[GAIUS libro secundo fideicommissorum. ] §36.1.65.8Si dandae pecuniae condicio adscripta est heredi, debet ei offerre pecuniam is qui poscit fideicommissum, ut hereditatem impleta condicione possit adire et restituere.
If a condition of paying money is attached to the heir, the person who claims the trust must offer him the money, so that, the condition being fulfilled, the heir may enter upon the inheritance and restore it.
§36.1.65.9Quod si condicio adscripta est et ea est, quam praetor remittit, sufficit edictum, ut Iulianus ait: hactenus iubendus est, ut constituat praetoris actionibus uti aut petat bonorum possessionem secundum tabulas, ut ita nanctus actiones tunc restituta hereditate transferat eas ex senatus consulto.
But if a condition is attached and it is of the kind which the praetor remits, the edict is sufficient, as Julian says: he should be ordered only to this extent, to decide to use the praetor’s actions or to petition for possession of the property in accordance with the will, so that, having thus acquired the actions, he may then, after restoring the inheritance, transfer them pursuant to the senatusconsult.
§36.1.65.10Si uero nominis ferendi condicio est, quam praetor exigit, recte quidem facturus uidetur, si eam expleuerit: nihil enim male est honesti hominis nomen adsumere, nec enim in famosis et turpibus nominibus hanc condicionem exigit praetor.
But if it is a condition of bearing a name, which the praetor requires, he will indeed seem to act rightly if he fulfills it; for there is nothing bad in assuming the name of an honorable man, nor does the praetor require this condition in the case of infamous or disgraceful names.
sed tamen si recuset nomen ferre, remittenda est ei condicio, ut Iulianus ait, et permittendae utiles actiones, aut bonorum possessio secundum tabulas danda est, uti nanctus actiones transferat eas ex senatus consulto.
Nevertheless, if he should refuse to bear the name, the condition must be remitted to him, as Julian says, and beneficial actions must be allowed, or possession of the property in accordance with the will must be granted, so that, having acquired the actions, he may transfer them pursuant to the senatusconsult.
§36.1.65.11Si cum suspectam uideret, hereditatem postulante me iussu praetoris adieris et restitueris mihi, ita utar legis Falcidiae beneficio aduersus legatarios, si tu quoque ea lege uti poteras et quatenus uti poteras: nam si quid praeterea a me alicui per fideicommissum relictum sit, id quasi a legatario relictum non uenit in computationem eius legis, sed extrinsecus numeratur.
If, while you viewed the inheritance as suspect, you entered upon it at my request by order of the praetor and restored it to me, I shall enjoy the benefit of the Lex Falcidia against the legatees in such a manner, only if you also could have used that law and to the extent that you could have used it; for if anything besides has been left by me to anyone by way of trust, this does not enter into the computation of that law as if it were left by a legatee, but is counted separately.
§36.1.65.12Si Titius rogatus sit hereditatem Maeuio restituere, Maeuius Seio certam pecuniam, et Titius quartae retinendae beneficio aduersus Maeuium usus fuerit: Neratius scribit Maeuium quoque Seio eo minus aequum esse praestare, ne ipse de suo damnum sentiat.
If Titius was requested to restore the inheritance to Maevius, and Maevius a certain sum of money to Seius, and Titius used the benefit of retaining a fourth against Maevius, Neratius writes that it is equitable for Maevius also to perform so much less to Seius, lest he himself suffer a loss from his own property.
§36.1.65.13Iulianus ait, si heres institutus Titio rogatus sit restituere, substitutus Maeuio et institutus suspectam sibi hereditatem esse dicat, desiderante Titio iubendum eum adire et restituere.
Julian says that if the appointed heir is requested to restore the inheritance to Titius, and the substitute heir to Maevius, and the appointed heir says that the inheritance is suspect to him, he must be ordered to enter and restore it if Titius requests so.
§36.1.65.14Si quis bonorum possessoris fidei commiserit de hereditate restituenda et is passus fuerit diem bonorum possessionis adgnoscendae transire aut per hoc tempus, quo is, cui restitui debebit hereditas, aliqua ex causa non potuit adire praetorem et postulare, ut petita bonorum possessione restituatur sibi hereditas, succurri ei debet, id est ut restituatur tempus bonorum possessionis admittendae exhibendi fideicommissi gratia.
If anyone has charged the faith of a possessor of goods to restore an inheritance, and he has allowed the period for applying for the possession of goods to expire, or during this time, the person to whom the inheritance ought to be restored could not, for some reason, approach the praetor and request that, the possession of goods having been petitioned for, the inheritance be restored to him, relief ought to be granted to him, that is, the time for admitting the possession of goods should be restored for the sake of fulfilling the trust.
§36.1.65.15Admonendi autem sumus, si is, qui soluendo non sit, Titio herede instituto seruum liberum esse iusserit et rogauerit Titium hereditatem eidem restituere, uix esse, ut Titius recusans adire hereditatem cogatur.
We must be advised, however, that if a person who is insolvent, having appointed Titius as heir, has ordered a slave to be free and requested Titius to restore the inheritance to the same slave, it is scarcely possible that Titius, if he refuses, can be compelled to enter upon the inheritance.
nam licet desiderante seruo Titius adierit hereditatem, non tamen potest libertas seruo competere quasi in fraudem creditorum data, licet Titius locuples sit: qua de causa nec hereditas ei restitui potest.
For although Titius may enter upon the inheritance at the request of the slave, liberty cannot nevertheless belong to the slave as if given in fraud of creditors, even if Titius is wealthy; for which reason the inheritance cannot be restored to him either.
sed ex sententia legis dicendum est perinde habendum, ac si is seruus solus liber et heres scriptus esset nec Titius heres esset.
But according to the intent of the law, it must be said that it should be treated just as if that slave alone had been written as free and heir, and Titius were not the heir.