Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §34.3.26.pr

Legacy Conditioned on Non-Litigation of Tutelage

Passage 5226 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

In a case where a tutor bequeathed property to his ward on the condition of not raising disputes over the guardianship, if the ward received the bequest but later sued, he faces the defense of fraud unless he returns the bequest, which is permitted to him by the benefit of his age.

[SCAEUOLA libro quarto responsorum. ] §34.3.26.prTutor decedens aliis heredibus scriptis pupillo suo, cuius tutelam gessit, tertiam partem bonorum dari uoluit, si heredibus suis tutelae causa controuersiam non fecerit, sed eo nomine omnes liberauerit: pupillus legatum praetulit et postea nihilo minus petit quidquid ex distractione aliaue causa ad tutorem suum ex tutela peruenerit: quaero, an uerbis testamenti ab his exactionibus excludatur.
[SCAEUOLA in the fourth book of Responses.] A tutor, on dying, having appointed other heirs, wished a third part of his property to be given to his ward, whose guardianship he had administered, if the ward should not raise any dispute against his heirs on account of the guardianship, but should release them all on that score. The ward preferred the legacy and afterwards nevertheless claims whatever came to his tutor from the guardianship through sale of property or other cause. I ask whether he is excluded from these claims by the words of the testament.
respondit, si prius, quam condicioni pareret, fideicommissum percepisset et pergeret petere id, in quo contra condicionem faceret, doli mali exceptionem obstaturam: nisi paratus esset, quod ex causa fideicommissi percepisset, reddere: quod ei aetatis beneficio indulgendum est.
He answered that if, before complying with the condition, he had received the fideicommissum and should proceed to claim that in which he would act contrary to the condition, the defense of fraud would stand in his way, unless he were prepared to restore what he had received by reason of the fideicommissum; which option must be allowed to him by the benefit of his age.

Notes

  1. §34.3.26.praliis heredibus scriptis — An ablative absolute construction ("other heirs having been appointed"), indicating that the ward (pupillus) himself is not an heir (heres) but merely a beneficiary of a fideicommissum.
  2. §34.3.26.prlegatum praetulit — Meaning "preferred the legacy" or "took the legacy beforehand". It indicates that the ward chose and received the testamentary benefit (here, a fideicommissum) prior to fulfilling the condition of release.
  3. §34.3.26.prdoli mali exceptionem obstaturam — An accusative with infinitive construction acting as indirect speech after the main verb `respondit`, with `obstaturam [esse]` (future active infinitive). It means that the "defense of fraud" (exceptio doli mali) will be raised by the heirs against the ward who attempts to claim both the legacy and the guardianship assets contrary to the condition.
  4. §34.3.26.prquod ei aetatis beneficio indulgendum est — The relative pronoun `quod` refers to the preceding clause (the option to restore the received fideicommissum and proceed with the claims). Since the ward is a minor, he is granted the "benefit of age" (aetatis beneficium, a privilege for restitution in integrum), meaning that even though he once accepted the legacy, he must be allowed to return it and pursue his guardianship claims.

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §34.3.26.pr. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:34.3.26.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.