Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §36.1.52.pr

Order for Immediate Restitution Against Father Evading Trust

Passage 5605 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

Emperor Hadrian's ruling ordering an immediate restoration of an inheritance to a son due to the father's fraudulent evasion of a conditional trust, the subsequent legal status of the son, and the provision of maintenance to the needy father.

[IDEM libro undecimo quaestionum. ] §36.1.52.prImperator Hadrianus, cum Uinius Cerealis filio suo Uiuio Simonidi, si in potestate sua esse desisset, hereditatem restituere rogatus esset ac multa in fraudem fideicommissi fieri probaretur, restitui hereditatem filio iussit ita, ne quid ea pecunia, quamdiu filius eius uiueret, iuris haberet.
[THE SAME, Questions, Book 11] Emperor Hadrian, when Vinius Cerealis had been requested to restore the inheritance to his son Vivius Simonides if the latter should cease to be under his power, and it was proved that many things were being done to defraud the trust, ordered the inheritance to be restored to the son in such a way that, as long as his son lived, he should have no right over that money.
nam quia cautiones non poterant interponi conseruata patria potestate, damnum condicionis propter fraudem inflixit.
For because guarantees could not be interposed while the paternal power was preserved, he imposed the loss of the condition on account of the fraud.
post decreti autem auctoritatem in ea hereditate filio militi comparari debuit, si res a possessoribus peti uel etiam cum debitoribus agi oporteret.
But after the authority of the decree, in respect of that inheritance, the son ought to have been compared to a soldier, if it should be necessary to claim the property from the possessors or even to bring an action against the debtors.
sed paternae reuerentiae congruum est egenti forte patri officio iudicis ex accessionibus hereditariis emolumentum praestari.
But it is compatible with paternal respect that, by the office of the judge, support should be provided from the accessions of the inheritance to a father who happens to be in need.

Notes

  1. §36.1.52.prUinius Cerealis filio suo Uiuio Simonidi, si in potestate sua esse desisset, hereditatem restituere rogatus esset — The conditional clause si in potestate sua esse desisset ("if the latter should cease to be under his power") modifies the request for the restoration of the inheritance (restituere rogatus esset), illustrating a conditional trust (fideicommissum sub condicione).
  2. §36.1.52.prrestitui hereditatem filio iussit ita, ne quid ea pecunia, quamdiu filius eius uiueret, iuris haberet. — The phrase ita, ne... introduces a restrictive adverbial clause ("on condition that... not"). The words quid... iuris feature a partitive genitive, and ea pecunia is an ablative of respect ("with respect to that money").
  3. §36.1.52.prfilio militi comparari debuit — Both filio and militi are datives acting as the object of comparison with the passive infinitive comparari. This implies that the son, despite being under paternal power, should be treated like a soldier (filiusfamilias miles) who holds a peculium castrense and has the capacity to bring lawsuits.
  4. §36.1.52.pregenti forte patri officio iudicis ex accessionibus hereditariis emolumentum praestari — This is an accusative with infinitive clause (with emolumentum as the accusative subject and praestari as the passive infinitive) functioning as the subject of the impersonal phrase congruum est. The words egenti... patri are in the dative as the indirect object of the action.

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §36.1.52.pr. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:36.1.52.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.