Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §35.1.84.pr

Maintenance Legacy Conditioned on Residing with Son

Passage 5415 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

Paulus responds to a case where a legacy of maintenance was left to freedmen on condition of their remaining with the testator's son, but the son died at camp; he discusses whether the condition failed and whether the freedmen can claim it against the testator's intention if the legacy was intended solely for the son's benefit.

[IDEM libro quarto decimo responsorum. ] §35.1.84.pr'Illis libertis alimentorum nomine, si cum filio meo morati fuerint, menstruos denarios centenos et uestiaria dari uolo'. liberti in obsequio fuerunt, quamdiu adulescens ad militiam promoueretur: qua causa effectum est, ut quibusdam Romae relictis proficisceretur, et apud castra defunctus est: quaesitum est, an ab heredibus eius alimenta debeantur.
[THE SAME in the fourteenth book of Responses.] 'I wish that a hundred denarii monthly and clothing be given to those freedmen under the name of maintenance, if they shall have remained with my son.' The freedmen were in service as long as the young man was being promoted to military service; for which reason it came about that he set out leaving some of them in Rome, and he died at the camp. It was asked whether maintenance is owed by his heirs.
Paulus respondit condicionem quidem in persona libertorum, qui cum filio defuncti morati sunt aut per eos non stetit, quo minus morarentur, mortuo filio testatoris defecisse non uideri.
Paulus answered that, as far as the person of the freedmen is concerned—who had remained with the son of the deceased, or through whom it did not stand that they did not remain—the condition does not indeed seem to have failed upon the death of the testator's son.
sed si testator propter filii utilitatem his, qui cum eo morati fuissent, alimenta praestari uoluit, contra uoluntatem defuncti petentes audiri non oportere.
But if the testator, for the benefit of his son, wished maintenance to be provided to those who had remained with him, those who petition contrary to the will of the deceased ought not to be heard.

Notes

  1. §35.1.84.prper eos non stetit, quo minus morarentur — A negative form of the idiomatic expression 'per aliquem stat quo minus...', which means 'it is someone's fault that... not' or 'someone prevents... from'. Here, it means 'it was not through their fault that they did not remain', indicating that the failure to fulfill the condition cannot be attributed to the freedmen.
  2. §35.1.84.prdefecisse non uideri — Deficere is a legal term meaning a condition 'fails' or 'becomes impossible to fulfill'. The phrase 'defecisse non uideri' means 'does not seem to have failed', indicating that because the freedmen had the intention to fulfill the condition, it is not treated as a formal failure from their perspective despite the son's death.
  3. §35.1.84.prcontra uoluntatem defuncti petentes audiri non oportere — An accusative and infinitive construction where the accusative participle 'petentes' ('those who petition') acts as the subject of the passive infinitive 'audiri' ('to be heard', meaning to have one's claim admitted by a judge). This shows the substantive interpretive logic that if the testator's subjective intent ('uoluntas') was limited to the son's personal benefit ('utilitas'), claims made contrary to this intent must be rejected.

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §35.1.84.pr. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:35.1.84.pr

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.