Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §36.1.56.pr

Apportionment of Expenses and Security in Residuary Trust

Passage 5609 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

Explains the decision of the divine Marcus regarding the apportionment of expenditures under a trust on Titius, based on equity and the precedent of military property in collation, and clarifies the purpose of demanding security from the trustee.

[IDEM libro nono decimo quaestionum. ] §36.1.56.prTitius rogatus est, quod ex hereditate superfuisset, Maeuio restituere.
[THE SAME, Questions, Book 19] Titius was requested to restore to Maevius whatever should remain from the inheritance.
quod medio tempore alienatum uel deminutum est, ita quandoque peti non poterit, si non interueniendi fideicommissi gratia tale aliquid factum probetur: uerbis enim fideicommissi bonam fidem inesse constat.
What was alienated or diminished in the meantime cannot be claimed at any later time, unless it is proved that something of this kind was done for the purpose of frustrating the trust; for it is clear that good faith is inherent in the words of a trust.
diuus autem Marcus cum de fideicommissaria hereditate cognosceret, his uerbis: 'quidquid ex hereditate mea superfuerit, rogo restituas' et uiri boni arbitrium inesse credidit: iudicauit enim erogationes, quae ex hereditate factae dicebantur, non ad solam fideicommissi deminutionem pertinere, sed pro rata patrimonii, quod heres proprium habuit, distribui oportere.
Moreover, when the divine Marcus was investigating a case concerning a trust inheritance with these words: "whatever shall remain from my inheritance, I request you to restore," he believed that the judgment of a good man was inherent in them; for he judged that expenditures which were said to have been made from the inheritance did not pertain solely to the reduction of the trust, but ought to be distributed in proportion to the estate which the heir held as his own.
quod mihi uidetur non tantum aequitatis ratione, uerum exemplo quoque motus fecisse.
It seems to me that he did this not only by reason of equity, but also moved by an example.
cum enim de conferendis bonis fratribus ab emancipato filio quaereretur, praecipuum autem, quod in castris fuerat adquisitum militi, relinqui placeret, consultus imperator sumptus, quos miles fecerat, non ex eo tantummodo patrimonio, quod munus collationis pati debuit, sed pro rata etiam castrensis pecuniae decedere oportere constituit.
For when a question was raised concerning the collation of property to his brothers by an emancipated son, and on the other hand it was agreed that the special property which had been acquired by the soldier in the camp should be left to him, the emperor, having been consulted, decided that the expenses which the soldier had incurred ought to be deducted not only from that estate which had to undergo the burden of collation, but also in proportion to the military property.
propter huiusmodi tractatus Maeuius fideicommissi nomine cautionem exigere debet: quod eo pertinet, non ut ex stipulatione petatur, quod ex fideicommisso peti non poterit, sed ut habeat fideiussores eius quantitatis, quam ex fideicommisso petere potuit.
On account of discussions of this kind, Maevius ought to demand security in the name of the trust; the purpose of which is not that there should be claimed on the basis of a stipulation what cannot be claimed under the trust, but that he may have guarantors for that amount which he was able to claim under the trust.

Notes

  1. §36.1.56.prita quandoque peti non poterit, si non interueniendi fideicommissi gratia — The adverb `ita` correlates with the conditional clause `si non` to express a restrictive condition ("only if ... not" or "unless"). `interueniendi fideicommissi` is a gerundive construction in the genitive case agreeing with `fideicommissi`, governed by the prepositional noun `gratia` (expressing purpose) meaning "for the purpose of obstructing the trust."
  2. §36.1.56.pruiri boni arbitrium inesse — `arbitrium` is the subject accusative of `inesse` (infinitive of `insum`), modified by the genitive `uiri boni` ("of a good man"). This refers to the legal standard *arbitrium boni uiri* (the judgment of an honorable man), indicating that the trust's interpretation should not be purely formal but must adhere to an objective standard of fairness and reasonableness.
  3. §36.1.56.prquod mihi uidetur non tantum aequitatis ratione, uerum exemplo quoque motus fecisse — This is a personal construction with the active subject (the emperor Marcus) implied, where `uidetur fecisse` means "he seems to have done." The initial `quod` is a connecting relative pronoun referring to the preceding decision, acting as the direct object of the infinitive `fecisse`. `motus` is a perfect participle modifying the subject ("moved"), accompanied by the ablatives of cause/means `ratione` and `exemplo`.

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §36.1.56.pr. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:36.1.56.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.