[IULIANUS libro uicensimo quinto digestorum. ] §38.2.20.prLibertus sub condicione iurisiurandi, quam praetor remittere solet, patronum instituit heredem: non puto dubitandum, quin a bonorum possessione submoueatur: uerum est enim eum heredem factum.
[IULIANUS, in the twenty-fifth book of Digests.] A freedman instituted his patron heir under a condition of an oath which the praetor is accustomed to remit. I do not think it should be doubted that he is barred from the possession of goods; for it is true that he has been made heir.
§38.2.20.1Si Titio legatum fuisset eiusque fidei commissum, ut patrono restitueret, denegatur legatorum actio Titio, si patrono pro debita parte a scripto herede fuerit satisfactum.
If a legacy had been left to Titius and it had been entrusted to his good faith to restore it to the patron, the action for legacies is denied to Titius if satisfaction has been made to the patron for the portion due to him by the written heir.
§38.2.20.2Libertus patronum et extraneum coniunctim ex parte dimidia heredem scripsit: quadrans, ex quo institutus erat patronus, totus ipsi imputari debebit, residuum ex debita sibi parte omnibus heredibus pro portione cuiusque aufert.
A freedman wrote his patron and a stranger jointly as heirs for a half share: the quadrant (one-fourth) for which the patron had been instituted must be imputed entirely to him, and the remainder of his due portion he takes away from all the heirs in proportion to the share of each.
§38.2.20.3Idem seruari conueniet in legato, quod patrono coniunctim et Titio datum fuerit, ut pars legati in portionem debitam patrono imputetur, ex reliqua parte tantum Titio detrahatur, quantum ab herede, pro rata portione.
It will be proper to observe the same rule in the case of a legacy which has been given jointly to the patron and Titius, so that the portion of the legacy is imputed to the share due to the patron, and from the remaining portion, only so much is deducted from Titius as is deducted from the heir, in proportion.
§38.2.20.4Si libertinus filium emancipatum sub condicione heredem instituerit et deficiente condicione substitutus adierit, quaero, utrum patrono aduersus substitutum in partem debitam praetor an emancipato filio in totam hereditatem succurrere debeat.
If a freedman instituted an emancipated son as heir under a condition, and the condition failing, the substitute entered upon the inheritance, I ask whether the praetor ought to relieve the patron against the substitute for his due portion, or the emancipated son for the whole inheritance.
respondi, cum pater filium sub condicione primo gradu heredem instituit, si deficiente condicione, sub qua filius heres institutus est, ad secundum gradum hereditas pertinet uel adhuc pendente condicione filius decesserit, patrono partis debitae bonorum possessionem aduersus substitutum competere.
I replied that when a father institutes his son as heir in the first degree under a condition, if, upon the failure of the condition under which the son was instituted heir, the inheritance goes to the second degree, or if the son dies while the condition is still pending, the possession of goods of the due portion belongs to the patron against the substitute.
idemque est et si filius uel non petierit bonorum possessionem tempore exclusus uel repudiauerit.
And the same holds if the son either did not petition for the possession of goods and was excluded by time, or rejected it.
uero deficiente condicione hereditas ad filium pertineat, emancipatum potius tuebitur praetor aduersus substitutum.
But if, upon the failure of the condition, the inheritance belongs to the son, the praetor will rather protect the emancipated son against the substitute.
existimo autem, quotiens sub condicione heres filius scribitur, alias necessariam esse exheredationem a substitutis, alias superuacuam: nam si id genus condicionis fuerit, quae in potestate filii esset, ueluti 'cum testamentum fecerit', puto etiam omissa condicione filium locum substitutis facere: si uero condicio non fuerit in potestate filii, ueluti 'si Titius consul factus fuerit', tunc substitutus non admittitur, nisi filius ab eo nominatim exheredatus fuerit.
Furthermore, I think that whenever a son is written as heir under a condition, disinherison by the substitutes is in some cases necessary, and in others superfluous. For if it is the kind of condition that is in the power of the son, such as "when he shall have made a will," I think that even if the condition is omitted, the son makes way for the substitutes. But if the condition is not in the power of the son, such as "if Titius should become consul," then the substitute is not admitted unless the son has been disinherited by name by him (the testator).
§38.2.20.5Si libertus filium emancipatum heredem instituerit eiusque fidei commiserit, ut totam hereditatem Sempronio restitueret, et filius, cum suspectam sibi hereditatem diceret, iussu praetoris adierit eam et Sempronio restituerit: non inique patrono bonorum possessio partis debitae dabitur, perinde ac si non filius, sed is cui hereditas restituta est liberto heres exstitisset.
If a freedman instituted an emancipated son as heir and entrusted to his good faith to restore the whole inheritance to Sempronius, and the son, asserting that the inheritance was suspect to him, entered upon it by order of the praetor and restored it to Sempronius, it will not be unjust for the possession of goods of the due portion to be given to the patron, just as if not the son, but the person to whom the inheritance was restored had stood as heir to the freedman.
§38.2.20.6Item cum filius hereditatem liberti patris omiserit et coheres eius totius hereditatis onus susceperit, danda erit patrono bonorum possessio. utroque enim casu non filio, sed extraneo pars eripitur.
Likewise, when the son has omitted the inheritance of his freedman father, and his co-heir has undertaken the burden of the entire inheritance, the possession of goods must be given to the patron; for in both cases, the share is taken away not from the son, but from a stranger.