[IULIANUS libro quadragensimo digestorum. ] §36.1.28.10Quod si Maeuius te rogauerit et suam hereditatem et Titianam restituere tuque sponte adieris hereditatem, uteris legis Falcidiae commodo et partem quartam Maeuianae hereditatis retinebis, dimidiam et quartam ex fideicommisso restitues, nec intererit, eidem utramque hereditatem an alii Maeuianam, alii Titianam rogatus fueris restituere.
But if Maevius has requested you to restore both his own inheritance and that of Titius, and you have voluntarily entered upon the inheritance, you will enjoy the benefit of the Falcidian law and retain a fourth part of Maevius's inheritance, and you will restore three-fourths (a half and a fourth) based on the trust; and it will make no difference whether you have been requested to restore both inheritances to the same person, or Maevius's to one person and Titius's to another.
sed si suspectam Maeuianam hereditatem dixeris, cogeris eam adire et restituere ei, cui rogatus fueris: is autem, cui Titianam hereditatem restituere rogatus fueris, non poterit te compellere ad adeundum.
But if you declare Maevius's inheritance to be suspect to yourself, you will be compelled to enter upon it and restore it to the person to whom you were requested; however, the person to whom you were requested to restore Titius's inheritance will not be able to compel you to enter.
§36.1.28.11Si ex Trebelliano hereditatem restituit heres et fructus praediorum uel ipsa praedia, siue etiam debitor eius qui testamentum fecit fuerit, necessarium est actionem aduersus eum fideicommissario dari.
If the heir has restored the inheritance based on the Trebellian Senate Consult, and he is also the person who owes the fruits of the estates or the estates themselves, or even if he was a debtor of the person who made the will, it is necessary that an action against him be granted to the beneficiary of the trust.
MARCELLUS: hoc idem necessario faciendum est, cum parte hereditatis restituta familiae erciscundae iudicium inter eum qui restituit hereditatem et qui receperit accipietur.
MARCELLUS: This same thing must necessarily be done when, a part of the inheritance having been restored, an action for the partition of an inheritance is accepted between the one who restored the inheritance and the one who received it.
§36.1.28.12Qui rogatus est emancipato filio restituere hereditatem, cogi debet adire et restituere, quamuis filius contra tabulas bonorum possessionem accipere possit.
He who has been requested to restore an inheritance to an emancipated son must be compelled to enter and restore it, even though the son can receive possession of goods contrary to the will.
§36.1.28.13Si patronus ex parte debita heres institutus et rogatus restituere hereditatem suspectam sibi esse dicat, puto rectius facturum praetorem, si coegerit eum adire hereditatem et restituere, quamuis possit mutata uoluntate eam partem hereditatis retinere.
If a patron, appointed heir for his due share, has been requested to restore the inheritance and declares it to be suspect to himself, I think the praetor will act more correctly if he compels him to enter upon the inheritance and restore it, even though he might, by changing his mind, retain that part of the inheritance.
§36.1.28.14Si praeceptis quibusdam rebus heres rogatus sit restituere hereditatem et coactus eam adierit, an praecipere debeat? respondi eum, qui iussu praetoris adit hereditatem, omni commodo prohiberi debere.
If an heir has been requested to restore an inheritance after pre-deducting certain things, and has entered upon it under compulsion, ought he to pre-deduct them? I replied that he who enters upon an inheritance by order of the praetor ought to be barred from every benefit.
§36.1.28.15Sed si eidem legatum esset sub hac condicione 'si heres non esset' et suspectam sibi hereditatem dicat, non aliter cogendus est adire, quam ut legata, quae sub condicione 'si heres non esset' data erant, restituantur, non quidem a coheredibus, ne onerentur, sed ab eo cui restituta fuerit hereditas.
But if a legacy had been bequeathed to the same person under this condition, "if he were not the heir," and he declares the inheritance to be suspect to himself, he is not to be compelled to enter except on the condition that the legacies, which had been given under the condition "if he were not the heir," are restored to him—not, indeed, by the co-heirs, lest they be burdened, but by the person to whom the inheritance is restored.
nam sicut explendae fidei gratia cogendus est adire hereditatem, ita ob id ipsum damno adfici non debebit.
For just as he must be compelled to enter upon the inheritance for the sake of fulfilling the trust, so he ought not to suffer damage on that very account.
§36.1.28.16Heres ex asse erat instituta consobrina mea et eius fidei commissum, ut partem dimidiam hereditatis statim Publio Maeuio restitueret, alteram partem, cum ipsa moreretur, eidem Publio Macuio: praeterea alia aliis legata data sunt.
My female cousin was appointed sole heir, and it was entrusted to her good faith to restore immediately half of the inheritance to Publius Maevius, and the other half, when she herself should die, to the same Publius Maevius; besides, other legacies were given to various other persons.
Macuius partem dimidiam hereditatis statim percepit et cauit, quod amplius quam per legem Falcidiam liceret cepisset, redditu iri: sed et ceteri legata solida acceperant et similiter de restituendo quod amplius percepissent cauerunt.
Maevius immediately received his half of the inheritance and gave security that whatever he had received in excess of what was allowed by the Falcidian law would be returned; but the others had also received their legacies in full, and had likewise given security for restoring whatever they had received in excess.
mortua consobrina mea Publius Maeuius desiderat sibi alteram partem hereditatis cum fructibus restitui.
Upon the death of my cousin, Publius Maevius desires that the other half of the inheritance, along with its fruits, be restored to him.
quaero itaque, quantum ei restituere debeam? utrum quod supra quadrantem bonorum penes consobrinam meam remanserat nec amplius quicquam? an et ab aliis, quibus legata soluta sunt, repetere quid debeam et quantum? item quaero, si quod ab his ex stipulatione percepero et quod apud consobrinam meam supra quadrantem remanserat, non efficiet partem dimidiam hereditatis, an ex incremento et fructibus eius summae, quae supra quadrantem bonorum penes consobrinam meam remansit, supplere ei debeam, dumtaxat ne partem dimidiam hereditatis quantitas quae restitueretur excedat? an uero, sicut Publius Maeuius desiderat, quidquid seposito quadrante bonorum eiusque quadrantis fructibus perceptum est restitui ei debet? respondi, quod supra quadrantem penes consobrinam tuam remansit, si adiectis fructibus quantitatem partis dimidiae hereditatis, quae mortis tempore fuit, non minuet, totum Publio Maeuio restituendum: nec ex stipulatione ab his, quibus legata soluta sunt, repeti quicquam potest.
I ask, therefore, how much I ought to restore to him? Whether only that which had remained in the hands of my cousin above a fourth of the property, and nothing more? Or ought I also to recover anything from the others to whom legacies were paid, and if so, how much? I also ask, if what I recover from them based on the stipulation, together with what had remained above a fourth in the hands of my cousin, does not make up half of the inheritance, ought I to supply it to him from the increase and fruits of that sum which remained in the hands of my cousin above a fourth of the property, provided that the quantity to be restored does not exceed half of the inheritance? Or indeed, as Publius Maevius desires, should whatever was received, setting aside a fourth of the property and the fruits of that fourth, be restored to him? I replied: what remained in the hands of your cousin above a fourth, if, with the fruits added, it does not fall short of the quantity of half of the inheritance as it was at the time of death, must be restored in full to Publius Maevius; and nothing can be recovered based on the stipulation from those to whom legacies were paid.
si uero fructus quantitatem partis dimidiae exuberant, quadranti tuo et fructibus eius accedet.
But if the fruits exceed the quantity of the half, the excess will accrue to your fourth and its fruits.
si uero fructus eius partis, quae supra quadrantem apud consobrinam tuam remanserat, non implent quantitatem partis dimidiae bonorum, ex stipulatione agi poterit.
If, however, the fruits of that part which had remained in the hands of your cousin above a fourth do not fill up the quantity of half of the property, an action can be brought based on the stipulation.
in summa ratio ita ponenda est, ut tu omni modo quadrantem et fructus eius, praeterea, si eius quod quadrantem excedit fructus in tantum excreuerit, ut quantitatem partis dimidiae bonorum excedat, etiam id quod excesserit retineas.
In short, the account must be settled in such a way that you in any event retain the fourth and its fruits, and moreover, if the fruits of what exceeds the fourth increase so much as to exceed the quantity of half of the property, you also retain that excess.
§36.1.28.17Qui suos seruos rogatus est manumittere et hisdem hereditatem restituere, detracto pretio seruorum hereditatem restituere debebit.
He who has been requested to manumit his own slaves and restore the inheritance to them must restore the inheritance after deducting the value of the slaves.