cuius dominium postea legatarius adeptus est, tametsi dominus esse desinit.
For a legacy of a slave, by a shortcut of expression, includes individual men, and just as from the beginning it does not consist of those who belonged to the legatee, so it is paid in vain if the legatee subsequently acquired ownership of him, even if he ceases to be the owner.
§31.0.66.4In fundo legato si heres sepelierit, aestimatio referenda erit ad totum pretium fundi, quo potuit ante sepulturam aestimari: quare si fuerit solutus, actionem adhuc ex testamento propter locum alienatum durare rationis est.
If the heir has buried someone in a bequeathed tract of land, the valuation must be referred to the entire price of the land at which it could have been valued before the burial; therefore, if it has been paid, it is reasonable that the action under the testament still continues on account of the alienated place.
§31.0.66.5Eum, qui ab uno ex heredibus, qui solus oneratus fuerat, litis aestimationem legatae rei abstulit, postea codicillis apertis ab omnibus heredibus eiusdem rei relictae dixi dominium non quaerere: eum enim, qui pluribus speciebus iuris uteretur, non saepius eandem rem eidem legare, sed loqui saepius.
I said that he who has recovered the litigation value of a bequeathed thing from one of the heirs, who alone had been burdened, does not subsequently acquire ownership of the same thing left by all the heirs upon the opening of codicils; for a person who enjoys several forms of law does not bequeath the same thing to the same person more often, but speaks more often.
§31.0.66.6Fundo legato si usus fructus alienus sit, nihilo minus petendus est ab herede: usus fructus enim etsi in iure, non in parte consistit, emolumentum tamen rei continet: enimuero fundo relicto ob reliquas praestationes, quae legatum sequuntur, agetur, uerbi gratia si fundus pignori datus uel aliena possessio sit.
If a usufruct belongs to another in a bequeathed tract of land, it must nevertheless be claimed from the heir; for although usufruct consists in law and not in a physical share, it nevertheless contains the enjoyment of the thing; indeed, when a tract of land is left, an action will lie for the other performances that follow the legacy, for instance, if the land has been given in pledge or is in the possession of another.
non idem placuit de ceteris seruitutibus.
The same did not find favor regarding other servitudes.
sin autem res mea legetur mihi, legatum propter istas causas non ualebit.
But if my own property is bequeathed to me, the legacy will not be valid for these reasons.
§31.0.66.7A municipibus heredibus scriptis detracto usu fructu legari proprietas potest, quia non utendo possunt usum fructum amittere.
Ownership, with the usufruct withheld, can be bequeathed by municipalities instituted as heirs, because they can lose the usufruct by non-user.