[ULPIANUS libro uicesimo quinto ad Sabinum. ] §33.8.6.prSi peculium legetur et sit in corporibus, puta fundi uel aedes, si quidem nihil sit, quod seruus domino uel conseruis liberisue domini debeat, integra corpora uindicabuntur: sin uero sit, quod domino uel supra scriptis personis debeatur, deminui singula corpora pro rata debebunt.
If a peculium is bequeathed and consists of corporeal properties, for example, lands or houses, if indeed there is nothing that the slave owes to the master or to his fellow slaves or to the children of the master, the entire properties will be claimed. But if there is something owed to the master or to the above-mentioned persons, each individual property must be diminished pro rata.
et ita et Iulianus et Celsus putant.
And both Julianus and Celsus think so.
§33.8.6.1Et si fuerit legatum peculium non deducto aere alieno, uerendum, ne inutile legatum sit, quia quod adicitur contra naturam legati sit.
And if a peculium has been bequeathed without deducting the debt, it is to be feared that the bequest may be invalid, because what is added is contrary to the nature of a bequest.
sed puto uerum hanc adiectionem non uitiare legatum, sed nihil ci adicere: nec enim potest crescere uindicatio peculii per hanc adiectionem.
But I think it is true that this addition does not vitiate the bequest, but adds nothing to it; for the claim for the peculium cannot increase by this addition.
plane si proponas legatarium nactum possessionem rerum, exceptione doli aduersus heredem uindicantem uti potest: habet enim in solidis rebus uoluntatem aeris alieni non deducendi.
Clearly, if you suppose that the legatee has obtained possession of the things, he can use the plea of fraud against the heir who claims them; for he has the intention of the testator not to deduct the debt in respect of the entire things.
sed et si dominus remittere se seruo quod debet uel nihil sibi seruum debere significauerit, ualet haec adiectio, quia nuda uoluntate potest dominus seruo remittere quod ei debet.
But even if the master has indicated that he remits to the slave what he owes or that the slave owes nothing to him, this addition is valid, because by mere will the master can remit to the slave what he owes him.
§33.8.6.2Uicario autem meo mihi legato an et uicarii mei peculium ad me pertineat, quaeritur.
But when my sub-slave is bequeathed to me, it is asked whether the peculium of my sub-slave also belongs to me.
et putamus contineri legato uicarii eius peculium, nisi aduersa sit uoluntas testatoris.
And we think that the peculium of the sub-slave is contained in the bequest of him, unless the will of the testator was contrary.
§33.8.6.3Si seruus et uicarius eius liberi esse iussi sint eisque peculia sua legata sint, uerba secundum uoluntatem testatoris exaudienda, tamquam de duobus separatisque peculiis testatore locuto: et secundum haec uicarius uicarii non communicabitur, nisi haec mens fuit testantis.
If a slave and his sub-slave have been ordered to be free and their peculia have been bequeathed to them, the words must be understood according to the will of the testator, as if the testator spoke of two separate peculia; and according to this, the sub-slave's peculium will not be shared, unless this was the intention of the testator.
§33.8.6.4Sicut autem aes alienum, hoc est quod debetur domino, minuit legatum peculium, ita per contrarium id quod dominus debet seruo augere debet.
But just as a debt, that is, what is owed to the master, diminishes a bequeathed peculium, so on the contrary, what the master owes to the slave ought to increase it.
sed huic sententiae aduersatur rescriptum imperatoris nostri et patris eius, quod ita est: 'Cum peculium seruo legatur, non etiam id conceditur, ut petitionem habeat pecuniae, quam se in rationem domini impendisse dicit'.
But this opinion is opposed by a rescript of our Emperor and his father, which is as follows: 'Cum peculium seruo legatur, non etiam id conceditur, ut petitionem habeat pecuniae, quam se in rationem domini impendisse dicit'.
quid tamen si haec uoluntas fuit testatoris? cur non possit consequi? certe compensari debet hoc quod impendit cum eo quod domino debetur.
Yet what if this was the will of the testator? Why should he not obtain it? Certainly, what he spent ought to be set off against what is owed to the master.
an et quod dominus scripsisset se seruo debere, peculio legato cederet? Pegasus negat: idem Nerua: et cum Gnaeus Domitius filiae suae peculium quod eius esset legasset, et annuum, quod ei solitus erat dare, biennio non dedisset, sed in rationibus suis rettulisset filiae se debere quinquaginta, Atilicinus existimauit legato non cedere, quod uerum est, quia consonat rescripto.
Also, would what the master had written that he owed to the slave go to the bequeathed peculium? Pegasus denies it, and so does Nerva; and when Gnaeus Domitius had bequeathed to his daughter the peculium which was hers, and had not given for two years the annuity which he was accustomed to give her, but had entered in his accounts that he owed fifty to his daughter, Atilicinus thought that it did not go to the bequest, which is true, because it agrees with the rescript.
§33.8.6.5Non solum autem quod domino debetur peculio legato deducitur, sed et si quid heredi debitum fuit.
But not only what is owed to the master is deducted from a bequeathed peculium, but also if anything was owed to the heir.