[ULPIANUS libro quinto fideicommissorum. ] §40.5.28.prSi eum seruum, cui erat fideicommissa libertas relicta, distraxerit is qui erat rogatus et emptor quidem latitet, is autem qui rogatus erat praesens sit, an Rubriano senatus consulto locus sit? et ait Marcellus Rubrianum locum habere, quia abest quem manumittere oportet.
[ULPIANUS libro quinto fideicommissorum.] If the person who was requested to grant freedom under a trust has sold the slave to whom the trust-freedom had been left, and the buyer indeed hides himself, but the person who was requested is present, is there room for the Senatus Consultum Rubrianum? And Marcellus says that the Rubrian (decree) applies, because the person who ought to manumit is absent.
§40.5.28.1Haec autem uerba 'adesse noluissent' non utique exigunt ut latitet is qui libertatem praestare debebit: nam et si non latitet, contemnat autem uenire, senatus consultum locum habebit.
But these words 'they were unwilling to be present' do not by any means require that the person who will have to provide freedom must hide himself; for even if he does not hide, but scorns to come, the senatus consultum will apply.
§40.5.28.2Idem obseruatur etiam, si plures heredes constituti fideicommissam libertatem praestare rogati non iusta ex causa absentes moram libertati faciant.
The same is observed also if several instituted heirs, requested to provide trust-freedom, are absent without a just cause and cause delay to freedom.
§40.5.28.3Quorum si quosdam iusta ex causa abesse pronuntiatum fuerit, eorum, qui ex iusta causa abessent, et eorum, qui praesentes fideicommissae libertati moram non facient, perinde libertus erit atque si soli rogati ad iustam libertatem perduxissent.
If it is pronounced that some of them are absent for a just cause, he will be the freedman of those who were absent for a just cause and of those who, being present, do not cause delay to the trust-freedom, just as if they alone, having been requested, had brought him to just freedom.
§40.5.28.4Si quis seruum non hereditarium rogatus manumittere latitet, factum est senatus consultum Aemilio Iunco et Iulio Seuero consulibus in haec uerba: 'placere, si quis ex his, qui fideicommissam libertatem ex quacumque causa deberent 'seruo, qui mortis tempore eius qui rogauit non fuerit, isque adesse negabitur, praetor 'cognoscat et, si in ea causa esse uidebitur, ut, si praesens esset, manumittere cogi de'beret, id ita esse pronuntiet: cumque ita pronuntiasset, idem iuris erit, quod esset, si ita, 'ut ex fideicommisso manumitti debuisset, manumissus esset'. §40.5.28.5Ex iusta causa abesse eos demum dicendum est, qui non habent iniustam causam absentiae, cum sufficiat, quod non in fraudem libertatis absint, quo magis uideantur ex iusta causa abesse: ceterum non est necesse, ut rei publicae causa absint.
If anyone requested to manumit a slave who is not part of the inheritance hides, a senatus consultum was passed in the consulship of Aemilius Iuncus and Iulius Severus in these words: 'that it is resolved that, if anyone of those who owe trust-freedom for any reason to a slave who, at the time of the death of the person who made the request, was not his, and he is denied to be present, the praetor shall investigate, and if he appears to be in such a state that, if he were present, he ought to be compelled to manumit, the praetor shall pronounce it to be so; and when he has so pronounced, the same law shall apply as would apply if he had been manumitted in such a way as he ought to have been manumitted under the trust.' It must be said that only those are absent for a just cause who do not have an unjust cause for absence, since it is sufficient that they are not absent to defraud freedom, so that they may the more be seen to be absent for a just cause; moreover, it is not necessary that they be absent on public business.
proinde si alibi domicilium quis habeat, alibi petatur fideicommissaria libertas, dicendum est non esse necesse euocari eum, qui fideicommissam libertatem debere dicitur, quia etiam absente eo, si constiterit libertatem deberi, pronuntiari potest iusta de causa eum abesse, nec libertum perdit: namque eos, qui apud sedes suas et domicilium suum sunt, nemo dubitabit ex iusta causa abesse.
Therefore, if someone has his domicile in one place, and trust-freedom is claimed in another, it must be said that it is not necessary to summon him who is said to owe the trust-freedom, because even in his absence, if it is established that freedom is owed, it can be pronounced that he is absent for a just cause, nor does he lose his freedman; for no one will doubt that those who are at their own seats and domicile are absent for a just cause.