[Ulpianus libro quinquagensimo secundo ad edictum. ] §36.4.1.prSi quis, cum uetitus esset satis accipere, acceperit, an repeti satisdatio ista possit, ut heres condicat liberationem? et quidem si sciens heres indebitum cauit, repetere non potest.
[ULPIANUS in the fifty-second book on the Edict.] If anyone, though he was forbidden to receive security, has received it, can that security be recovered, so that the heir may bring an action for recovery of release? And indeed, if the heir, knowing it was not due, gave security, he cannot recover it.
quid deinde, si ignorauit remissam sibi satisdationem? potest condicere.
What then, if he was ignorant that the security had been remitted to him? He can bring an action for recovery.
si uero hoc non potuisse remitti crediderit, numquid condicere possit qui ius ignorauit? adhuc tamen benigne quis dixerit satisdationem condici posse.
But if he believed that this could not be remitted, can he who was ignorant of the law bring an action for recovery? Yet, even so, one might kindly say that the security can be recovered by action.
quid deinde, si commissa sit stipulatio, fideiussores putamus exceptione uti posse an non? et magis est, ut utantur exceptione, quia ex ea causa intercessit satisdatio, ex qua non debuit.
What then, if the stipulation has been forfeited, do we think the sureties can use an exception or not? And it is more acceptable that they should use the exception, because the security intervened on account of a cause from which it ought not to have.
§36.4.1.1Non exigit praetor, ut per heredem stet, quo minus caueat, sed contentus fuit per legatarium uel fideicommissarium non stare, quo minus ei caueatur.
The praetor does not require that it should be due to the heir that he does not give security, but was satisfied that it should not be due to the legatee or the beneficiary of the fideicommissum that security is not given to him.
quare si non fuerit, qui interpelletur cautionis nomine, hoc est is a quo legatum fideiue commissum relictum est, omnimodo poterit legatarius et fideicommissarius in possessionem ex hoc edicto mitti, quia uerum est per eum, cui caueri oportebit, non fieri, quo minus caueatur.
Therefore, if there is no one who can be summoned on account of the security, that is, the person by whom the legacy or the fideicommissum was left, the legatee and the beneficiary of the fideicommissum can by all means be put into possession under this Edict, because it is true that it does not happen through him to whom security ought to be given that security is not given.
non tamen et satisdatio debet offerri legatario, sed sufficit, siue desiderauit et non cauetur, siue non habeat, a quo satis desideret.
However, security does not have to be offered to the legatee, but it is sufficient either that he requested it and it is not given, or that he has no one from whom to request security.
§36.4.1.2Si debitori liberatio sit relicta, non est exigenda cautio, quia habet penes se legatum: quippe, si conueniatur, exceptione doli mali uti possit ei cui legatum solutum est.
If release is left to a debtor, security is not to be demanded, because he has the legacy in his own hands; indeed, if he is sued, he can use the exception of doli mali as one to whom the legacy has been paid.
§36.4.1.3Cum constet legatum non deberi, diuus Pius ad aemilium Equestrem rescripsit non debere praetorem satisdationem admittere.
Since it is clear that the legacy is not due, the divine Pius wrote in a rescript to Aemilius Equester that the praetor ought not to admit the security.
§36.4.1.4Tunc ante aditam hereditatem satisdandum de legatis est, cum adhuc dubium est, an hereditas adeatur.
Security is to be given for legacies before the inheritance is accepted at the time when it is still doubtful whether the inheritance will be accepted.
ceterum si certum sit repudiatam uel omissam hereditatem uel abstentos necessarios heredes, frustra hoc edictum imploratur, cum certum sit legatum uel fideicommissum non deberi.
But if it is certain that the inheritance has been repudiated or neglected, or that the necessary heirs have abstained, this Edict is implored in vain, since it is certain that the legacy or the fideicommissum is not due.