[ULPIANUS libro quadragensimo quinto ad edictum. ] §37.12.1.prEmancipatus a parente in ea causa est, ut in contra tabulas bonorum possessione liberti patiatur, exitum.
[ULPIANUS, in the forty-fifth book on the Edict.] A person emancipated by an ascendant is in such a position that, in the possession of goods contrary to the will, he undergoes the fate of a freedman.
quod aequissimum praetori uisum est, quia a parente beneficium habuit bonorum quaerendorum: quippe si filius familias esset, quodcumque sibi adquireret, eius emolumentum patri quaereret.
This seemed most equitable to the praetor, because he had from the ascendant the benefit of acquiring property; for indeed, if he had been a son-in-power, whatever he acquired for himself, he would have acquired its benefit for his father.
et ideo itum est in hoc, ut parens exemplo patroni ad contra tabulas bonorum possessionem admittatur.
And therefore it was decided that the ascendant, after the example of a patron, should be admitted to the possession of goods contrary to the will.
§37.12.1.1Enumerantur igitur edicto personae manumissorum sic: 'in eo, qui a patre auoue paterno proauoue paterni aui patre'. §37.12.1.2Nepos ab auo manumissus dedit se adrogandum patri suo: sine manens in potestate patris decesserit siue manumissus diem suum obeat, solus admittetur auus ad eius successionem ex interpretatione edicti, quia perinde defert praetor bonorum possessionem atque si ex scruitute manumissus esset: porro si hoc esset, aut non esset adrogatus, quia adrogatio liberti admittenda non est, aut si obrepserit, patroni tamen nihilo minus ius integrum maneret.
Therefore, the persons of those who manumitted are enumerated in the edict as follows: "in the case of him who [was manumitted] by his father, or paternal grandfather, or paternal great-grandfather, or the father of a paternal grandfather." A grandson manumitted by his grandfather submitted himself to arrogation by his own father: whether he dies remaining under the power of his father, or meets his end after being manumitted, the grandfather alone will be admitted to his succession according to the interpretation of the edict, because the praetor grants the possession of goods just as if he had been manumitted from slavery; furthermore, if this were the case, either he would not have been arrogated, because the arrogation of a freedman is not to be allowed, or if it crept in surreptitiously, the right of the patron would nevertheless remain unimpaired.
§37.12.1.3Si parens uel accepit pecuniam, ut emanciparet, uel postea uiuus in eum filius quantum satis est contulit, ne iudicia eius inquietet, exceptione doli repelletur.
If the ascendant either received money to emancipate, or afterwards the son, while alive, contributed to him a sufficient amount so that he would not disturb his testamentary dispositions, he will be barred by the plea of fraud.
§37.12.1.4Est et alius casus, quo bonorum possessionem contra tabulas parens non accipit, si forte filius militare coeperit: nam diuus Pius rescripsit patrem ad contra tabulas bonorum possessionem uenire non posse.
There is also another case in which the ascendant does not receive possession of goods contrary to the will, if by chance the son has entered military service; for the divine Pius issued a rescript that the father cannot come to the possession of goods contrary to the will.
§37.12.1.5Liberos autem manumissoris non uenire ad contra tabulas bonorum possessionem filii constat, quamuis patroni ueniant.
But it is well established that the children of the manumitter do not come to the possession of goods contrary to the will of the son, although those of a patron do come.
§37.12.1.6Patrem autem accepta contra tabulas bonorum possessione et ius antiquum, quod et sine manumissione habebat, posse sibi defendere Iulianus scripsit: nec enim ei nocere debet, quod iura patronatus habebat, cum sit et pater.
However, Julian wrote that the father, once he has accepted the possession of goods contrary to the will, can also defend for himself his ancient right which he had even without the manumission; for it ought not to prejudice him that he held the rights of patronage, since he is also the father.