[ULPIANUS libro quarto disputationum. ] §37.5.16.prSi duo proponantur esse unus in potestate praeteritus, alius emancipatus institutus, apparet commissum esse edictum per eum, qui in potestate est: et si ambo petissent contra tabulas bonorum possessionem, is quidem, qui in potestate mansit, cum rem ab intestato habeat, non praestabit liberis et parentibus legata.
[ULPIANUS libro quarto disputationum.] If two persons are proposed, one a self-successor omitted and the other emancipated and appointed heir, it is clear that the edict is brought into operation through the one who is in power. And if both had requested the possession of goods contrary to the tablet, the one indeed who remained in power, since he has the property on intestacy, will not pay legacies to children and parents.
emancipatus uero numquid nec ipse praestat, quia ei rem auferret, qui praestaturus non erat, si solus esset? sed uerius est uel hunc saltem debere liberis et parentibus praestare legata.
But as for the emancipated one, is it not the case that he himself also does not pay, because he would take away the property from him who would not have had to pay if he had been alone? But it is more correct that at least this one ought to pay legacies to children and parents.
proinde si contra tabulas non accepit, dicendum est tuendum eum in partem et utique liberis parentibusque legata praestaturum.
Therefore, if he has not accepted [the possession] contrary to the tablet, it must be said that he is to be protected in respect of his share, and will certainly pay legacies to children and parents.
sed an et omnibus, dubito: tamen quia plena fruatur uoluntate, plenum et obsequium praestare testatoris iudicio pro sua parte debet.
But whether he must do so to everyone as well, I doubt; nevertheless, because he enjoys the full will [of the testator], he ought to pay full respect to the judgment of the testator in proportion to his share.