[POMPONIUS libro quarto ad Sabinum. ] §38.2.2.prSi patronus a liberto praeteritus bonorum possessionem petere potuerit contra tabulas et antequam peteret decesserit uel dies ei bonorum possessionis agnoscendae praeterierit, liberi eius uel alterius patroni petere poterunt ex illa parte edicti, qua, primis non petentibus aut etiam nolentibus ad se pertinere, sequentibus datur, atque si priores ex eo numero non essent.
[POMPONIUS libro quarto ad Sabinum.] If a patron, passed over by a freedman, could have petitioned for the possession of goods contrary to the tablets of the will, and has died before petitioning, or the time for acknowledging the possession of goods has expired for him, his children or another patron will be able to petition under that part of the edict by which, if the first do not petition or even do not wish it to belong to them, it is given to those who follow, just as if the prior ones had not been of that number.
§38.2.2.1Sed si patronus heres institutus uiuo liberto decessisset superstitibus liberis, quaesitum est, an illi contra tabulas testamenti bonorum possessionem petere possint: et eo decursum est, ut mortis tempus, quo defertur bonorum possessio, spectari debeat, an patronus non sit, ut, si sit, ex prima parte edicti liberi eius bonorum possessionem petere non possint.
But if a patron, having been appointed heir, had died while the freedman was still living, leaving children surviving, it was asked whether they could petition for the possession of goods contrary to the tablets of the will: and the conclusion was reached that the time of death, at which the possession of goods is offered, must be looked at, to see whether the patron is not there, so that, if he is, his children cannot petition for the possession of goods under the first part of the edict.
§38.2.2.2Si filius emancipatus nepotem in potestate aui reliquisset, bonorum possessionem partis dimidiae dandam ei filio intestati liberti, quamuis iure ipso legitima hereditas ad nepotem pertineat, quia et contra tabulas eius liberti filio potius bonorum possessio partis debitae daretur.
If an emancipated son had left a grandson in the power of the grandfather, the possession of goods of a half share of the intestate freedman should be given to that son, although by the law itself the statutory inheritance belongs to the grandson, because also contrary to the tablets of the will of that freedman, the possession of the due share would rather be given to the son.