[ULPIANUS libro uicesimo quarto ad Sabinum. ] §33.9.1.prUxori suae in annos singulos penoris aliquid heres dare iussus est, si non dedisset, nummos dare damnatus est: quaeritur, an penus legata peti possit an uero solummodo sit in praestatione et, si non praestetur, tunc quantitas petatur.
[ULPIANUS in the twenty-fourth book on Sabinus.] An heir was ordered to give every year to his wife a certain amount of provisions, and if he did not give it, he was condemned to give a sum of money: the question is raised whether the bequeathed provisions can be sued for, or whether they are only in performance, and if they are not performed, only then the sum of money is sued for.
et si quidem semel penus sit legata, non per singulos annos, certo iure utimur, ut et Marcellus libro trigesimo nono digestorum apud Iulianum notat, in praestatione esse dumtaxat penum, quantitatem uero et peti posse.
And if indeed the provisions are bequeathed once, and not annually, we follow an established rule of law, as Marcellus also notes in the thirty-ninth book of his Digests on Julian, that the provisions are only in performance, but the sum of money can be sued for.
habebit igitur heres oblationem tamdiu, quamdiu lis cum eo de pecunia contestetur, nisi forte aliud tempus uel mente uel uerbis testator praestituit.
Therefore, the heir will have the right of offering the provisions as long as joinder of issue is not reached with him concerning the money, unless perhaps the testator fixed another time either by intention or by words.
quod si in annos singulos penus legata sit, per singulos annos penus adhuc poterit praestari, si minus, summae per singulos annos petentur.
But if the provisions are bequeathed annually, the provisions can still be provided every year; if not, the sums of money will be sued for every year.
quid ergo, si una summa legata sit et primo penus non sit praestita? utrum tota summa debeatur, quasi toto penoris legato transfuso, an uero quantitas primi anni aestimationis sola sit translata, dubitari potest.
What then, if a single sum was bequeathed and in the first year the provisions were not provided? It can be doubted whether the entire sum is due, as if the entire legacy of provisions had been converted, or whether only the value of the first year's estimation is transferred.
puto tamen sic uoluntatem sequendam testatoris, ut tota summa ilico, postquam cessauerit heres dare penum uxori, praestetur, heredis indeuotione coercenda.
I think, however, that the intention of the testator is to be followed in such a way that the entire sum is to be paid immediately after the heir has failed to give the provisions to the wife, to coerce the heir's bad faith.