Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §35.1.17.pr-35.1.17.4

False Description and False Cause in Legacies

Passage 5348 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

The text discusses the impact of false descriptions and false causes on the validity of legacies, illustrating with examples that they do not invalidate a legacy if the testator's intention is clear, while distinguishing them from conditional legacies and legacies subject to a charge (modus).

[IDEM libro secundo de legatis ad edictum praetoris. ] §35.1.17.prDemonstratio falsa est, ueluti si ita scriptum sit: 'seruum Stichum, quem de Titio emi' 'fundum Tusculanum, qui mihi a Seio donatus est'.
[THE SAME in the second book on legacies, to the praetorian edict.] A false description is, for example, if it is written thus: 'the slave Stichus, whom I bought from Titius', 'the Tusculan estate, which was given to me as a gift by Seius'.
nam si constat, de quo homine, de quo fundo senserit testator, ad rem non pertinet, si is, quem emisse significauit, donatus esset, aut quem donatum sibi esse significauerat, emerit.
For if it is clear which person and which estate the testator intended, it does not matter if that which he indicated he had bought had been given as a gift, or if he bought that which he had indicated had been given to him as a gift.
§35.1.17.1Igitur et si ita seruus legatus sit: 'Stichum cocum', 'Stichum sutorem Titio lego', licet neque cocus neque sutor sit, ad legatarium pertinebit, si de eo sensisse testatorem conueniat: nam et si in persona legatarii designanda aliquid erratum fuerit, constat autem, cui legare uoluerit, perinde ualet legatum ac si nullus error interueniret.
Therefore, even if a slave is bequeathed thus: 'Stichus the cook', 'I bequeath Stichus the shoemaker to Titius', although he is neither a cook nor a shoemaker, he will belong to the legatee, provided it is agreed that the testator intended him; for even if some error is made in designating the person of the legatee, yet if it is clear to whom he wished to bequeath, the legacy is just as valid as if no error had occurred.
§35.1.17.2Quod autem iuris est in falsa demonstratione, hoc uel magis est in falsa causa, ueluti ita 'Titio fundum do, quia negotia mea curauit', item fundum Titius filius meus 'praecipito, quia frater eius ipse ex arca tot aureos sumpsit': licet enim frater huius pecuniam ex arca non sumpsit, utile legatum est.
Moreover, what the rule of law is in a false description applies even more to a false cause, for example: 'I give the estate to Titius because he took care of my business', likewise, let my son Titius 'take the estate beforehand, because his brother himself took so many gold pieces from the chest'; for although this man's brother did not take the money from the chest, the legacy is valid.
§35.1.17.3At si condicionaliter concepta sit causa, ueluti hoc modo: 'Titio, si negotia mea curauit, fundum do': 'Titius filius meus, si frater eius centum ex arca sumpsit, fundum praecipito', ita utile erit legatum, si et ille negotia curauit et huius frater centum ex arca sumpsit.
But if the cause is expressed conditionally, for example in this manner: 'I give the estate to Titius if he has taken care of my business', 'Let my son Titius take the estate beforehand if his brother took one hundred from the chest', the legacy will be valid only if both the former took care of the business and the latter's brother took one hundred from the chest.
§35.1.17.4Quod si cui in hoc legatum sit, ut ex eo aliquid faceret, ueluti monumentum testatori uel opus aut epulum municipibus faceret, uel ex eo ut partem alii restitueret: sub modo legatum uidetur.
But if a legacy is given to someone for the purpose of doing something with it, for example, to build a monument for the testator, or to construct a public work or give a banquet for the citizens, or to restore a part of it to another: it is regarded as a legacy subject to a charge.

Notes

  1. §35.1.17.prde quo homine, de quo fundo senserit testator — This forms an indirect question clause serving as the subject of the impersonal verb 'constat' (it is clear), with the verb in the subjunctive perfect 'senserit'.
  2. §35.1.17.1in persona legatarii designanda — This is a gerundive construction consisting of the preposition 'in', the ablative noun 'persona', and the agreeing gerundive 'designanda' (ablative feminine singular), expressing the nominal meaning 'in designating the person of the legatee'.
  3. §35.1.17.2Quod autem iuris est — The noun 'iuris' (genitive singular of 'ius') is a partitive genitive qualifying the relative pronoun 'quod' (neuter nominative singular), meaning 'what of law there is' or 'whatever rule of law applies'.
  4. §35.1.17.3ita utile erit legatum, si — The adverb 'ita' and the conditional conjunction 'si' are used correlatively, establishing not just a simple condition but a restrictive or exclusive condition ('only if' or 'on condition that').
  5. §35.1.17.4in hoc... ut... faceret — The ablative phrase of the demonstrative pronoun 'in hoc' (for this purpose) anticipates and emphasizes the following 'ut' clause (with the imperfect subjunctive 'faceret').

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §35.1.17.pr-35.1.17.4. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:35.1.17.pr-35.1.17.4

Please note the AI-draft status of the translation and the date accessed.

Translation, notes and summary are AI-generated drafts, revised through reader feedback.