[ULPIANUS libro quadragesimo ad edictum. ] §37.5.14.prNonnumquam contra tabulas bonorum possessionem quis habet iure secundum tabulas bonorum possessionis: ut puta heres institutus est emancipatus filius, alius emancipatus praeteritus, institutus accepit contra tabulas bonorum possessionem, praeteritus omisit: apertissimum est, ut cogatur omnibus perinde legata praestare, atque si commissum edictum non fuisset: nec enim occasio emancipati praeteriti debet institutum lucro adficere, cum praeteritus iure suo non utatur.
[ULPIANUS libro quadragesimo ad edictum.] Sometimes a person has possession of goods contrary to the tablet by the right of possession of goods according to the tablet. For example, an emancipated son has been appointed heir, and another emancipated son has been omitted; the appointed one has accepted the possession of goods contrary to the tablet, while the omitted one has neglected to do so. It is extremely clear that he should be compelled to pay the legacies to everyone in the same way as if the edict had not been brought into operation; for the opportunity of the omitted emancipated son ought not to bring profit to the appointed heir, since the omitted one does not use his own right.
§37.5.14.1Si ab uno ex filiis herede instituto nominatim alicui ex liberis parentibusque legatum datum sit et acceperit bonorum possessionem contra tabulas cum aliis, melius est probare omnes, qui contra tabulas bonorum possessionem acceperunt, cogendos id legatum praestare.
If a legacy has been given specifically to one of the children or parents from one of the sons appointed as heir, and he has accepted the possession of goods contrary to the tablet along with others, it is better to hold that all who have accepted the possession of goods contrary to the tablet must be compelled to pay that legacy.