[IDEM libro tertio de legatis ad edictum praetoris urbani. ] §35.2.78.prQuod si alterutro eorum deficiente alter heres solus exstiterit, utrum perinde ratio legis Falcidiae habenda sit, ac si statim ab initio is solus heres institutus esset, an singularum portionum separatim causae spectandae sunt? et placet, si eius pars legatis exhausta sit, qui heres exstiterit, adiuuari legatarios per deficientem partem, quia ea non est legatis onerata, quia et legata quae apud heredem remanent efficiunt, ut ceteris legatariis aut nihil aut minus detrahatur: si uero defecta pars fuerit exhausta, perinde in ea ponendam rationem legis Falcidiae, atque si ad eum ipsum pertineret, a quo defecta fieret.
[THE SAME, From the third book on legacies with reference to the edict of the urban praetor.] But if, upon one or the other of them failing, the other stands out as the sole heir, is the calculation of the Falcidian law to be made in the same way as if he had been appointed sole heir immediately from the beginning, or must the cases of the individual portions be considered separately? And the opinion is approved that, if the portion of him who remains as heir is exhausted by legacies, the legatees are relieved by the failing portion, because that portion has not been burdened with legacies; for the legacies also which remain with the heir bring it about that either nothing or less is deducted from the other legatees. But if the failed portion has been exhausted, the calculation of the Falcidian law must be applied to it in the same way as if it belonged to that very person from whom it became failed.