Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §32.0.85.pr

Possessive Terms in Legacies: Condition or Description

Passage 4909 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

Pomponius discusses whether possessive expressions like 'mine' in legacies function as conditions or as mere descriptions, explaining the distinctions based on specific versus indefinite objects and present versus future temporal references.

[POMPONIUS libro secundo ad Quintum Mucium. ] §32.0.85.prNuper constitutum est a principe, ut et non adiecto hoc 'meum' si quis corpus alicui leget et ita sentiat, ut ita demum praestetur, si suum sit, ita ualere legatum, ut appareat magis sententiam legantis, non hoc uerbum 'meum' respiciendum esse.
[POMPONIUS, from his second book on Quintus Mucius.] It was recently established by the emperor that, even if this word 'mine' is not added, if anyone bequeaths a specific object to someone and intends that it should only be provided if it is his own, the legacy is valid in such a way that it appears that the intention of the testator, rather than this word 'mine', is to be regarded.
et ideo elegans est illa distinctio, ut, quotiens certum corpus legatur, ad praesens tempus adiectum hoc uerbum 'meum' non faciat condicionem, si uero incertum corpus legetur, ueluti ita 'uina mea' 'uestem meam', uideatur pro condicione hoc uerbum esse 'mea', ut ea demum, quae illius sint, uideantur legata.
And therefore, that distinction is elegant: that whenever a certain specific object is bequeathed, this word 'mine' added in relation to the present time does not create a condition, but if an indefinite object is bequeathed, such as 'my wines' or 'my clothing', this word 'my' is seen to be as a condition, so that only those things which are his are seen to be bequeathed.
quod non puto fortiter posse defendi, sed potius et hic uestem uel uinum, quod suorum numero habuerit, hoc legatum esse: sic enim responsum est etiam quod coacuerit uinum legato cedere, si id uini numero testator habuisset.
I do not think this can be strongly defended, but rather that here too, the clothing or wine which he held in the number of his own things is what has been bequeathed: for it was so answered that even wine which has turned sour falls into the legacy, if the testator had held it in the number of his wine.
plane in mortis tempore collatum hunc sermonem 'uestem, quae mea erit' sine dubio pro condicione accipiendum puto: sed et 'Stichum qui meus erit' puto pro condicione accipiendum nec interesse, utrum ita 'qui meus erit' an ita 'si meus erit': utrubique condicionem eam esse.
Clearly, I think that this expression 'clothing which shall be mine', referred to the time of death, must without doubt be accepted as a condition; and I think that 'Stichus who shall be mine' must also be accepted as a condition, and that it makes no difference whether it is said 'who shall be mine' or 'if he shall be mine': in both cases, it is a condition.
Labeo tamen scribit etiam in futurum tempus collatum hunc sermonem 'qui meus erit' pro demonstratione accipiendum, sed alio iure utimur.
Labeo, however, writes that this expression 'who shall be mine', even when referred to a future time, must be accepted as a description, but we use a different law.

Notes

  1. §32.0.85.prconstitutum est a principe, ut et non adiecto hoc 'meum' si quis corpus alicui leget et ita sentiat, ut ita demum praestetur, si suum sit, ita ualere legatum — Although the main clause `constitutum est` introduces an `ut`-clause, the principal verb of this clause `ualere legatum` is expressed as an accusative with infinitive. This mixed syntax arises because `constitutum est` conveys the substance of the ruling as indirect speech, meaning 'it was established that...'.
  2. §32.0.85.prsed potius et hic uestem uel uinum, quod suorum numero habuerit, hoc legatum esse — In expressing Pomponius' private opinion, `et hic` refers to 'here too' (i.e., in the case of indefinite legacies). `uestem uel uinum` is the subject of the accusative with infinitive clause, qualified by the relative clause `quod suorum numero habuerit`, and summarized by `hoc` before ending with `legatum esse`. The entire structure depends on `puto`.
  3. §32.0.85.prpro demonstratione — In Roman law, a 'description' (`demonstratio`) serves merely to identify the object of a legacy and does not affect its validity even if false. In contrast, a 'condition' (`condicio`) makes the legacy dependent on its fulfillment. Labeo interpreted the phrase `qui meus erit` as a mere description to identify the object rather than a condition limiting the legacy, whereas in Pomponius' time it was accepted as a condition (`alio iure utimur`).

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §32.0.85.pr. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:32.0.85.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.