[PAULUS libro primo de iure fisci. ] §34.9.5.prPost legatum acceptum non tantum licebit falsum arguere testamentum, sed et non iure factum contendere: inofficiosum autem dicere non permittitur.
[PAULUS, in the first book on the Right of the Treasury.] After accepting a legacy, it will be permitted not only to charge that the testament is forged, but also to contend that it was not made in accordance with the law; however, it is not allowed to declare it inofficious.
§34.9.5.1Ille, qui non iure factum contendit nec optinuit, non repellitur ab eo quod meruit: ergo qui legatum secutus postea falsum dixit, amittere debebit quod consecutus est.
He who contends that a testament was not made in accordance with the law and does not succeed is not barred from what he has earned; therefore, he who pursued a legacy and afterwards asserted that the testament was forged must lose what he has obtained.
de eo uero qui legatum accepit, si neget iure factum esse testamentum, diuus Pius ita rescripsit: 'cognati Sophronis licet ab herede instituto acceperant legata, tamen, si is eius condicionis fuerit uisus, ut optinere hereditatem non possit, et iure intestati ad eos cognatos pertinet, petere hereditatem ipso iure poterunt.
But regarding one who accepted a legacy, if he denies that the testament was made in accordance with the law, the deified Pius replied in a rescript as follows: 'Although the cognates of Sophron had accepted legacies from the instituted heir, nevertheless, if that heir is seen to be of such a condition that he cannot obtain the inheritance, and the inheritance belongs to those cognates by the law of intestacy, they can claim the inheritance by operation of law.
prohibendi autem sint an non, ex cuiusque persona condicione aetate cognita causa a iudice constituendum erit'. §34.9.5.2Amittere id quod testamento meruit et eum placuit, qui tutor datus excusauit se a tutela: sed si consecutus fuerit, non admittitur ad excusationem.
Whether they ought to be barred or not, however, must be determined by the judge after examining the persona, condition, and age of each individual.' It has been decided that he also must lose what he earned by the testament who, having been appointed tutor, excused himself from the tutelage; but if he has already obtained it, he is not admitted to the excuse.
diuersum puto in eo, qui legatum tantum meruit et a matre pupilli tutor petitus excusare se maluit: hic enim nihil contra iudicium defuncti fecit.
I think it is different in the case of one who only earned a legacy, and, having been requested by the pupil's mother to be a tutor, preferred to excuse himself; for this person did nothing contrary to the judgment of the deceased.
sed hoc legatum, quod tutori denegatur, non ad fiscum transfertur, sed filio relinquitur, cuius utilitates desertae sunt.
But this legacy, which is denied to the tutor, is not transferred to the treasury, but is left to the son whose interests were deserted.
§34.9.5.3Si pater accusauerit testamentum uel dominus, denegabitur ei actio etiam eius quod filio eius uel seruo legatum est, si ad ipsos emolumentum rei peruenturum est: quod si personam illorum spectet, diuersum dicendum est.
If a father or a master has accused a testament, the action shall be denied to him even for what was bequeathed to his son or slave, if the benefit of the thing is to come to themselves; but if it regards their person, the contrary must be said.
§34.9.5.4Si seruum suum rogatus sit manumittere qui legatum meruit uel etiam ipsi seruo utrumque datum sit, dicendum est non debere obesse seruo factum domini, sed a fisco redimendum, ut manumittatur, si tamen uelit seruum uendere (quia non potest cogi) qui iudicium spreuit defuncti.
If he who earned a legacy has been requested to manumit his own slave, or if both have been given to the slave himself, it must be said that the action of the master ought not to prejudice the slave, but he must be ransomed by the treasury in order to be manumitted, provided however that he who spurned the judgment of the deceased is willing to sell the slave (since he cannot be compelled to do so).
§34.9.5.5Si filius familias falsum accusauerit testamentum, uidendum est, an denegari debeat actio patri: et puto, si inuito patre accusauit, non esse denegandam patri actionem.
If a son-in-power has accused a testament of forgery, it must be considered whether the action ought to be denied to the father; and I think that, if he accused against the will of his father, the action ought not to be denied to the father.
§34.9.5.6Si is, cui rogatus sum legatum restituere, falsum dixerit, restituere id fisco debebo.
If the person to whom I have been requested to restore a legacy asserts that the testament is forged, I shall be obliged to restore it to the treasury.
§34.9.5.7Qui accusauit falsum, heres legatario exstitit uel heredi scripto: nihi huic nocere dicendum est.
If one who accused a testament of forgery becomes the heir to a legatee or to a written heir, it must be said that this does him no harm.
§34.9.5.8Similis est ei et qui inofficiosum dicit.
He who declares a testament inofficious is also in a similar position to him.
§34.9.5.9Aetati eius qui accusauit ignoscitur, et maxime si tutor uel curator dicere falsum uel inofficiosum uelit: et ita imperatores Seuerus et Antoninus rescripserunt.
Allowance is made for the age of him who accused, and especially if a tutor or a curator wishes to declare the testament forged or inofficious; and so the Emperors Severus and Antoninus replied in a rescript.
§34.9.5.10His uero, qui testimonio suo intentionem accusatoris adiuuauerunt, deneganda est actio: idque diuus Seuerus decreuit.
But as for those who by their testimony assisted the contention of the accuser, the action must be denied to them; and the deified Severus so decreed.
§34.9.5.11Sunt qui putant, et recte, et ei denegandam, qui accusatori adfuit uel fideiussor pro eo exstiterit.
There are those who think, and rightly, that the action must also be denied to him who assisted the accuser or stood as surety for him.
§34.9.5.12Quidam et praesidem indignum putant, qui testamentum falsum pronuntiauit, si appellatione intercedente heres scriptus optinuit.
Some also think that even a governor who pronounced a testament forged is unworthy, if, upon an appeal intervening, the written heir succeeded.
§34.9.5.13Aduocatum fisci, qui intentionem delatoris exsequitur, in omnibus officii necessitas satis excusat.
The advocate of the treasury, who prosecutes the claim of the informer, is sufficiently excused in all matters by the necessity of his office.
§34.9.5.14Qui principale testamentum arguit, et a secundis tabulis repellendus est: item a codicillis ad testamentum factis licet non confirmatis.
He who attacks the principal testament must also be barred from the substitute testament; likewise from codicils made to the testament, even if not confirmed.
non idem sequendum est, si secundas tabulas uel codicillos coarguit, quia non utrumque hoc casu improbasse uidetur.
The same rule is not to be followed if he attacks the substitute testament or the codicils, because in this case he is not deemed to have disapproved of both.
§34.9.5.15An libertas ei seruo data, qui testimonio suo infringere noluerit testamentum, auferri debeat, uidendum est.
It must be considered whether freedom given to a slave who refused not to break the testament by his testimony ought to be taken away.
fideicommissum utique non est dignus consequi: et de libertate diuus Pius iudicauit esse ea priuandum.
In any case, he is not worthy to obtain a fideicommissum; and regarding freedom, the deified Pius judged that he should be deprived of it.
§34.9.5.16Ei, qui tutor datus est, non prodest ad excusationem, quod falsum dixit: sed a legato remouetur.
For one who has been appointed tutor, the fact that he asserted the testament was forged does not benefit him as an excuse; on the contrary, he is removed from his legacy.
§34.9.5.17Qui mortis causa donationem accepit a testatore, non est similis in hac causa legatario.
He who has accepted a donation mortis causa from the testator is not in a similar position to a legatee in this matter.
§34.9.5.18Alia causa est eius qui propter testamentum a legatario uel a statulibero accipere iussus est: hic enim ut indignus repelletur.
The case is different for one who, on account of the testament, has been ordered to receive something from a legatee or from a statuliber; for this person shall be barred as unworthy.
§34.9.5.19Et Falcidiae beneficium heredi scripto auferri debere diuus Pius et diuus Marcus putauerunt.
And the deified Pius and the deified Marcus thought that the benefit of the Falcidian law also ought to be taken away from the written heir.
§34.9.5.20Omnes, qui ut indigni repellentur, summouendi sunt a praemio, quod secundum edictum diui Traiani datur his qui se deferunt.
All who are barred as unworthy must be excluded from the reward which, according to the edict of the deified Trajan, is given to those who report themselves.