[IDEM libro octauo decimo quaestionum. ] §35.1.72.prCum tale legatum esset relictum Titiae 'si a liberis non discesserit', negauerunt eam recte cauere, quia uel mortuis liberis legati condicio possit exsistere.
[THE SAME in the eighteenth book of Questions.] When such a legacy had been left to Titia, "if she should not depart from her children," they denied that she could rightly provide security, because the condition of the legacy could be fulfilled even upon the death of the children.
sed displicuit sententia: non enim uoto matris opponi tam ominosa non interponendae cautionis interpretatio debuit.
But this opinion was disapproved; for so ominous an interpretation, resulting in security not being interposed, ought not to have been opposed to the mother's wish.
§35.1.72.1Et cum patronus liberto certam pecuniam legasset, si a liberis eius non discessisset, permisit imperator uelut Mucianam cautionem offerri: fuit enim periculosum ac triste libertum coniunctum patroni liberis eorundem mortem exspectare.
And when a patron had bequeathed a certain sum of money to his freedman on condition "if he should not depart from his children," the emperor permitted what is called the Mucian security to be offered; for it was dangerous and sad for a freedman associated with his patron's children to await their death.
§35.1.72.2Titius heredem institutum rogauit post mortem suam hereditatem restituere, si fideicommissi cautio non fuisset petita. Mucianae cautionis exemplum ante constitutionem remissae cautionis locum habere non potuit, quoniam uiuo co, cui relictum est, impleri condicio potuit.
Titius requested his instituted heir to restore the inheritance after his death, "if security for the trust had not been requested." Before the constitution concerning the remitted security, the example of the Mucian security could have no place, because the condition could be fulfilled during the lifetime of the person to whom the legacy was left.
§35.1.72.3Quid ergo, si ita scriptum sit: 'peto, post mortem tuam restituas hereditatem ita, ne satis fideicommissi petatur neue ratio exigatur'. sine dubio per huiusmodi uerba non interponendae quidem cautionis condicio uidebitur adscripta, rationi uero non exigendae modus adhibitus, scilicet ut culpa, non etiam dolus remissus intellegatur: idque in eius persona, qui negotia gessit cuique rationis reddendae necessitas fuerat testamento remissa, rescriptum est.
What if, then, it should be written thus: "I request that you restore the inheritance after your death in such a way that security for the trust is not requested, nor any accounts demanded." Undoubtedly, by such words, the condition of not interposing security will seem to be added, but a limitation is applied to not demanding accounts, namely, that negligence, but not also fraud, is understood to be remitted; and this was stated in a rescript concerning the person of one who managed affairs and to whom the necessity of rendering accounts had been remitted by the testament.
§35.1.72.4'Si arbitratu Titii Seia nubserit, heres meus ei fundum dato'. uiuo Titio etiam sine arbitrio Titii eam nubentem legatum accipere respondendum est eamque legis sententiam uideri, ne quod omnino nuptiis impedimentum inferatur.
"If Seia marries according to the decision of Titius, let my heir give her the land." It must be answered that even during the lifetime of Titius, if she marries without the decision of Titius, she receives the legacy, and that this seems to be the intention of the law, so that no impediment at all may be brought upon marriage.
sed si Titius uiuo testatore decedat, licet condicio deficit, quia tamen suspensa quoque pro nihilo foret, mulieri succurretur.
But if Titius dies during the lifetime of the testator, although the condition fails, yet because even if it had remained pending it would have been considered as nothing, relief will be given to the woman.
§35.1.72.5'Maeuiae, si non nubserit, fundum cum morietur lego'. potest dici et si nubserit, eam confestim ad legatum admitti.
"To Maevia, if she does not marry, I bequeath the land when she dies." It can be said that even if she marries, she is admitted immediately to the legacy.
non idem probatur, si certus dies incertusue alius legato fuerit adscriptus.
The same is not approved if another certain or uncertain day has been added to the legacy.
§35.1.72.6Falsam causam legato non obesse uerius est, quia ratio legandi legato non cohaeret: sed plerumque doli exceptio locum habebit, si probetur alias legaturus non fuisse.
It is more correct that a false cause does not invalidate a legacy, because the reason for bequeathing does not adhere to the legacy; but for the most part, the plea of fraud will have place if it is proved that he would not have made the bequest otherwise.
§35.1.72.7Falsam condicionem Cassius et Caelius Sabinus impossibilem esse dixerunt, ueluti: 'Pamphilus, si quod Titio debeo soluerit, liber esto', si modo nihil Titio fuit debitum: quod si post testamentum factum testator pecuniam exsoluit, defecisse condicionem intellegi.
Cassius and Caelius Sabinus said that a false condition is impossible, for example: "Let Pamphilus be free if he pays what I owe to Titius," provided that nothing was owed to Titius; but if after the making of the testament the testator paid the money, the condition is understood to have failed.
§35.1.72.8Falsam legati demonstrationem non facere legatum Sabinus respondit (ueluti si quis, cum Titio nihil legasset, ita scriptum reliquerit: 'ex centum, quae Titio legaui, quinquaginta heres Seio dato') idque sumpsit ex defuncti uoluntate, quia non animo legandi, sed deminuendi legatum, quod falso datum existimaret, ita scriberet.
Sabinus answered that a false description of a legacy does not create a legacy (as if someone, when he had bequeathed nothing to Titius, left written: "From the hundred that I bequeathed to Titius, let my heir give fifty to Seius"), and he inferred this from the intention of the deceased, because he wrote this not with the intention of bequeathing, but of diminishing a legacy which he falsely believed to have been given.
propter falsam tamen demonstrationem legati non plus Seius adsequetur, quam si uere demonstratum fuisset.
However, on account of a false description of a legacy, Seius will not obtain more than if it had been truly described.