Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §31.0.79.pr

Survival of Trust Claims Despite Mistaken Receipt of Fruits

Passage 4808 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

A case deciding that the claim of the beneficiaries for the original trust-bequest of estates is not extinguished, even if they, through ignorance of law, have long received a second trust-bequest of the fruits of those estates along with others.

[IDEM libro undecimo responsorum. ] §31.0.79.prQuae fideicommissa moriens libertis uiri debuit, eorundem praediorum suis quoque libertis fructum reliquit: iuris ignoratione lapsi qui petere praedia ex mariti testamento debuerunt, secundum fideicommissum inter ceteros longo tempore perceperunt.
[BY THE SAME AUTHOR, from the eleventh book of responsa.] A woman, dying, who owed trust-bequests to her husband's freedmen, left the usufruct of the same estates also to her own freedmen: those who ought to have claimed the estates under the husband's testament, having slipped through ignorance of law, received for a long time the second trust-bequest among the others.
non ideo peremptam uideri petitionem prioris fideicommissi constitit.
It was established that the petition for the prior trust-bequest was not deemed to be extinguished for that reason.

Notes

  1. §31.0.79.prQuae fideicommissa — The relative pronoun `quae` agrees with its noun `fideicommissa` in a relative clause (`Quae...debuit`), acting as a proleptic topic or object of the main clause. The subject of the participle `moriens` (dying) is the unnamed deceased woman (the wife), who is also the subject of `reliquit`.
  2. §31.0.79.prsecundum fideicommissum — Here, `secundum` is not the preposition 'according to,' but the accusative neuter singular of the adjective `secundus` (second), modifying `fideicommissum` as the direct object of `perceperunt`. It refers to the 'second trust-bequest' (the legacy of fruits left by the wife), in contrast to the first trust-bequest (the transfer of the estates under the husband's will).
  3. §31.0.79.prnon ideo peremptam uideri petitionem — This is an accusative with infinitive (AcI) construction dependent on the impersonal verb `constitit` (it was established). `petitionem` is the subject accusative, and `peremptam [esse] uideri` is the infinitive verbal predicate. Literally, 'it was established that the petition of the prior trust-bequest was not seen to be extinguished.'

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §31.0.79.pr. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:31.0.79.pr

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.