[IDEM libro uicensimo quaestionum. ] §36.1.57.prSi patroni filius extrario restituerit Trebelliano hereditatem, operarum actio, quae transferri non potuit, apud heredem manebit, nec ei nocebit exceptio, cum eadem prodesse non posset ei qui fideicommissum accepit.
[THE SAME, Questions, Book 20] If the son of a patron restores an inheritance to a stranger under the Senatus Consultum Trebellianum, the action for services, which could not be transferred, will remain with the heir, and an exception will not prejudice him, since that same action could not benefit the person who received the trust.
et generatim ita respondendum est non summoueri heredem neque liberari ex his causis, quae non pertinent ad restitutionem.
And in general, it must be answered that the heir is neither barred nor released by those causes which do not pertain to the restitution.
§36.1.57.1Imperator Titus Antoninus rescripsit in tempus directo data libertate non esse repraesentandam hereditatis restitutionem, quando persona non est, cui restitui potest.
The Emperor Titus Antoninus wrote in a rescript that when freedom is given directly for a certain time, the restitution of the inheritance ought not to be anticipated, when there is no person to whom it can be restored.
§36.1.57.2Qui fideicommissam hereditatem ex Trebelliano, cum suspecta diceretur, totam recepit, si ipse quoque rogatus sit alii restituere, totum restituere cogetur.
He who has received the whole of a trust inheritance under the Trebellianum, when it was said to be suspect, if he himself is also requested to restore it to another, shall be compelled to restore the whole.
et erit in hac quoque restitutione Trebelliano locus: quartam enim Falcidiae iure fideicommissarius retinere non potuit, nec ad rem pertinet, quod, nisi prior, ut adiretur hereditas, desiderasset, fideicommissum secundo loco datum intercidisset: cum enim semel adita est hereditas, omnis defuncti uoluntas rata constituitur.
And in this restitution also there will be room for the Trebellianum; for the trust beneficiary could not retain a fourth by right of the Falcidian law, nor does it matter that, unless the first beneficiary had desired the inheritance to be entered upon, the trust given in the second place would have failed; for when once the inheritance has been entered upon, every will of the deceased is confirmed.
non est contrarium, quod legata cetera non ultra dodrantem praestat: aliud est enim ex persona heredis conueniri, aliud proprio nomine defuncti precibus adstringi.
It is not contrary to this that he does not perform the other legacies beyond three-quarters; for it is one thing to be sued on account of the person of the heir, and another to be bound in one's own name by the requests of the deceased.
secundum quae potest dici non esse priore tantum desiderante cogendum institutum adire, ubi nulla portio remansura sit apud eum, utique si confestim uel post tempus cum fructibus rogatus est reddere: sed et si sine fructibus rogatus est reddere, non erit idonea quantitas ad inferendam adeundi necessi tatem.
According to which, it can be said that the appointed heir is not to be compelled to enter upon the inheritance merely because the first beneficiary desires it, when no portion is to remain with him, especially if he is requested to restore it immediately or after a time with the fruits; but even if he is requested to restore it without the fruits, it will not be a sufficient amount to impose the necessity of entering.
nec ad rem pertinebit, si prior etiam libertatem accepit: ut enim pecuniam, ita nec libertatem ad cogendum institutum accepisse satis est.
Nor will it matter if the first beneficiary also received freedom; for, just as with money, so to have received freedom is not sufficient to compel the appointed heir.
quod si prior recusauerit, placuit, ut recta uia secundus possit postulare, ut heres adeat et sibi restituat.
But if the first beneficiary refuses, it has been decided that the second can directly demand that the heir enter and restore it to him.
§36.1.57.3Quid ergo, si non alii, sed ipsi heredi rogatus sit restituere? quia non debet eidem quandoque quarta reddi quam perdidit, propter huius portionis retentionem erit audiendus.
What then, if he is requested to restore it not to another, but to the heir himself? Because the fourth which he lost ought not at some time to be restored to the same heir, he [the first beneficiary] must be heard on account of the retention of this portion.
sed nec illud translaticie omittendum est instituto, qui coactus est adire, fideicommissi petitionem denegandam esse: cur enim non uideatur indignus, ut qui destituit supremas defuncti preces consequatur aliquid ex uoluntate? quod fortius probabitur, si post impletam condicionem coactus est adire.
But neither should it be passed over in a commonplace manner by the appointed heir who was compelled to enter, that the petition for the trust ought to be denied to him; for why should he not be deemed unworthy, so that he who neglected the last wishes of the deceased should obtain something from the will? Which will be more strongly proved if he was compelled to enter after the condition was fulfilled.
nam si pendente condicione, durum erit idem probare, cum et Falcidiam paenitendo potuit inducere: nec ignoro posse dici nullo modo fideicommissi petitionem denegandam ei qui.
For if while the condition was pending, it will be hard to prove the same, since he could also have introduced the Falcidian law by repenting.
iura sepulchrorum adquiri insequuntur, adeo senatus nihil apud eum ex ea parte, quam derelinquit, uoluit relinquere, ut nec Falcidiam exercere possit nec praeceptio apud eum relinquatur nec substitutio quoque secundarum tabularum ita facta: 'quisquis mihi heres erit, filio meo heres esto' eidem daretur.
Nor am I ignorant that it can be said that the petition for the trust should in no way be denied to him who... the rights of sepulchres follow to be acquired; indeed, the senate wished to leave nothing to him from that part which he abandoned, so that he cannot even exercise the Falcidian law, nor is a preception left with him, nor is a substitution of the second tablets made in this way: "whoever shall be my heir, let him be the heir to my son" given to the same.
§36.1.57.4Cui Titiana hereditas ex Trebelliano senatus consulto restituta est, Maeuianam hereditatem, quam Titius defunctus ex Trebelliano Sempronio restituere debuit, et ipse restituere poterit sic ut alius quilibet successor.
He to whom a Titian inheritance has been restored under the Senatus Consultum Trebellianum, can himself also restore a Maevian inheritance, which the deceased Titius was bound to restore to Sempronius under the Trebellianum, just as any other successor.
§36.1.57.5Actiones temporariae Trebelliani solent esse euicta hereditate ab eo, qui, posteaquam fideicommissam restituit hereditatem, uictus est, scilicet ante restitutionem lite cum eo contestata: potestas enim euictionis tollit intellectum restitutionis indebito fideicommisso constituto.
Temporary actions of the Trebellianum are accustomed to [remain with the restorer] when the inheritance has been evicted from him who, after he restored the trust inheritance, was defeated, namely, after joinder of issue with him before the restitution; for the power of eviction takes away the understanding of a restitution when an undue trust has been established.
plane si fideicommissum ab eo quoque qui postea uicit relictum est: quia possessor in ratione reddendae hereditatis partem, quam fideicommissario restituit, heredi reputat, defendi potest actiones Trebelliani durare.
Clearly, if the trust was also left by him who afterwards won; since the possessor, in the account of returning the inheritance, reckons to the heir the part which he restored to the trust beneficiary, it can be defended that the actions of the Trebellianum continue.