[ULPIANUS libro quarto decimo ad Sabinum. ] §38.4.3.prIdem erit dicendum et si is, qui filium et nepotem habebat, nepoti libertum adsignauerit: admittetur nepos ad legitimam hereditatem, licet sit alterius patroni filius, et hoc contingit patrui uita: ceterum si ille non esset, nihil ei prodesset adsignatio ad deminuendum ius alterius patroni filii.
[ULPIAN in the fourteenth book on Sabinus.] The same must be said even if a person who had a son and a grandson has assigned a freedman to the grandson: the grandson will be admitted to the statutory inheritance, even though he is the son of another patron, and this occurs during the lifetime of the uncle; but if the latter were not alive, the assignment would be of no benefit to him for the purpose of diminishing the right of the son of the other patron.
§38.4.3.1Posse autem et nepoti adsignari certum est et praeferri filio nepotem adsignatoris constat.
Moreover, it is certain that an assignment can also be made to a grandson, and it is clear that the grandson of the assignor is preferred to the son.
§38.4.3.2Unde quaeri poterit, an, si filium habeat et ex eo nepotem, possit, quasi duos habeat in potestate, ius senatus consulti inducere.
Hence it may be asked whether, if a person has a son and a grandson by him, he can, as though he had two persons in his power, bring into play the rule of the senatusconsult.
in qua specie cum placeat etiam ei, qui in potestatem recasurus est, adsignari quare non admittimus, cum utrumque esse in potestate negare non possumus?
In which case, since it is accepted that an assignment can be made even to one who is to fall back into power, why do we not allow it, since we cannot deny that both are in power?
§38.4.3.3An autem ad legitimam hereditatem admitti possit hic qui est in potestate, tractari poterit.
However, whether this person who is in power can be admitted to the statutory inheritance can be discussed.
et cum multi sint casus, quibus et libertum habere qui in potestate est possit, cur non hoc quoque admittendum sit, ut per eum pater ad legitimae hereditatis admittatur emolumentum? quod et Pomponio recte uidetur.
And since there are many cases in which even a person in power can have a freedman, why should this also not be allowed, so that through him the father may be admitted to the benefit of the statutory inheritance? This also seems correct to Pomponius.
habent autem libertos etiam filii familias, ut puta si castrensem seruum eorum quis manumiserit.
Moreover, filii familias also have freedmen, as for example if someone has manumitted their castrense slave.
§38.4.3.4Emancipatos quoque filios eius, cui adsignatus est libertus, habere commodum senatus consulti puto, non ut ad legitimam hereditatem admittantur, sed ad ea quae possunt.
I think that the emancipated sons of the person to whom a freedman has been assigned also have the benefit of the senatusconsult, not so that they are admitted to the statutory inheritance, but as to those things which they can obtain.
§38.4.3.5Secundum quod liberto intestato defuncto, quoniam ad legitimam hereditatem admitti non possunt, uidendum, ne admittatur filius adsignatoris in familia remanens an non? et putem emancipatos per praetorem praeferendos.
Accordingly, when a freedman dies intestate, since they cannot be admitted to the statutory inheritance, we must see whether or not the son of the assignor who remains in the family should be admitted; and I should think that the emancipated ones ought to be preferred by the praetor.
§38.4.3.6Liberos autem eius, cui adsignatus est, accipere debemus non solum filios, uerum etiam nepotes et neptes et deinceps descendentes.
By the "children" of the person to whom the assignment was made, we must understand not only sons but also grandsons, granddaughters, and further descendants.
§38.4.3.7Si quis duobus adsignauerit libertum et alter in ciuitate esse sine liberis desierit, alter non,
If anyone has assigned a freedman to two persons, and one of them has ceased to exist in the state without children, while the other has not,