Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §37.10.6.pr-37.10.6.6

Edict Application to Maternal Property and Legal Standing

Passage 5822 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

Paulus discusses the application and postponement of the Carbonian edict regarding disputes over maternal or fraternal property, and explains the possessory rights and maintenance of the pupil and the adversary, as well as their procedural standing (plaintiff or defendant) after puberty.

[PAULUS libro quadragensimo primo ad edictum. ] §37.10.6.prDe bonis matris an decretum interponendum sit, quaeritur.
[PAULUS libro quadragensimo primo ad edictum.] It is asked whether a decree ought to be interposed concerning the goods of the mother.
et decretum quidem non est interponendum, dilatio autem longissima danda est, quae in tempus pubertatis extrahet negotium.
And indeed, a decree is not to be interposed, but the longest delay is to be given, which will spin out the matter into the time of puberty.
§37.10.6.1Plane si simul de paternis et de maternis bonis controuersia sit uel etiam de fratris, et has controuersias in tempus pubertatis differendas esse Iulianus respondit.
Clearly, if there is a controversy at the same time over the paternal and maternal goods, or even over those of a brother, Julian answered that these controversies also must be deferred until the time of puberty.
§37.10.6.2Huic autem edicto locus est etiam si ab intestato ad bonorum possessionem ueniant liberi, tametsi ex inferioribus partibus petant, qua legitimi uocantur, quoniam sui sunt, uel ex illa, qua cognatis datur.
Moreover, there is room for this edict even if children come to the possession of goods intestate, although they claim from the lower sections, by which they are called as statutory heirs because they are sui, or from that by which it is given to cognates.
§37.10.6.3Ita demum autem huic edicto locus est, si status et hereditatis controuersia sit: nam si tantum status (quod puta seruus dicatur esse) nec ulla bonorum controuersia sit, hoc casu liberale iudicium statim explicandum erit.
However, there is room for this edict only if there is a controversy over both status and inheritance; for if there is a controversy only over status (as, for example, if he is said to be a slave) and no controversy over the goods, in this case the trial of freedom must be conducted immediately.
§37.10.6.4Qui pupillo controuersiam facit si simul cum eo in possessionem missus est, ali ex bonis defuncti non debebit nec quicquam de bonis deminuere: haec enim possessio pro satisdatione cedit.
He who brings controversy against the pupil, if he has been put into possession along with him, ought not to be supported from the goods of the deceased, nor to diminish anything of the goods; for this possession goes in place of security.
§37.10.6.5Non solum alimenta pupillo praestari debent, sed et in studia et in ceteras necessarias impensas debet impendi pro modo facultatium.
Not only must maintenance be provided to the pupil, but expenditures must also be made for his studies and for other necessary expenses, according to the measure of his means.
§37.10.6.6Post pubertatem quaeritur, an actoris partes sustinere debeat qui ex Carboniano missus est in possessionem.
After puberty, it is asked whether he who has been put into possession on the basis of the Carbonian edict ought to sustain the role of plaintiff.
et responsum est rei partes eum sustinere debere, maxime si cauit.
And the answer was that he ought to sustain the role of defendant, especially if he gave security.
sed et si non cauerat, si nunc paratus sit cauere, quasi possessor conueniendus est: quod si nunc non caueat, possessio transfertur aduersario satis offerente: perinde atque si nunc primum ab eo peteretur hereditas.
But even if he had not given security, if he is now ready to give security, he is to be sued as if he were the possessor; but if he does not give security now, the possession is transferred to the adversary upon his offering security, just as if the inheritance were now being claimed from him for the first time.

Notes

  1. 37.10.6.prextrahet — In the relative clause `quae ... extrahet`, the future indicative is used instead of the subjunctive. This emphasizes the objective fact or certain result that the delay will inevitably "spin out" the matter (negotium) into the time of puberty.
  2. 37.10.6.2qua legitimi uocantur — `qua` is a relative pronoun in the feminine ablative singular, referring back to a singular `pars` implied from the preceding plural `inferioribus partibus` (the lower sections of the edict). It correlates with `uel ex illa [parte]`, meaning "by that section in which...".
  3. 37.10.6.4Qui pupillo controuersiam facit — The nominative phrase `Qui ... facit` at the beginning of the sentence serves as the logical and grammatical subject of the main clause `ali ex bonis defuncti non debebit` after the intervening conditional clause `si ... missus est`. Since `ali` is a passive infinitive (from `alo`), this nominative subject functions as the recipient of the action ("he ought not to be supported").
  4. 37.10.6.6perinde atque si nunc primum ab eo peteretur — `perinde atque si` (just as if) introduces a conditional comparison of a counterfactual situation in the present, taking the subjunctive imperfect `peteretur`. It indicates that the lawsuit for the inheritance, which would normally have been initiated earlier, is treated as though it were being brought for the very first time now.

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §37.10.6.pr-37.10.6.6. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:37.10.6.pr-37.10.6.6

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.