[IDEM libro quinto decimo responsorum. ] §34.9.18.prEum, qui tacitum fideicommissum in fraudem legis suscepit, eos quoque fructus, quos ante litem motam percepit, restituere cogendum respondi, quod bonae fidei possessor fuisse non uidetur exemplos bonorum fisco uindicatorum.
I replied that a person who accepted a tacit trust in fraud of the law must be compelled to restore also those fruits which he gathered before the dispute was initiated, because he is not deemed to have been a bona fide possessor, after the example of property confiscated to the treasury.
post motam de tacito fideicommisso controuersiam ante pretia fructuum percepta cum usuris esse restituenda respondi, sed omnium fructuum, quorum pretia percepta fuerant: quod si fructus in usu habuit, eorum pretia tantum restitui satis erit.
I replied that after the dispute concerning the tacit trust was initiated, the prices of the fruits gathered must be restored with interest, but this applies to all fruits whose prices had been gathered; but if he had the fruits in use, it will be sufficient for only their prices to be restored.
sed diuus Seuerus bonorum tacite relictorum citra distinctionem temporis fructus dumtaxat deberi, non etiam usuras eorum benigne decreuit: quo iure utimur.
But the deified Severus benevolently decreed that only the fruits of property tacitly left are owed, without any distinction of time, and not also their interest; which law we observe.
§34.9.18.1Bonis uniuersis ex causa taciti fideicommissi fisco restitutis heredem onus aeris alieni non spectare conuenit: nec aliud seruatur morte non defensa.
It is agreed that when the entire property has been restored to the treasury on account of a tacit trust, the heir is not concerned with the burden of the debt; nor is any other rule observed when the death is undefended.
si quid tamen ob aditam hereditatem actionibus aut seruitutibus confusis amiserit, auxilio restitutionis non merebitur.
If, however, he has lost anything because of actions or servitudes merged by reason of accepting the inheritance, he will not deserve the assistance of reinstatement.
§34.9.18.2Pro parte heres institutus praedii legatum acceperat et in hereditate non capienti restituendi tacitum ministerium susceperat.
A person appointed heir for a share had received a legacy of a tract of land and had undertaken a tacit mission to restore it to someone incapable of taking in the inheritance.
quamquam legatum pro ipsius parte non constitisset ideoque portionem istam pro herede possideret, tamen ei praedium integrum esse relinquendum respondi: neque enim rationem iuris ac possessionis uarietatem inducere diuisionem uoluntatis.
Although the legacy had not been valid for his own share, and therefore he possessed that portion as heir, I replied nevertheless that the entire land must be surrendered by him; for the variation of legal theory and of possession does not introduce a division of intention.