[POMPONIUS libro quinto ad Quintum Mucium. ] §34.2.10.prQuintus Mucius ait: si pater familias uxori uas aut uestimentum aut quippiam aliud ita legauit 'quod eius causa emptum paratumue esset', id uidetur legasse, quod magis illius quam communis usus causa paratum esset.
[POMPONIUS, in his fifth book on Quintus Mucius.] Quintus Mucius says: if the head of a household has bequeathed to his wife a vessel, a garment, or anything else in this manner, "which had been bought or prepared for her sake," he is deemed to have bequeathed that which had been prepared for her own use rather than for common use.
POMPONIUS: sed hoc uerum est non solum, si ipsius uiri et uxoris communis usus, sed etiam si liberorum eius aut alterius alicuius communis usus fuerit: id enim uidetur demonstrasse, quod proprio usui uxoris comparatum sit.
POMPONIUS: But this is true not only if there was a common use by the husband himself and his wife, but also if there was a common use by his children or by someone else; for he is deemed to have designated that which was procured for the wife’s individual use.
sed quod Quintus Mucius demonstrat 'uas aut uestimentum aut quid aliud', efficit, ut falsa sint quae subiecimus: multum enim interest, generaliter an specialiter legentur haec.
But the fact that Quintus Mucius designates "a vessel, a garment, or something else" makes what we have subjoined false; for it makes a great difference whether these things are bequeathed generally or specially.
nam si generaliter, ueluti ita 'quae uxoris causa comparata sunt', uera est illius definitio: si uero ita scriptum fuerit 'uestem illam purpuram', ut certa demonstraret, licet adiectum sit 'quae eius causa empta parataue essent', licet neque empta neque parata neque in usum ei data sints, legatum omnimodo ualet, quia certo corpore legato demonstratio falsa posita non peremit legatum.
For if generally, as for instance, "the things which have been procured for my wife's sake," his definition is correct. But if it has been written in this way, "that purple garment," so as to designate a specific thing, although there has been added, "which had been bought or prepared for her sake," and even if it was neither bought nor prepared nor given to her for her use, the bequest is valid in any event, because when a specific object is bequeathed, a false description added to it does not invalidate the bequest.
ueluti si ita sit scriptum: 'Stichum, quem ex uenditione Titii emi': nam si neque emit aut ex alia uenditione emit, legatum nihilo minus ualet.
For example, if it was written: "Stichus, whom I bought from Titius’s sale"; for even if he did not buy him or bought him from another sale, the bequest is nonetheless valid.
plane si ita legatum fuerit 'uas, aut uestimenta, aut quael uxoris causa parata sunt', tunc aeque erit uera Quinti Muci sententia: quo casu sciendum est, etiam si alienae res hae fuerint, quas putauit testater suas esse, heredem teneri, ut eas det.
Clearly, if it has been bequeathed in this way, "the vessel, or the garments, or the things which have been prepared for my wife’s sake," then Quintus Mucius’s opinion will be equally correct; in which case it must be known that even if these things, which the testator thought were his own, belonged to someone else, the heir is bound to deliver them.