[ULPIANUS libro uicesimo quarto ad Sabinum. ] §34.4.3.prSi quis ita legauerit: 'Titio fundum do lego: si Titius decesserit, Seio heres meus dare damnas esto', recte translatum legatum uidetur.
[ULPIANUS in the twenty-fourth book on Sabinus.] If someone has bequeathed in this way: 'I give and bequeath the tract of land to Titius; if Titius dies, my heir shall be under obligation to give it to Seius,' the legacy seems to be correctly transferred.
sed et si iam mortuo eo, cui legatum erat, easdem res transtulerit, Sempronio debetur.
But even if he transferred the same property to Sempronius when the person to whom it had been bequeathed was already dead, it is owed to Sempronius.
§34.4.3.1Si quis Titio legauerit sic: 'Titio dato aut, si Titius ante decesserit quam accipiat, Sempronio dato', secundum meram suptilitatem utrique obligatum uideri heredem, id est et Sempronio et heredi Titii.
If someone has bequeathed to Titius thus: 'Let it be given to Titius, or, if Titius dies before he receives it, let it be given to Sempronius,' according to mere subtlety, the heir seems to be obligated to both, that is, both to Sempronius and to the heir of Titius.
sed si quidem mora Titio ab herede facta est, ad heredes eius legati exactio transmittitur Sempronio repellendo: sin autem nulla mora intercesserit, tunc Sempronius legatum accipit, et non Titii heredes.
But if indeed delay was caused to Titius by the heir, the right to demand the legacy is transmitted to his heirs, with Sempronius being barred; but if no delay occurred, then Sempronius receives the legacy, and not the heirs of Titius.
sed si ante diem legati cedentem decesserit Titius, soli Sempronio debetur legatum.
But if Titius dies before the day of the legacy is vested, the legacy is owed to Sempronius alone.
§34.4.3.2Idem dicendum est et fideicommissa hereditate puero data aut, si ante restitutam decessisset, matri eius relicta: ut, si puer ante diem legati cedentem decessisset, matri debeatur, si postea, ad pupilli heredes fideicommissum transmittatur utpote re ipsa mora subsecuta.
The same must be said also regarding a trust-bequeathed inheritance given to a boy, or left to his mother if he should die before it is restored: so that, if the boy dies before the day of the legacy is vested, it is owed to the mother; if afterwards, the trust-bequest is transmitted to the heirs of the ward, as if delay had followed in the very nature of the case.
§34.4.3.3Sed et cum quis ita legasset: 'heres meus Titio dato: si non dederit, Sempronio,dato', ita demum Sempronio debetur, si dies eius in persona Titii non cessisset.
But also when someone had bequeathed in this way: 'My heir shall give it to Titius; if he does not give it, he shall give it to Sempronius,' it is owed to Sempronius only if its day had not vested in the person of Titius.
§34.4.3.4Si quis ita legauerit: 'heres meus Titio fundum dato et si Titius eum fundum alienauerit, heres meus eundem fundum Seio dato', oneratus est heres: non enim a Titio fideicommissum relictum est, si alienasset fundum, sed ab herede ei legatum est.
If someone has bequeathed in this way: 'My heir shall give the tract of land to Titius, and if Titius alienates that tract of land, my heir shall give the same tract of land to Seius,' the heir is burdened: for the trust-bequest was not left by Titius, if he should alienate the tract of land, but it was bequeathed to him by the heir.
heres igitur debebit doli exceptione posita prospicere sibi cautione a Titio de fundo non alienando.
Therefore, the heir, when an exception of dolo is raised, must look out for himself by a security from Titius about not alienating the tract of land.
§34.4.3.5Si quis plus quam dedit ademerit, ademptio ualet, ueluti si quis uiginti legauerit et quadraginta ademerit.
If someone takes away more than he gave, the taking away is valid, as if someone has bequeathed twenty and taken away forty.
§34.4.3.6Si loci usum fructum leget testator et iter adimat, non ualet ademptio nec uitiatur legatum: sicuti qui proprietatem fundi legat, iter adimendo legatum non minuit.
If a testator bequeaths the usufruct of a place and takes away the right of way, the taking away is not valid, nor is the legacy vitiated; just as one who bequeaths the ownership of a tract of land does not diminish the legacy by taking away the right of way.
§34.4.3.7Si duobus Titiis separatim legauerit et uni ademerit nec appareat, cui ademptum sit, utrique legatum debetur, quemadmodum et in dando, si non appareat cui datum sit, dicemus neutri legatum.
If he has bequeathed separately to two Titiuses and taken away from one, and it does not appear from which it was taken away, the legacy is owed to both; just as also in giving, if it does not appear to whom it was given, we shall say the legacy belongs to neither.
§34.4.3.8Si Titio fundus pure eidemque sub condicione legatus sit, deinde postea ademptum sit sic: ‘Titio fundum, quem sub condicione legaui, heres meus ne dato', ex nulla datione debetur, nisi specialiter dixerit pure eum legatum uelle accipere.
If a tract of land has been bequeathed to Titius unconditionally and to the same person under a condition, and then afterwards it was taken away thus: 'My heir shall not give to Titius the tract of land which I bequeathed under a condition,' it is owed under no giving, unless he has specifically said that he wishes him to receive the legacy unconditionally.
§34.4.3.9Condicio legati an adimi possit uel hereditatis uel statuliberi, uidendum.
Whether a condition of a legacy, or of an inheritance, or of a statuliber can be taken away must be considered.
et Iulianus scribit in statulibero detractam condicionem non repraesentare libertatem.
And Julianus writes that in a statuliber, a condition removed does not bring forward the freedom immediately.
Papinianus quoque libro septimo decimo quaestionum scribit generaliter condicionem adimi non posse: nec enim datur, inquit, condicio, sed adscribitur: quod autem adscribitur, non potest adimi, sed quod datur.
Papinianus also in the seventeenth book of Questions writes that generally a condition cannot be taken away: for, he says, a condition is not given, but is written additionally; moreover, what is written additionally cannot be taken away, but only what is given.
sed melius est sensum magis quam uerba amplecti et conditiones sicut adscribi, ita et adimi posse.
But it is better to embrace the meaning rather than the words, and that conditions, just as they can be written additionally, can also be taken away.
§34.4.3.10Cum Titio centum testamento legasset et eidem codicillis ita legasset: 'Titio quinquaginta dumtaxat nec amplius heres meus dato', non amplius quinquaginta legatarium petiturum.
When he had bequeathed one hundred to Titius in a will, and had bequeathed to the same in codicils thus: 'My heir shall give to Titius fifty only, and no more,' the legatee will not seek more than fifty.
§34.4.3.11Non solum autem legata, sed et fideicommissa adimi possunt et quidem nuda uoluntate.
But not only legacies but also trust-bequests can be taken away, and indeed by mere will.
unde quaeritur, an etiam inimicitiis interpositis fideicommissum non debeatur: et si quidem capitales uel grauissimae inimicitiae intercesserint, ademptum uideri quod relictum est: sin autem leuis offensa, manet fideicommissum.
Hence it is asked whether, even when enmities have intervened, a trust-bequest is not owed; and if indeed mortal or extremely severe enmities have intervened, what was left seems to be taken away; but if a light offense, the trust-bequest remains.
secundum haec et in legato tractamus doli exceptione opposita.
According to these things, we also treat in a legacy with an exception of dolo being opposed.