[ULPIANUS libro quadragensimo primo ad edictum. ] §38.2.3.prEtiamsi ius anulorum consecutus sit libertus a principe, aduersus huius tabulas uenit patronus, ut multis rescriptis continetur: hic enim uiuit quasi ingenuus, moritur quasi libertus.
[ULPIANUS libro quadragensimo primo ad edictum.] Even if a freedman has obtained the right of gold rings from the emperor, the patron comes against his tablets, as is contained in many rescripts; for this man lives as if freeborn, but dies as if a freedman.
§38.2.3.1Plane si natalibus redditus sit, cessat contra tabulas bonorum possessio:
Clearly, if he has been restored to his birthrights, the possession of goods contrary to the tablets ceases.
§38.2.3.2Idem et si a principe liberam testamenti factionem impetrauit.
The same also if he has obtained free testamentary capacity from the emperor.
§38.2.3.3Sed si hac lege emit quis, ut manumittat, ad hanc partem edicti pertinebit.
But if anyone has bought a slave under this condition, that he should manumit him, he will pertain to this part of the edict.
§38.2.3.4Si quis nummos accepit, ut manumitteret, non habet contra tabulas bonorum possessionem.
If anyone has accepted money to manumit, he does not have the possession of goods contrary to the tablets.
§38.2.3.5Ut patronus contra tabulas bonorum possessionem accipere possit, oportet hereditatem aditam esse aut bonorum possessionem petitam: sufficit autem uel unum ex heredibus adisse hereditatem bonorumue possessionem petisse.
In order for a patron to be able to receive the possession of goods contrary to the tablets, it is necessary that the inheritance has been entered upon or the possession of goods petitioned for; however, it is sufficient if even one of the heirs has entered upon the inheritance or petitioned for the possession of goods.
§38.2.3.6Patronus contra ea bona liberti omnino non admittitur, quae in castris sunt quaesita.
A patron is not admitted at all against those goods of a freedman which were acquired in camp.
§38.2.3.7Si deportatus patronus restitutus sit, liberti contra tabulas bonorum possessionem accipere potest.
If a deported patron has been restored, he can receive the possession of goods contrary to the tablets of his freedman.
idemque et in liberto deportato et restituto dicendum est.
And the same must be said also in the case of a deported and restored freedman.
§38.2.3.8Si quis filius familias seruum de castrensi peculio manumiserit, ex constitutione diui Hadriani patronus est admittique poterit ad contra tabulas bonorum possessionem ut patronus.
If any son-in-power has manumitted a slave from his camp-peculium, by the constitution of the divine Hadrian he is a patron and will be able to be admitted to the possession of goods contrary to the tablets as a patron.
§38.2.3.9Si capitis libertum accusauerit is, cui adsignatus est, non potest is petere contra tabulas bonorum possessionem fratribusque suis non obstabit: sed hi contra tabulas bonorum possessionem petent, quemadmodum peterent, si ex altero filio nepotes essent: libertus enim, qui alteri ex filiis adsignatur, non desinit alterius filii libertus esse.
If he to whom a freedman has been assigned has accused the freedman of a capital charge, he cannot petition for the possession of goods contrary to the tablets, and he will not stand in the way of his brothers; but they will petition for the possession of goods contrary to the tablets, just as they would petition if they were grandsons from another son; for a freedman who is assigned to one of the sons does not cease to be the freedman of the other son.
amplius dicendum est: etiamsi omiserit frater bonorum possessionem, alter frater, cui adsignatus non est, potest succedere et contra tabulas bonorum possessionem petere.
Furthermore, it must be said: even if a brother has neglected the possession of goods, the other brother to whom he was not assigned can succeed and petition for the possession of goods contrary to the tablets.
§38.2.3.10Totiens ad bonorum possessionem contra tabulas inuitatur patronus, quotiens non est heres ex debita portione institutus.
The patron is invited to the possession of goods contrary to the tablets as many times as he has not been appointed heir for his due share.
§38.2.3.11Si patronus sub condicione sit institutus eaque condicio uiuo testatore extitit, contra tabulas bonorum possessionem accipere non potest.
If a patron has been appointed under a condition and that condition has been fulfilled during the lifetime of the testator, he cannot receive the possession of goods contrary to the tablets.
§38.2.3.12Quid ergo, si mortis tempore pependit, extitit tamen, antequam patrono deferatur bonorum possessio, hoc est ante aditam hereditatem, an inuitetur ex hac parte edicti? et magis est, ut aditae hereditatis tempus spectetur: hoc enim iure utimur.
What then if at the time of death it was pending, but was fulfilled before the possession of goods is offered to the patron, that is, before the inheritance is entered upon, is he invited under this part of the edict? And it is more approved that the time of the entered inheritance should be looked at; for we use this law.
§38.2.3.13Si tamen in praeteritum collata sit condicio uel ad praesens, non uidetur sub condicione institutus: aut enim impleta est et pure institutus est, aut non est et nec heres institutus est.
If, however, the condition was referred to the past or to the present, he is not considered to have been appointed under a condition; for either it has been fulfilled and he is appointed unconditionally, or it has not been and he is not even appointed heir.
§38.2.3.14Si libertus patronum suum ita heredem scripserit: 'si filius meus me uiuo morietur, patronus heres esto', non male uidetur testatus: nam si decesserit filius, poterit hic existente condicione accipere bonorum possessionem.
If a freedman has written his patron as heir in this way: 'si filius meus me uiuo morietur, patronus heres esto', he is not considered to have made a bad will; for if the son has died, he will be able, upon the existence of the condition, to receive the possession of goods.
§38.2.3.15Si debita patrono portio legata sit, etsi scriptus heres non fuerit, satis ei factum est.
If the due share has been bequeathed to the patron, even if he has not been written as heir, satisfaction has been made to him.
§38.2.3.16Sed et si institutus sit ex parte minore quam ei debetur, residua uero pars suppleta est ei legatis siue fideicommissis, et ita satisfactum ei uidetur.
But also if he has been appointed for a smaller share than is due to him, but the remaining part has been supplied to him by legacies or trusts, he is also considered to have been satisfied.
§38.2.3.17Sed et mortis causa donationibus poterit patrono debita portio suppleri: nam mortis causa donationes uice legatorum funguntur.
But also by donations in view of death, the due share can be supplied to the patron; for donations in view of death perform the role of legacies.
§38.2.3.18Sed et si non mortis causa donauit libertus patrono, contemplatione tamen debitae portionis donata sunt, idem erit dicendum: tunc enim uel quasi mortis causa imputabuntur uel quasi adgnita repellent patronum a contra tabulas bonorum possessione.
But even if the freedman did not donate to the patron in view of death, yet the things were donated in contemplation of the due share, the same must be said; for then they will either be imputed as if in view of death or, as if acknowledged, they will repel the patron from the possession of goods contrary to the tablets.
§38.2.3.19Si patrono condicionis implendae causa quid datum sit, in portionem debitam imputari debet, si tamen de bonis sit liberti profectum.
If anything was given to the patron for the purpose of fulfilling a condition, it must be imputed to the due share, provided however it has proceeded from the goods of the freedman.
§38.2.3.20Debitam autem partem eorum, quae cum moritur libertus habuit, patrono damus: mortis enim tempus spectamus.
Moreover, we give to the patron the due share of those things which the freedman had when he dies; for we look at the time of death.
sed et si dolo malo fecit, quo minus haberet, hoc quoque uoluit praetor pro eo haberi, atque si in bonis esset.
But also if he acted with malice so that he should have less, the praetor wished this also to be held for him, just as if it were in his goods.