[PAULUS libro quadragesimo primo ad edictum. ] §37.5.15.prIs qui in potestate est praeteritus legata non debebit praestare, etsi contra tabulas bonorum possessionem petierit, quia et non petita bonorum possessione intestati hereditatem optineret: nec enim exceptio doli mali huic nocet et absurdum est eum cogi legata praestare, quia bonorum possessionem petierit, cum et sine hac hereditatem habiturus sit suo iure.
[PAULUS libro quadragesimo primo ad edictum.] He who is in power and has been omitted will not be obliged to pay legacies, even if he has requested the possession of goods contrary to the tablet, because even if the possession of goods had not been requested, he would have obtained the inheritance on intestacy; for the defense of fraud does not harm him, and it is absurd for him to be compelled to pay legacies because he requested the possession of goods, when he would have had the inheritance by his own right even without this.
unde si duo praeteriti sunt, emancipatus et is qui in potestate est, quidam nec emancipatum praestare debere legata existimant, quia effectu fratris aufert partem dimidiam, cum et si hic non peteret, suus solus rem habiturus esset.
Therefore, if there are two omitted persons, an emancipated one and one who is in power, some think that not even the emancipated one ought to pay the legacies, because by the effect of his brother he carries off a half share, since even if this one had not requested it, the self-successor alone would have had the property.
quid ergo est? ubi praeteritus sit suus, uerius est quod dictum est: ubi uero scriptus est et uoluntatem patris habet, debet teneri legatariis, etiamsi omiserit bonorum possessionem.
What then is the case? Where the omitted person is a self-successor, what has been said is more correct; but where he is appointed and has the will of the father, he ought to be held liable to the legatees, even if he has neglected the possession of goods.
§37.5.15.1Sed si unus emancipatus heres scriptus sit, alter praeteritus et utrique contra tabulas bonorum possessionem acceperint, et institutus eadem praestat quae praeteritus.
But if one emancipated son has been appointed heir and the other has been omitted, and both have accepted the possession of goods contrary to the tablet, the appointed heir also pays the same as the omitted one.
sed si solus heres institutus contra tabulas bonorum possessionem acceperit, omnibus debebit legata praestare, perinde atque si adisset hereditatem.
But if only the appointed heir has accepted the possession of goods contrary to the tablet, he must pay the legacies to everyone, just as if he had entered upon the inheritance.
sed si scriptus quidem adierit hereditatem, praeteritus autem bonorum possessionem acceperit: hic quidem, qui bonorum possessionem acceperit, certis personis legata debebit, de scripto autem quaeritur.
But if the appointed heir has entered upon the inheritance, while the omitted one has accepted the possession of goods: this one indeed, who has accepted the possession of goods, will owe legacies to certain persons, but concerning the appointed heir there is a question.
et complures putant certis personis et eum praestare debere, quod puto uerius esse: nam et praetor hac ratione eum tuetur, quod ex liberis est qui contra tabulas petere potuerunt.
And many think that he also ought to pay to certain persons, which I think is more correct; for the praetor also protects him on this ground, that he is one of the children who could have requested possession contrary to the tablet.
§37.5.15.2Ita autem tuendus est in partem dimidiam, si aut ex maiore parte quam dimidia heres institutus sit aut ex semisse: quod si ex minore parte quam dimidia institutus sit, dicimus non ex maiore parte, quam institutus sit, tuendum eum esse: qua enim ratione maiorem partem habere potest, cum nec bonorum possessionem accepit nec ex maiore parte institutus sit?
But he is to be protected in respect of a half share only if he has been appointed heir either for a larger part than a half or for a half; but if he has been appointed for a smaller part than a half, we say that he is not to be protected for a larger part than that for which he was appointed; for on what ground can he have a larger part, when he has neither accepted the possession of goods nor been appointed for a larger part?
§37.5.15.3Ei, quae dotem non habet, nullum legatum debebitur, licet sub praetextu dotis legetur.
To a woman who has no dowry, no legacy will be due, even though it be bequeathed under the pretext of a dowry.
§37.5.15.4Si extraneo herede instituto sub hac condicione exceptae personae legatum sit, si heredi decem dederit, ita ei legatorum actio dabitur, si ei, qui contra tabulas bonorum possessionem accepit, dederit, non si heredi instituto, quia absurdum est illum commoda hereditatis habere, alium onera sustinere in praestando legato.
If, with an outsider appointed as heir, a legacy has been given to an excepted person under this condition, "if he gives ten to the heir," the action for legacies will be granted to him only if he gives it to the one who accepted the possession of goods contrary to the tablet, and not if he gives it to the appointed heir, since it is absurd that the former should have the advantages of the inheritance, while another bears the burdens in paying the legacy.
sed et si Titio iussus fuerit dare, non illi, sed filio dare debet.
Moreover, even if he was ordered to give it to Titius, he must give it not to him, but to the son.