[IAUOLENUS libro tertio ex posterioribus Labeonis. ] §34.5.28.prQui habebat Flaccum fullonem et Philonicum pistorem, uxori Flaccum pistorem legauerat: qui eorum et num uterque deberetur? placuit primo eum legatum esse, quem testator legare¹ sensisset.
[IAUOLENUS, from the third book of the posthumous works of Labeo.] A man who owned Flaccus the fuller and Philonicus the baker had bequeathed to his wife "Flaccus the baker": which of them, and whether both, should be due? It was held first that he was bequeathed whom the testator had intended to bequeath.
quod si non appareret, primum inspiciendum esse, an nomina seruorum dominus nota habuisset: quod si habuisset, eum deberi, qui nominatus esset, tametsi in artificio erratum esset.
But if this did not appear, it must first be examined whether the master had known the names of the slaves; if he had, that he who was named was due, even though a mistake had been made in the trade.
sin autem ignota nomina seruorum essent², pistorem legatum uideri perinde ac si nomen ei adiectum non esset.
If, however, the names of the slaves were unknown to him, the baker was considered to be bequeathed, just as if no name had been added to him.