[ULPIANUS libro septuagesimo nono ad edictum. ] §35.3.3.prnisi si dolo ipsius aliquid factum sit: tunc enim etiam ex doli clausula, quae in ista stipulatione continetur, tenebitur et replicatione repelli poterit.
[ULPIANUS libro septuagesimo nono ad edictum.] unless something was done by his own fraud; for then he will be liable also under the fraud clause, which is contained in that stipulation, and he can be repelled by a replication.
§35.3.3.1Haec cautio, quae propter legem Falcidiam interponitur, fideiussorum habet praestationem.
This security, which is interposed because of the Falcidian law, has the provision of sureties.
§35.3.3.2Si in plures dies pecunia legata est, cum certum sit legem Falcidiam locum habere, non stipulationi, sed computationi locum esse Pedius ait, ut aestimetur, quanti sit quod in diem legatum est et tantum credatur esse legatum, quantum efficit aestimatio, ut pro modo eius ex omnibus legatis statim legis Falcidiae ratio habeatur.
If money is bequeathed over several future days, when it is certain that the Falcidian law applies, Pedius says there is room not for stipulation, but for computation, so that it may be estimated how much that which is bequeathed to a day is worth, and only so much is believed to be bequeathed as the estimation amounts to, so that the calculation of the Falcidian law may be made immediately from all bequests according to its proportion.
§35.3.3.3Quotiens futurum est, ut palam sit et ante diem uenientem iam Falcidiam locum habere, totiens computatio eius fit.
Whenever it is to be clear, even before the day arrives, that the Falcidian law already applies, so often its computation is made.
nam si condicio in mora est, exspectabimus condicionem, quoad exsistat: si autem dies superest, iam hic intercapedinis temporis habita ratione atque aestimatione sica de Falcidia disputabimus et committi stipulationem dicemus.
For if a condition is in delay, we shall await the condition until it exists; but if only a day remains, having already taken into account the interval of time and its estimation, we shall thus argue about the Falcidian law and say that the stipulation is committed.
§35.3.3.4Quamuis autem omnes legatarii et fideicommissarii necesse habeant hac stipulatione cauere, tamen quibusdam remitti diui fratres rescripserunt, ut puta his, quibus minuta alimenta sunt relicta.
Although, however, all legatees and fideicommissaries must give security by this stipulation, yet the deified brothers replied that it is remitted to certain persons, as for instance to those to whom small allowances of food were left.
Pompeiae enim Faustinae rescribserunt sic: 'non eandem causam esse decem aureorum, quos annuos tibi testamento Pompeiae Crispianae patronae tuae relictos proponis, atque fuit alimentorum et uestiarii libertis relictorum, quibus propterea cautionis onus remittendum existimauimus'. §35.3.3.5Item sciendum est fiscum hanc cautionem non pati, sed perinde conueniri posse, ac si cauisset.
For they replied to Pompeia Faustina thus: "The case of the ten aurei, which you claim were left to you annually in the will of your patroness Pompeia Crispiana, is not the same as was that of the food and clothing left to freedmen, for whom we therefore thought the burden of security should be remitted." Likewise, it must be known that the treasury does not submit to this security, but can be sued just as if it had given security.
ceteros autem, cuiuscumque dignitatis sint, licet iam legata perceperint, compelli debere ad cauendum diuus Pius rescribsit: ex quo rescripto etiam illud accipimus, quod etiam post soluta legata uoluit stipulationem interponi.
However, the deified Pius replied that others, of whatever rank they may be, even if they have already received the bequests, must be compelled to give security; from which rescript we also understand that he wished the stipulation to be interposed even after the bequests have been paid.
§35.3.3.6Si legatarius heredi, qui controuersiam hereditatis patitur iam uel sperat, de restituendo legato sibi praestito cauerit et euicta hereditas sit, sed neglegentia uel dolo eius qui legatum praestitit, dicemus non committi stipulationem propter uiri boni arbitrium, quod inest huic stipulationi.
If a legatee has given security to an heir, who is already suffering or expects a controversy over the inheritance, about restoring the bequest paid to him, and the inheritance is evicted, but through the negligence or fraud of him who paid the bequest, we shall say that the stipulation is not committed, because of the arbitrament of an honest man, which is inherent in this stipulation.
§35.3.3.7Item si ipse, qui praestitit legatum, ex alia causa sibi euicerit, ut puta quia inuenitur sequenti testamento heres scriptus, in quo legatum iste legatarius non acceperat, dicemus committi stipulationem propter uiri boni arbitrium.
Likewise, if he himself who paid the bequest has evicted it for himself from another cause, as for instance because he is found written as heir in a subsequent will, in which that legatee had not received the bequest, we shall say that the stipulation is committed because of the arbitrament of an honest man.
§35.3.3.8Et generaliter ubicumque hereditatem uel quantitatem uel emolumentum praestitit is, qui hac stipulatione sibi prospexerat, dicendum est ibi committi eam, si modo culpa abest ab eo, qui stipulatus est.
And generally, wherever he who had provided for himself by this stipulation paid the inheritance or a quantity or an advantage, it must be said that it is committed there, provided that fault is absent from him who stipulated.
§35.3.3.9Quaesitum est, an saepius committatur.
It was asked whether it is committed more than once.
et placet etiam saepius eam committi, si per partes ablata est hereditas.
And it is agreed that it is committed even more than once, if the inheritance was taken away in parts.
§35.3.3.10Si legatum fuerit praestitum ante interpositam hanc stipulationem, an condici possit, ut cautio ista interponatur? mouet quaestionem, quod ea, quae per errorem omissa uel soluta sunt, condici possunt et hic ergo quasi plus solutum uidetur ex eo, quod cautio intermissa est.
If a bequest was paid before this stipulation was interposed, can a condictio be brought to have this security interposed? The question is raised because those things which were omitted or paid by error can be recovered by condictio, and here therefore something like an overpayment seems to have occurred from the fact that the security was omitted.
et ait Pomponius condictionem interponendae satisdationis gratia competere et puto hoc probandum quod Pomponius, utilitatis gratia.
And Pomponius says that a condictio is competent for the sake of interposing security, and I think this opinion of Pomponius should be approved, for the sake of utility.