[ULPIANUS libro septuagensimo nono ad edictum. ] §36.3.1.prLegatorum nomine satisdari oportere praetor putauit, ut, quibus testator dari fieriue uoluit, his diebus detur uel fiat dolumque malum afuturum stipulentur.
[ULPIANUS, seventy-ninth book on the Edict.] The praetor thought that security ought to be given on account of legacies, so that those to whom the testator wished something to be given or done should have it given or done on the proper days, and that they should stipulate that there will be no fraud.
§36.3.1.1Semper autem satisdare cogitur, cuiuscumque sit dignitatis uel facultatium quarumcumque heres.
But an heir is always compelled to give security, of whatever dignity or of whatever wealth he may be.
§36.3.1.2Nec sine ratione hoc praetori uisum est, sicuti heres incumbit possessioni bonorum, ita legatarios quoque carere non debere bonis defuncti: sed aut satisdabitur cis aut, si satis non datur, in possessionem bonorum uenire praetor uoluit.
And not without reason did this seem proper to the praetor; for just as the heir enters into the possession of the estate, so too the legatees ought not to be deprived of the property of the deceased. Thus the praetor willed that either security should be given to them, or, if security is not given, they should enter into possession of the estate.
§36.3.1.3Non solum autem omnibus legatariis satisdari oportet, sed et successoribus legatariorum satisdari debere iam constat, quamuis isti non ex iudicio defuncti, sed successionis necessitate quasi ad aes alienum admittantur.
Moreover, it is now established that not only must security be given to all legatees, but it must also be given to the successors of the legatees, even though the latter are admitted, not by the judgment of the deceased, but by the necessity of succession, as if to a debt.
§36.3.1.4Sed et procuratoribus legatariorum satisdandum est eoque iure utimur.
But security must also be given to the procurators of the legatees, and this is the rule we follow.
§36.3.1.5Plane si ei qui in potestate alicuius erit legatum sit, cauebitur ei cuius iuri subiectus est.
Clearly, if a legacy is left to someone who is in the power of another, security shall be given to the person to whose authority he is subject.
§36.3.1.6Non solum autem legatorum nomine heredes cauent, sed et successores eorum.
Moreover, not only do the heirs give security on account of legacies, but also their successors.
§36.3.1.7Is etiam, cui ex senatus consulto restituta est hereditas, nihilo minus ad cautionem compellitur.
Even he to whom the inheritance has been restored under a senatus consultum is nonetheless compelled to give security.
§36.3.1.8Nec non et qui per alios heredes existunt siue honorarii successores ad satisdationem compelluntur.
Likewise, those who become heirs through others, or honorary successors, are compelled to give security.
§36.3.1.9Plane si quis omissa stipulatione litem de legato contestatus est, probandum est cessare debere stipulationem.
Clearly, if anyone, omitting the stipulation, has joined issue in an action concerning a legacy, it must be held that the stipulation ought to cease.
§36.3.1.10Idemque in fideicommissis quoque probandum est.
And the same must be held in the case of fideicommissa as well.
§36.3.1.11Si cui ita sit legatum uel fideicommissum relictum et si id perdidisset, rursus relictum, uideamus, an satis sequentis legati siue fideicommissi petere possit.
If a legacy or fideicommissum is left to someone in this manner, that "if he should lose it, it is left to him again," let us see whether he can seek security for the subsequent legacy or fideicommissum.
mouet quaestionem, an fideicommissum hoc siue legatum debeatur et quotiens debeatur et an ipse legatarius cauere debeat se non perditurum.
This raises the question of whether this fideicommissum or legacy is due, and how many times it is due, and whether the legatee himself ought to give security that he will not lose it.
de his omnibus extat rescriptum diui Pii ad Iunium Mauricum tale: 'Clodio Fructulo secundum ea, quae epistula continentur, legata siue fideicommissa ex testamento Clodii Felicis praestari debent citra necessitatem cauendi nihil ex is deminuturum se.
On all these points there exists a rescript of the Divine Pius to Junius Mauricus, as follows: "To Clodius Fructulus, according to the matters contained in the letter, the legacies or fideicommissa under the testament of Clodius Felix ought to be paid without the necessity of giving security that he will diminish nothing from them.
nam quod fidei heredis ab eodem testatore commissum est, ut, si Fructulus perdidisset quod ei in testamento relictum est, rursus heres ei id restitueret, non eo pertinet, ut aut Fructulo priorum legatorum nomine satisdatio iniungenda aut onerandus sit heres in infinito, ut, quotiens is perdiderit, restituere ei tantumdem debeat, sed ut per fideicommissum posterius duplicata legata eius uideantur nec amplius ad periculum heredis pertineat, si quid postea is consumpsit exsoluto ei posteriore fideicommisso'. rescripto ergo ostensum legatarium heredi non debere cauere se non perditurum.
For the charge laid upon the faith of the heir by the same testator, that if Fructulus should lose what was left to him in the testament, the heir should restore it to him again, does not mean either that security must be imposed on Fructulus on account of the prior legacies, or that the heir is to be burdened ad infinitum so that as often as Fructulus loses it, the heir must restore the same amount to him; but rather that by the subsequent fideicommissum his legacies are deemed to have been doubled, and it no longer pertains to the risk of the heir if he later consumes anything after the subsequent fideicommissum has been paid to him." By this rescript, therefore, it is shown that the legatee does not have to give security to the heir that he will not lose it.
uersa uice an heres de sequenti legato siue fideicommisso cauere debeat, quaeritur.
Conversely, it is asked whether the heir ought to give security concerning the subsequent legacy or fideicommissum.
et putem non oportere ei caueri, cum in suo arbritrio habeat, ne perdat id quod sibi relictum est, quamuis si quis inspexerit, quod sub condicione relictum est, dicere debeat satisdationem exigendam.
And I should think that security ought not to be given to him, since he has it in his own discretion not to lose what was left to him; although, if anyone looks at the fact that it was left under a condition, he ought to say that security should be demanded.
§36.3.1.12Certe siue ex asse siue ex parte quis legatum debeat, cauere debet, siue institutus sit heres siue substitutus.
Certainly, whether one owes a legacy from the whole estate or from a part, and whether he is an appointed or a substituted heir, he must give security.
§36.3.1.13Bellissime quaeritur, an haec stipulatio incrementum ex fructibus uel usuris sentiat.
It is very finely asked whether this stipulation experiences any increase from fruits or interest.
et recte placuit ex mora incrementum habituram stipulationem, ut id quod oportebit conprehendat.
And it has been rightly held that the stipulation will have an increase from delay, so that it comprehends what will be due.