[IDEM libro undecimo ad legem Iuliam et Papiam. ] §37.14.17.prDiui fratres in haec uerba rescripserunt: 'Comperimus a peritioribus dubitatum aliquando, an nepos contra tabulas auiti liberti bonorum possessionem petere possit, si eum libertum pater patris, cum annorum uiginti quinque esset, capitis accusasset, et Proculum, sane non leuem iuris auctorem, in hac opinione fuisse, ut nepoti in huiusmodi causa non putaret dandam bonorum possessionem.
[THE SAME, in the eleventh book on the Lex Iulia et Papia.] The Deified Brothers replied in these words: 'We have found that it was sometimes doubted by the more learned jurists, namely, whether a grandson can claim possession of goods contrary to the will of his grandfather's freedman, if the father of his father, when he was twenty-five years of age, had accused that freedman of a capital crime, and that Proculus, indeed no light authority of the law, was of the opinion that he did not think the possession of goods should be given to the grandson in a case of this kind.
cuius sententiam nos quoque secuti sumus, cum rescriberemus ad libellum Caesidiae Longinae: sed et Uolusius Maecianus amicus noster ut et iuris ciuilis praeter ueterem et bene fundatam peritiam auxie diligens religione rescripti nostri ductus sit ut coram nobis adfirmauit non arbitratum se aliter respondere debere.
Whose opinion we also followed when we wrote a rescript in reply to the petition of Caesidia Longina; but also our friend Volusius Maecianus, who, besides his long-standing and well-founded expertise in civil law, is extremely conscientious, was so led by the authority of our rescript, as he himself affirmed in our presence, that he did not think he ought to give a different opinion.
sed cum et ipso Maeciano et aliis amicis nostris iuris peritis adhibitis plenius tractaremus, magis uisum est nepotem neque uerbis neque sententia legis aut edicti praetoris ex persona uel nota patris sui excludi a bonis auiti liberti: plurium etiam iuris auctorum, sed et Salui Iuliani amici nostri clarissimi uiri hanc sententiam fuisse'. §37.14.17.1Item quaesitum est, si patroni filius capitis accusauerit libertum, an hoc noceat liberis ipsius.
But when, having called in Maecianus himself and other friends of ours who are skilled in the law, we discussed the matter more fully, it seemed more correct that the grandson is excluded from the goods of his grandfather's freedman neither by the words nor by the spirit of the law or of the praetor's edict on account of the person or stigma of his father; and that this was also the opinion of many authorities of the law, and especially of our friend Salvius Julianus, a most distinguished man.' Likewise it was asked, if the patron's son has accused the freedman of a capital crime, whether this harms his own children.
et Proculus quidem in hac fuit opinione notam adspersam patroni filio liberis eius nocere, Iulianus autem negauit: sed hic idem quod Iulianus erit dicendum.
And Proculus indeed was of the opinion that the stigma cast upon the patron's son harms his children, but Julian denied it; but here the same as Julian said must be maintained.