[ULPIANUS libro tertio fideicommissorum. ] §36.1.1.prExplicito tractatu, qui ad fideicommissa singularum rerum pertinet, transeamus nunc ad interpretationem senatus consulti Trebelliani.
[ULPIAN on Trusts, Book 3] Having completed the discussion which pertains to trust legacies of individual things, let us now pass to the interpretation of the Trebellian senatusconsult.
§36.1.1.1Factum est enim senatus consultum temporibus Neronis octauo calendas Septembres Annaeo Seneca et Trebellio Maximo consulibus, cuius uerba haec sunt: §36.1.1.2'Cum esset acquissimum in omnibus fideicommissariis hereditatibus, si qua de his bonis iudicia penderent, ex his eos subire, in quos ius fructusque transferretur, potius quam cuique periculosum esse fidem suam: placet, ut actiones, quae in heredem heredibusque dari solent, eas neque in eos neque his dari, qui fidei suae commissum sic, uti rogati essent, restituissent, sed his et in cos, quibus ex testamento fideicommissum restitutum fuisset, quo magis in reliquum confirmentur supremae defunctorum uoluntates'. §36.1.1.3Sublata est hoc senatus consulto dubitatio eorum, qui adire hereditatem recusare seu metu litium seu praetextu metus censuerunt.
For the senatusconsult was enacted in the time of Nero, on the eighth day before the Kalends of September, in the consulship of Annaeus Seneca and Trebellius Maximus, the words of which are as follows: 'Since it is most equitable in all trust inheritances that, if any actions are pending concerning these goods, those to whom the right and enjoyment are transferred should undergo them out of these goods, rather than that his own good faith should be perilous to anyone: it is pleased that the actions which are accustomed to be given against an heir and to heirs, should be given neither against those nor to those who have restored the trust as they were requested, but to those and against those to whom the trust inheritance has been restored under the will, so that the last wishes of deceased persons may be more firmly secured for the future.' By this senatusconsult, the hesitation of those who thought they should refuse to enter upon an inheritance, either through fear of litigation or under the pretext of fear, was removed.
§36.1.1.4Quamquam autem senatus subuentum uoluit heredibus, subuenit tamen et fideicommissario: nam in eo, quod heredes, si conueniantur, exceptione uti possunt, heredibus subuentum est: in eo uero, quod, si agant heredes, repelluntur per exceptionem quodque agendi facultas fideicommissariis competit, procul dubio consultum est fideicommissariis.
But although the senate wished to assist the heirs, it nevertheless also assisted the beneficiary of the trust: for in that the heirs, if they are sued, can use an exception, the heirs are assisted; but in that, if the heirs sue, they are repelled by an exception, and that the power of suing belongs to the beneficiaries of the trust, there is no doubt that the beneficiaries of the trust have been consulted.
§36.1.1.5Hoc autem senatus consultum locum habet, siue ex testamento quis heres esset siue ab intestato rogatusque sit restituere hereditatem.
Moreover, this senatusconsult has application whether a person was heir under a will or on intestacy, and has been requested to restore the inheritance.
§36.1.1.6In filii quoque familias militis iudicio, qui de castrensi peculio uel quasi castrensi testari potest, senatus consultum locum habet.
The senatusconsult also has application in the case of the will of a son-in-power who is a soldier, who can make a will concerning his castrense or quasi-castrense peculium.
§36.1.1.7Bonorum quoque possessores uel alii successores ex Trebelliano restituere potuerunt hereditatem.
Possessors of goods and other successors could also restore an inheritance under the Trebellian senatusconsult.
§36.1.1.8De illo quaeritur, an is, cui ex causa fideicommissi restituta est hereditas ex Trebelliano senatus consulto, ipse quoque restituendo ex eodem senatus consulto transferat actiones: et Iulianus scribit etiam ipsum transferre actiones, quod et Maecianus probat et nobis placet.
The question is asked whether a person to whom an inheritance has been restored on the ground of a trust under the Trebellian senatusconsult, also himself transfers actions by restoring it under the same senatusconsult; and Julian writes that he himself also transfers the actions, which Maecianus also approves and we agree with.
§36.1.1.9Sed et quotiens quis rogatus duobus restituere hereditatem, alteri pure uel in diem, alteri sub condicione, suspectam dicit: ei, cui erat rogatus pure uel in diem restituere, interim uniuersam hereditatem restitui senatus censuit, cum autem exstiterit condicio, si uelit alius fideicommissarius partem suam suscipere, transire ad eum ipso iure actiones.
But also, whenever a person who is requested to restore an inheritance to two persons—to one unconditionally or on a specified day, and to the other conditionally—declares it to be suspect: the senate decided that in the meantime the entire inheritance should be restored to the one to whom he was requested to restore it unconditionally or on a specified day; but when the condition is fulfilled, if the other beneficiary of the trust wishes to take up his share, the actions transfer to him by operation of law.
§36.1.1.10Si filio uel seruo herede instituto rogatoque restituere hereditatem dominus uel pater restituat, ex Trebelliano transferuntur actiones: quod est etiam, si suo nomine rogati sunt restituere.
If, a son-in-power or a slave having been appointed heir and requested to restore the inheritance, the father or the master restores it, the actions are transferred under the Trebellian senatusconsult; which is also the case if they were requested to restore it in their own name.
§36.1.1.11Idem est et si ipsi filio pater rogatus sit restituere hereditatem.
The same is true if the father himself was requested to restore the inheritance to his son.
§36.1.1.12Sed et si tutor uel curator adulescentis uel furiosi rogatus sit restituere hereditatem, sine dubio Trebelliano locus erit.
But also, if the tutor or curator of a minor or an insane person is requested to restore an inheritance, there will without doubt be room for the Trebellian senatusconsult.
§36.1.1.13Fuit quaesitum, si ipsi tutori rogatus sit restituere pupillus, an ipso auctore restitutionem facere possit? et est decretum a diuo Seuero non posse tutori se auctore restituere hereditatem, quia in rem suam auctor esse non potest.
The question was asked, if a pupil is requested to restore an inheritance to his own tutor, whether he can make the restoration with the tutor's own authorization? And it was decreed by the Divine Severus that a pupil cannot restore an inheritance to his tutor with the tutor's own authorization, because one cannot be an authorizer in one's own affair.