[ULPIANUS libro quarto fideicommissorum. ] §36.1.13.prIlle, a quo sub condicione fideicommissum relictum est, causari quid non poterit, ne condicio deficiat et haereat actionibus, cum nullum damnum sit futurum.
He, from whom a trust has been left under a condition, will not be able to make any excuse, lest the condition fail and he be entangled in lawsuits, since there will be no loss.
§36.1.13.1Secundum ea quae osten||dimus iam igitur non desideratur heredis praesentia.
Therefore, according to what we have already sho||wn, the presence of the heir is no longer required.
§36.1.13.2Si de testamento aliquid quaeratur, heres non debet audiri, si suspectam sibi hereditatem dicat: nam et si maxime dicatur uel ius testandi non habuisse eum qui testatus est uel de uiribus testamenti uel de sua condicione, non erit audiendus.
If any question is raised concerning the will, the heir ought not to be heard if he says that the inheritance is suspect to him; for even if it is highly contested either that the testator did not have the right to make a will, or concerning the validity of the will, or concerning his own status, he shall not be heard.
§36.1.13.3Quid ergo si de uiribus fideicommissi tractetur? haec quaestio practori praetermittenda non erit.
What then if the validity of the trust is disputed? This question must not be overlooked by the praetor.
sed quid si quis fideicommissarius dicat: 'adeat prius et sic de hoc quaeratur'? credo interdum audiendum fideicommissarium, si cognitio prolixiorem tractatum habeat: finge enim uerba fideicommissi de longinquo petenda et iustam deliberationem de quantitate fideicommissi incidere: dicendum erit compellendum cum adire, ne prius heres decedens fideicommissarium decipiat.
But what if a beneficiary of the trust says: 'Let him first enter on the inheritance, and so let this be investigated'? I believe that sometimes the beneficiary should be heard, if the judicial inquiry requires a longer investigation: for imagine that the terms of the trust must be sought from afar, and a justifiable deliberation arises concerning the amount of the trust: it must be said that he should be compelled to enter, lest the heir, dying beforehand, defraud the beneficiary.
§36.1.13.4Tempestiuum est requirere, per quem quis cogatur adire et restituere hereditatem: ueluti si praetor aut cousul fucrit heres institutus suspectamque hereditatem dicat, an cogi possit adire et restituere? et dicendum est praetorem quidem in praetorem uel consulem in consulem nullum imperium habere: sed si iurisdictioni se subiciant, solet praetor in eos ius dicere.
It is opportune to inquire by whom one may be compelled to enter on and restore the inheritance: as, for example, if a praetor or a consul has been appointed heir and says the inheritance is suspect, can he be compelled to enter and restore? And it must be said that indeed a praetor has no command over a praetor, nor a consul over a consul; but if they submit themselves to the jurisdiction, the praetor is accustomed to administer justice against them.
sed et si ipse praetor heres institutus suspectam dicat, ipse se cogere non poterit, quia triplici officio fungi non potest et suspectam dicentis et coacti et cogentis.
But also if the praetor himself who has been appointed heir says it is suspect, he will not be able to compel himself, because he cannot perform a threefold office, namely that of the one declaring it suspect, of the one compelled, and of the one compelling.
sed in his omnibus casibus atque similibus principale auxilium implorandum est.
But in all these and similar cases, the imperial assistance must be implored.
§36.1.13.5Si quis filius familias sit et magistratum gerat, patrem suum, in cuius est potestate, cogere poterit suspectam dicentem hereditatem adire et restituere:
If anyone is a son-in-power and holds a magistracy, he will be able to compel his father, in whose power he is, when the father says the inheritance is suspect, to enter on and restore it.