[SCAEUOLA libro quarto decimo digestorum. ] §34.4.31.prFilio ex parte heredi instituto duos fundos cum mancipiis et instrumento omni legauit: idem uxori plura legata et seruos Stichum et Damam legauit: sed cum in altero ex fundis filio praelegatis cognouisset uilicum non esse, Stichum misit et tam rei rusticae quam rationibus fundi praefecit: quaesitum est, Stichus utrum ad uxorem an ad filium pertineret.
[SCAEUOLA in the fourteenth book of the Digests.] A testator bequeathed to his son, who had been appointed heir to a share, two estates together with the slaves and all the equipment; the same testator bequeathed to his wife several legacies and the slaves Stichus and Dama. But when he discovered that there was no manager on one of the estates pre-bequeathed to his son, he sent Stichus and put him in charge of both the agricultural work and the accounts of the estate. The question was raised whether Stichus belonged to the wife or to the son.
respondit, cum memor erat eorum, quae testamento cauisset, Stichum his praediis, in quae translatus est, actorem cedere ne uxorem posse Stichum ex fideicommissi causa petere.
He answered that since the testator was mindful of what he had provided in his will, Stichus accrued as a manager to those estates to which he had been transferred, and the wife could not claim Stichus by virtue of a trust.
§34.4.31.1Matri suae heredi ex parte institutae quattuor praedia legauit et fidei eius commisit, ut ex his duo socero restitueret: deinde codicillis socero ademit fideicommissum: quaesitum est, an nihilo minus ex praelegatione ad matrem pertineret.
A testator bequeathed four estates to his mother, who had been appointed heir to a share, and committed to her trust that she should restore two of these to his father-in-law. Afterwards, by a codicil, he revoked the trust from the father-in-law. The question was raised whether they nevertheless belonged to the mother by virtue of the pre-legacy.
respondi nihil proponi, cur ad matrem pertinerent.
He answered that nothing was proposed to show why they should belong to the mother.
§34.4.31.2Seia testamento suo legauit auri pondo quinque: Titius accusauit eam, quod patrem suum mandasset interficiendum: Seia post institutam accusationem codicillos confecit nec ademit Titio priuigno legatum et ante finem accusationis decessit: acta causa pronuntiatum est patrem Titii scelere Seiae non interceptum.
Seia in her will bequeathed five pounds of gold. Titius accused her of having ordered his father to be killed. After the accusation was initiated, Seia made a codicil and did not revoke the legacy from her stepson Titius, and she died before the conclusion of the accusation. After the case was tried, it was pronounced that Titius's father had not been killed by the crime of Seia.
quaero, cum codicillis legatum, quod testamento Titio dederat, non ademerit, an ab heredibus Seiae Titio debeatur.
I ask whether, since she did not in the codicil revoke the legacy which she had given to Titius in her will, it is owed to Titius by the heirs of Seia.
respondit secundum ea quae proponerentur non deberi.
He answered that according to the facts proposed, it was not owed.
§34.4.31.3Filiae, quam in potestate habebat, inter cetera legauit peculium: idem post factum testamentum pecuniam a debitore filiae exegit et in suam rationem conuertit: quaero, an filia eo nomine cum heredibus patris agere possit.
A testator bequeathed to his daughter, whom he had under his paternal power, among other things her peculium. After making the will, the same testator exacted money from a debtor of his daughter and converted it to his own account. I ask whether the daughter can bring an action against her father's heirs on that account.
respondit, si probaret non adimendi animo factum, agere posse.
He answered that if she should prove that this was done without the intention of revoking the legacy, she could bring an action.