Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §36.1.30.pr

Revocation by Later Will and Restitution via Trust

Passage 5583 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

The author explains a rescript stating that if a new testament is made, the prior one is generally revoked even if the new heir is appointed only for specific property. However, if trust-bequest words preserved the prior testament's validity, the new heir must restore the inheritance to the prior heirs after securing their own Falcidian portion.

[MARCIANUS libro quarto institutionum. ] §36.1.30.prSi quis priore facto testamento posterius fecerit testamentum, etiamsi ex certis rebus in posteriores tabulas heredes instituit, superius tamen testamentum sublatum est, ut diui quoque Seuerus et Antoninus rescripserunt, cuius constitutionis uerba rettuli, cum alia quoque praeterea in constitutione expressa sunt.
[MARCIANUS libro quarto institutionum.] If anyone, having made a prior testament, should make a subsequent testament, even if he appoints heirs from specific property in the subsequent tablets, the prior testament is nevertheless revoked, as the deified Severus and Antoninus also replied in a rescript, the words of which constitution I have cited, although other matters besides are also expressed in the constitution.
'Imperatores Seuerus et Antoninus Cocceio Campano.
"The Emperors Severus and Antoninus to Cocceius Campanus.
Testamentum secundo loco factum, licet in eo certarum rerum heres scriptus sit, iure ualere, perinde ac si rerum mentio facta non esset, sed teneri heredem scriptum, ut contentus rebus sibi datis aut suppleta quarta ex lege Falcidia hereditatem restituat his, qui priore testamento scripti fuerant, propter inserta fideicommissaria uerba, quibus ut ualeret prius testamentum expressum est, dubitari non oportet'. et hoc ita intellegendum est, si non aliquid specialiter contrarium in secundo testamento fuerit scriptum.
It ought not to be doubted that a testament made in the second place, although an heir of specific property is appointed therein, is legally valid, just as if no mention of properties had been made, but that the appointed heir is bound, either being content with the properties given to him or having the fourth part made up under the Falcidian law, to restore the inheritance to those who had been appointed in the prior testament, on account of the inserted words of trust-bequest, by which it was expressed that the prior testament should be valid." And this is to be understood in this way, if nothing specifically contrary has been written in the second testament.

Notes

  1. §36.1.30.prTestamentum... ualere... sed teneri... dubitari non oportet — The impersonal phrase `dubitari non oportet` (it ought not to be doubted) forms the main clause, governing two accusative-with-infinitive (A.C.I.) clauses connected by `sed`: `Testamentum... ualere` (that the testament is valid) and `teneri heredem` (that the heir is bound).
  2. §36.1.30.prsuppleta quarta — An ablative absolute construction where `quarta` (the fourth part under the Falcidian law, feminine singular ablative) acts as the logical subject and `suppleta` (having been made up, perfect passive participle of `suppleo` in the feminine singular ablative) as the predicate, expressing a condition alongside `contentus`.
  3. §36.1.30.prquibus ut ualeret prius testamentum expressum est — A relative clause introduced by the ablative relative pronoun `quibus` (referring back to `fideicommissaria uerba`). Within this clause, `expressum est` is impersonal passive, taking the `ut ualeret...` clause (with the imperfect subjunctive) as its subject clause, expressing the purpose or direction that the prior testament should remain valid.

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §36.1.30.pr. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:36.1.30.pr

Please note the AI-draft status of the translation and the date accessed.

Translation, notes and summary are AI-generated drafts, revised through reader feedback.