[IULIANUS libro uicensimo quarto digestorum. ] §37.10.7.prSi impubes negetur iure adoptatus et ideo paternae hereditatis ei controuersia fiat, non erit iniquum simile Carboniano decretum interponi.
[IULIANUS libro uicensimo quarto digestorum.] If a minor is denied to have been legally adopted, and therefore a controversy is raised against him over his paternal inheritance, it will not be unjust for a decree similar to the Carbonian decree to be interposed.
§37.10.7.1Item si impubes in adoptionem datus esse dicatur et ideo negetur naturalis patris hereditas ad eum pertinere, quia et hoc casu quaeritur, an iure filii hereditatem optinere possit, locus erit Carboniano edicto.
Likewise, if a minor is said to have been given in adoption, and therefore it is denied that the inheritance of his natural father belongs to him, since in this case also it is asked whether he can obtain the inheritance by the right of a son, there will be room for the Carbonian edict.
§37.10.7.2Cum uero proponitur exheredatus esse, non est necessarium controuersiam in tempus pubertatis differri, quia non de ipsius filii, sed de testamenti iure quaeritur.
But when it is proposed that he has been disinherited, it is not necessary for the controversy to be deferred until the time of puberty, because it is not asked concerning the right of the son himself, but concerning the validity of the will.
§37.10.7.3Si mater eius, cui et de libertate et de hereditate paterna controuersia fit, in quaestionem libertatis uocatur, iudicium de matre non semper in tempus pubertatis differendum erit: nam et ipsi, qui subiectus esse dicitur, ex causa repraesentari solet.
If the mother of him, against whom a controversy is raised both concerning his freedom and his paternal inheritance, is summoned to an inquiry on freedom, the trial concerning the mother will not always have to be deferred until the time of puberty; for even against him who is said to have been substituted, it is customary, upon cause shown, for the trial to be brought on immediately.
§37.10.7.4Quotiens Carbonianum decretum interponitur, eodem loco rem haberi oportet, quo esset, si nulla controuersia fieret ei, qui bonorum possessionem acceperit.
Whenever a Carbonian decree is interposed, it is proper for the matter to be held in the same position as it would be if no controversy were raised against him who has received the possession of goods.
§37.10.7.5Cum autem ex duobus fratribus ex hoc decreto missis alter pro parte sua paternam hereditatem non defendit, compellitur alter totam defendere aut uniuersa creditoribus cedere.
Moreover, when of two brothers put into possession based on this decree, one does not defend the paternal inheritance for his own share, the other is compelled either to defend the whole or to surrender the entire property to the creditors.
§37.10.7.6Interdum etiam exheredatus filius ex Carboniano decreto bonorum possessionem accipiet, si non contra tabulas petit bonorum possessionem, sed ab intestato unde liberi (quia neget tabulas testamenti patris tales esse, ut secundum eas bonorum possessio dari possit) et dicatur non esse filius.
Sometimes even a disinherited son will receive the possession of goods on the basis of a Carbonian decree, if he claims the possession of goods not contrary to the will, but as intestate by the right of children (because he denies that the tablets of his father's will are such that possession of goods can be given according to them), and it is said that he is not the son.
§37.10.7.7Si pupillus liberti paterni bonorum possessionem petet, negaretur autem filius patroni esse, quia de paternis bonis nulla controuersia ei fieret, differendum hoc iudicium non est.
If a pupil claims the possession of goods of his father's freedman, and it is denied that he is the son of the patron, since no controversy is raised against him concerning his paternal goods, this trial is not to be deferred.
si uero post interpositum Carbonianum decretum haec quoque controuersia moueretur, hoc iudicium in id tempus differri debet.
But if, after the Carbonian decree has been interposed, this controversy also is raised, this trial ought to be deferred until that time.
§37.10.7.8Quaesitum est, an simul et pupillus ex Carboniano et scripti heredes secundum tabulas bonorum possessionem haberent.
It was asked whether both the pupil on the basis of the Carbonian edict and the appointed heirs according to the will could have the possession of goods at the same time.
respondi, si filius non esset aut non accepisset contra tabulas uel ab intestato bonorum possessionem, simul et ipsum ex Carboniano et scriptos heredes secundum tabulas habituros bonorum possessionem.
I answered that, if he were not the son or had not received the possession of goods contrary to the will or as intestate, both he himself on the basis of the Carbonian edict and the appointed heirs according to the will would have the possession of goods at the same time.