Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §35.2.61.pr

Legacy of Third-Party Land and Non-Inclusion of Excess Price

Passage 5506 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

In the case of a legacy of a tract of land belonging to a third party, if the heir purchases it at an exorbitant price, it is decided that the excess payment cannot be calculated under the Lex Falcidia to reduce the legacies.

[IDEM libro quarto epistularum. ]
[THE SAME, in the fourth book of Letters.] A tract of land belonging to another was bequeathed to you.
§35.2.61.prAlienus fundus tibi legatus est: hunc heres cum emere nisi infinito pretio non posset, emit multo pluris, quam quanti erat, qua emptione effectum est, ut legatarii ad legem Falcidiam reuocarentur.
Since the heir could not purchase it except at an exorbitant price, he bought it for much more than it was worth; and by this purchase it was brought about that the legatees were reduced to the Lex Falcidia.
quaero, cum, si fundus tanti, quanti re uera, emptus esset, legata non fuerant excessura ius legis Falcidiae, an hoc ipso heres institutus partem reuocandi a legatariis ius habeat, quod ex uoluntate defuncti pluris emerit fundum, quam quanti erat.
I ask whether, since the legacies would not have exceeded the limit of the Lex Falcidia if the land had been bought for as much as it was actually worth, the instituted heir has, by this very fact, the right to revoke a portion from the legatees, on the ground that, in accordance with the will of the deceased, he bought the land for more than it was worth.
respondit: quod amplius heres quam pretium fundi legatario soluit, id lege Falcidia imputari non potest, quia neglegentia eius nocere legatariis non debet, utpote cum is confitendo ueram aestimationem praestare poterat.
He answered: that which the heir paid in excess of the price of the land to the legatee cannot be imputed under the Lex Falcidia, because his negligence ought not to prejudice the legatees, seeing that he could have made good the true valuation by declaring his inability to purchase.

Notes

  1. 35.2.61.prnon fuerant excessura — In the apodosis of the contrary-to-fact conditional sentence starting with 'si... emptus esset' (subjunctive pluperfect), a periphrastic form combining the active future participle 'excessura' and the indicative pluperfect 'fuerant' is used instead of the subjunctive pluperfect 'excessissent'. This is a post-classical usage emphasizing the certainty of the outcome.
  2. 35.2.61.prconfitendo — Ablative gerund of the verb 'confiteri', meaning 'by declaring' or 'by acknowledging'. In this context, it refers to the heir acknowledging or declaring to the owner (or the judge) that the land of another could not be purchased at a reasonable price. Since the heir was only required to pay the true valuation in money if purchase was impossible, buying it at an exorbitant price is regarded as his negligence ('neglegentia').
  3. 35.2.61.prutpote cum is... poterat — In the causal clause introduced by 'utpote cum', the indicative mood ('poterat') is used instead of the subjunctive which is common in classical Latin. This serves to state the objective fact or explanation directly with emphasis on the reality of the potential action.

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §35.2.61.pr. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:35.2.61.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.