[IDEM libro quinto disputationum. ] §40.4.13.prSi ita fuerit seruis duobus libertas data, si insulam aedificauerint uel si statuam posuerint, diuidi haec condicio non poterit.
[THE SAME in the fifth book of disputations.] If freedom has been given to two slaves in this way, "if they build an apartment building" or "if they erect a statue", this condition cannot be divided.
solummodo illud habebit dubitationem, an altero faciente satisfactum uoluntati uideatur ideoque ad libertatem perueniat: quod magis est, nisi aliud expressit testator.
This only will hold a doubt, whether by one performing it, the will is seen to be satisfied and therefore he arrives at freedom: which is more agreeable, unless the testator has expressed otherwise.
faciendo tamen sibi condicionem impleuit, alteri non: quin immo extinguitur ei condicio: nec enim amplius parere condicioni potest, cum semel expleta sit.
Yet by performing it, he has fulfilled the condition for himself, not for the other: nay indeed, the condition is extinguished for the other: for he can no longer comply with the condition, since it has been fulfilled once.
§40.4.13.1Idem quaeri potest et si fabris duobus uel pictoribus, si membrum depinxissent uel si fabricassent nauem, quid adscriptum sit: nam uoluntatis erit quaestio, num alteri alterius facti condicionem iunxerit: quae res efficit, ut, quod alter cessat, alteri quoque, qui facere paratus est, condicio deficiat.
The same question can also be asked if it was added to two carpenters or painters, "if they paint a section" or "if they build a ship": for it will be a question of the will, whether he joined the condition of the act of the one to the other: which circumstance brings it about that, because one is idle, the condition also fails for the other, who is ready to perform.
quod si ex his, quae scripsit uel dixit, ostenditur contentus esse testator uel alterum facere, res erit expedita: nam alter faciendo aut et sibi et socio proderit aut sibi tantum, prout uoluisse testatorem apparuerit.
But if from what he wrote or said, it is shown that the testator was content with either of them performing, the matter will be easily resolved: for by performing, the one will benefit either both himself and his partner or himself alone, according as it appears that the testator wished.
§40.4.13.2Haec quaestio et in eo tractatur, si quis libertatem dederit seruis duobus, si rationes reddiderint.
This question is also treated in the case where someone has given freedom to two slaves, "if they render accounts".
Iulianus enim tractat, si alter reddere sit paratus, alter non sit, an alter per alterum impediatur: et rectissime ait, si quidem separatim rationes gesserunt, sufficere ad libertatem adipiscendam ei qui suas rationes reddit: si uero simul, non alias uideri alterum paruisse, nisi utriusque reliqua exsoluerit.
For Julianus treats whether, if one is ready to render them and the other is not, the one is hindered by the other: and he says most correctly that, if indeed they managed accounts separately, it is sufficient for the acquisition of freedom for the one who renders his own accounts: but if jointly, the one is not otherwise seen to have complied unless he has paid the balances of both.
in reliquis accipere debemus, ut et ipsa uolumina rationum reddantur.
In the balances, we must understand that the volumes of accounts themselves are also to be returned.
§40.4.13.3Sed et si ancilla cum filiis libera esse iussa sit, etsi nullos habeat, erit libera: uel si habeat quidem, filii autem eius ad libertatem pertinere non possint, idem erit dicendum: et si ipsa libera esse non possit, filii tamen eius peruenient ad libertatem.
But even if a female slave is ordered to be free "with her children", even if she has none, she will be free: or if she indeed has them, but her children cannot attain freedom, the same must be said: and if she herself cannot be free, her children will nevertheless arrive at freedom.
nam haec adiectio 'cum filiis' non facit condicionem, nisi mihi proponas aliam sententiam testatoris fuisse: tunc enim pro condicione erunt haec uerba accipienda.
For this addition "with her children" does not make a condition, unless you propose to me that the intention of the testator was otherwise: for then these words will have to be accepted as a condition.
condicionem autem non facere argumento est et edictum praetoris, quo ita cauetur'uentrem cum liberis in possessionem esse iubebo': placet enim, etsi nulli liberi sint, uentrem tamen ex edicto in possessionem mittendum.
That it does not make a condition is also proved by the praetor's edict, in which it is provided: "I will order the womb with the children to be in possession": for it is agreed that, even if there are no children, the womb must nevertheless be sent into possession under the edict.