[ULPIANUS libro quadragesimo ad edictum. ] §37.5.5.prFilium quis impuberem heredem scripsit eique substituit, emancipatum autem filium praeteriit: deinde uterque filius acceperunt bonorum possessionem: legata sunt etiam a substituto impuberis relicta non tantum liberis et parentibus, uerum etiam extraneis: quaeritur, an mortuo impubere cogatur substitutus ea praestare.
[ULPIANUS libro quadragesimo ad edictum.] Someone appointed his under-puberty son as heir and substituted another to him, but passed over his emancipated son: then both sons received possession of the goods: legacies were also left by the substitute of the under-puberty son, not only to children and parents, but also to strangers: the question is whether, upon the death of the under-puberty son, the substitute is compelled to pay them.
et si quidem ab impubere relicta sunt, solis liberis parentibusque praestanda sunt: sin uero a substituto impuberis, omnibus eum praestare oportet habita ratione legis Falcidiae, scilicet ut partis dimidiae, quae ad eum ex bonis patris peruenit, quartam, id est totius assis sescunciam retineat.
And if indeed they were left by the under-puberty son, they must be paid only to children and parents; but if they were left by the substitute of the under-puberty son, he must pay them to everyone, taking into account the Falcidian law, namely, so that he may retain a fourth of the half share which came to him from the father's goods, that is, a sescuncia of the entire as.
§37.5.5.1Quod si impubes ex uncia dumtaxat institutus heres fuerit, magis est semissem usque legata praestaturum habita ratione legis Falcidiae: licet enim ex uncia fuerit impubes institutus, tamen quod accessit, augebit legata a substituto relicta.
But if the under-puberty son was appointed heir only from an uncia, the opinion prevails that the substitute will pay the legacies up to a semis, taking into account the Falcidian law; for although the under-puberty son was appointed from an uncia, yet what accrued will increase the legacies left by the substitute.
§37.5.5.2Omnibus autem liberis praestari legata praetor uoluit exceptis his liberis, quibus bonorum possessionem praetor dedit ex causis supra scriptis: nam si dedit bonorum possessionem, non putat legatorum eos persecutionem habere.
Moreover, the praetor willed that legacies be paid to all children except those children to whom the praetor gave possession of goods for the reasons written above; for if he gave them possession of goods, he does not think they have the pursuit of legacies.
constituere igitur apud se debet, utrum contra tabulas bonorum possessionem petat an uero legatum persequatur: si elegerit contra tabulas, non habebit legatum: si legatum elegerit, eo iure utimur, ne petat bonorum possessionem contra tabulas.
Therefore, he must decide within himself whether he sues for possession of goods contrary to the will or pursues the legacy: if he chooses contra tabulas, he will not have the legacy; if he chooses the legacy, we apply the rule that he may not sue for possession of goods contrary to the will.
§37.5.5.3Si quis contra tabulas bonorum possessionem acceperit, deinde postea apparuerit eum ex his liberis non fuisse, qui eam bonorum possessionem accipere possunt, ex his tamen esse, quibus legata praestantur: optinuit non esse ei denegandam petitionem legatorum, siue ordinariam bonorum possessionem petierit siue Carbonianam.
If someone received possession of goods contrary to the will, and then afterwards it appeared that he was not among those children who can receive that possession of goods, but was nevertheless among those to whom legacies are paid: it has prevailed that the petition for legacies should not be denied to him, whether he sought ordinary possession of goods or Carbonian possession.
§37.5.5.4Non solum autem legatum denegatur ei, qui bonorum possessionem accepit, uerum etiam si quid aliud ex uoluntate accepit.
And not only is a legacy denied to him who received possession of goods, but also if he received anything else from the will.
cui consequens est, quod Iulianus scripsit, si fratri suo impuberi substitutus sit acceperitque contra tabulas bonorum possessionem, denegari ei persecutionem hereditatis fratris impuberis mortui, cui a patre substitutus est.
Consequently, as Julian wrote, if he was substituted to his under-puberty brother and received possession of goods contrary to the will, the pursuit of the inheritance of the deceased under-puberty brother, to whom he was substituted by the father, is denied to him.
§37.5.5.5Si legata fuerint relicta liberis et extraneis, licet utrorumque praestatio Falcidiae locum faceret legataque liberorum reccideret, tamen nunc ob hoc, quod extraneis non praestantur legata, liberorum augentur.
If legacies were left to children and to strangers, although the payment of both would make room for the Falcidian law and would reduce the legacies of the children, yet now, because the legacies are not paid to strangers, those of the children are increased.
§37.5.5.6Sed et si portio hereditatis fuerit adscripta ei, qui ex liberis parentibusue est, an ei conseruanda sit, ut solent legata? et Iulianus saepissime scripsit in portione quoque hereditatis idem quod in legato probandum, cuius sententia rescripto diui Pii comprobata est, cum hereditates non modo honestiore titulo, sed et pleniore onere tribuantur.
But also, if a portion of the inheritance was assigned to one who is of the children or parents, should it be preserved for him as legacies usually are? And Julian wrote very often that in the case of a portion of the inheritance, the same rule should be approved as in a legacy, whose opinion was confirmed by a rescript of the Divine Pius, since inheritances are bestowed not only with a more honorable title, but also with a fuller burden.
§37.5.5.7Ad eum autem modum talibus personis succurrendum est, ut ampliore quidem quam uirili portione hereditatis data usque ad uirilem tueantur, in minorem autem eatenus actiones his tribuantur, quatenus scriptae sint.
Moreover, relief is to be granted to such persons in this manner, that if indeed a portion of the inheritance larger than a virile share is given, they are protected up to the virile share, but if a smaller portion is given, actions are granted to them to the extent they were written.
idem obseruatur et circa legata fideiue commissa, quae his data fuerint, et in mortis causa donationibus.
The same is observed also regarding legacies or fideicommissa which were given to them, and in donations mortis causa.
§37.5.5.8Is autem, cui portio hereditatis conseruatur, utrum omnibus an tantum exceptis personis legata cogatur praestare? et magis probatur exceptis personis solis praestanda: nec tamen solius commodo id cedit.
But is he, for whom a portion of the inheritance is preserved, compelled to pay legacies to all or only to the excepted persons? And it is more approved that they are to be paid only to the excepted persons: yet this does not turn to his sole advantage.
nam si legatis onerata sit portio tam liberorum parentiumue quam extraneorum, id, quod extraneis non praestatur, liberis parentibusue profuturum non dubitamus.
For if the portion is burdened with legacies both of children or parents and of strangers, we do not doubt that what is not paid to strangers will benefit the children or parents.
igitur ita demum quod extraneis non praestatur communicatur cum eo, qui contra tabulas petit, si non legatariis liberis parentibusque dandum sit.
Therefore, what is not paid to strangers is only shared with him who sues contra tabulas if it does not have to be given to the legatee children and parents.