[IULIANUS libro quadragensimo secundo digestorum. ] §40.2.4.prSi pater filio permiserit seruum manumittere et interim decesserit intestato, deinde filius ignorans patrem suum mortuum libertatem imposuerit, libertas seruo fauore libertatis contingit, cum non appareat mutata esse domini uoluntas.
[JULIANUS, in the forty-second book of the Digests.] If a father permits his son to manumit a slave, and in the meantime dies intestate, and then the son, ignorant of his father's death, grants freedom [to the slave], freedom accrues to the slave in favor of liberty, since it does not appear that the owner's will has changed.
sin autem ignorante filio uetuisset pater per nuntium et antequam filius certior fieret, seruum manumississet, liber non fit.
But if, without the son's knowledge, the father had forbidden [it] through a messenger, and before the son was informed, he had manumitted the slave, the slave does not become free.
nam ut filio manumittente seruus ad libertatem perueniat, durare oportet patris uoluntatem: nam si mutata fuerit, non erit uerum uolente patre filium manumississe.
For in order for the slave to attain freedom by the son's manumitting, it is necessary for the father's will to persist; for if it has been changed, it will not be true that the son manumitted the slave with the father's consent.
§40.2.4.1Quotiens dominus seruum manumittat, quamuis existimet alienum esse eum, nihilo minus uerum est uoluntate domini seruum manumissum et ideo liber erit.
Whenever an owner manumits a slave, even though he thinks him to belong to another, it is nevertheless true that the slave was manumitted by the owner's will, and therefore he will be free.
et ex contrario si se Stichus non putaret manumittentis esse, nihilo minus libertatem contingere. plus enim in re est, quam in existimatione et utroque casu uerum est Stichum uoluntate domini manumissum esse.
And conversely, if Stichus did not think himself to belong to the manumitter, freedom nevertheless accrues to him; for there is more in the reality than in the opinion, and in both cases it is true that Stichus was manumitted by the owner's will.
idemque iuris est et si dominus et seruus in eo errore essent, ut neque ille se dominum nec hic se seruum eius putaret.
And the same rule of law applies even if both the owner and the slave were in such an error that neither the former thought himself to be the owner, nor the latter thought himself to be his slave.
§40.2.4.2Minor uiginti annis dominus nec communem quidem seruum sine consilio recte manumittit.
An owner under twenty years of age cannot rightly manumit even a common slave without the authorization of the council.
PAULUS notat: sed si pignori obligatum sibi minor uiginti annis manumitti patiatur, recte manumittitur, quia non tam manumittere is quam non impedire manumittentem intellegitur.
PAULUS notes: but if an owner under twenty years of age permits a slave pledged to him to be manumitted, the slave is rightly manumitted, because he is understood not so much to be manumitting himself as not to be hindering the one who manumits.