[POMPONIUS libro octauo decimo ad Quintum Mucium. ] §40.7.29.prStatuliberi a ceteris seruis nostris nihilo paene differunt.
[POMPONIUS, from the eighteenth book on Quintus Mucius.] Conditionally free slaves differ in almost no respect from our other slaves.
et ideo quod ad actiones uel ex delicto uenientes uel ex negotio gesto contractu pertinet, eiusdem condicionis sunt statuliberi cuius ceteri.
And therefore, so far as concerns actions arising either from delict or from transaction of business or contract, conditionally free slaves are of the same condition as the others.
et ideo in publicis quoque iudiciis easdem poenas patiuntur, quas ceteri serui.
And therefore, in public trials as well, they suffer the same penalties as other slaves.
§40.7.29.1Quintus Mucius scribit: pater familias in testamento scripserat 'si Andronicus seruus meus heredi meo dederit decem, liber esto'. deinde de his bonis coeperat controuersia esse: qui se lege heredem aiebat esse, is eam hereditatem ad se pertinere dicebat, alter, qui hereditatem possidebat, aiebat testamento se heredem esse.
Quintus Mucius writes: A paterfamilias had written in his will: "If my slave Andronicus gives ten to my heir, let him be free." Then a dispute began to arise concerning this property: he who asserted that he was the heir by law said that the inheritance belonged to him, the other, who was in possession of the inheritance, asserted that he was the heir by the will.
secundum eum sententia dicta erat, qui testamento aiebat se heredem esse.
Judgment was given in favor of him who asserted that he was the heir by the will.
deinde Andronicus quaerebat, si ipsi uiginti dedisset, quoniam secundum eum sententia dicta est, futurusne esset liber an nihil uideatur sententia, qua uicit, ad eam rem ualere? quapropter si uiginti heredi scripto dedisset et res contra possessorem iudicata esset, illum in seruitute fore.
Then Andronicus asked: if he gave twenty to that person, since judgment had been given in his favor, would he be free, or would the judgment by which that person won be deemed to have no effect for this purpose? Wherefore, if he had given twenty to the appointed heir and the case had been decided against the possessor, he would remain in slavery.
Labeo hoc, quod Quintus Mucius scribit, ita putat uerum esse, si re uera lege ab intestato heres fuit is qui uicit: nam si iniuria iudicis uictus esset scriptus uerus heres ex testamento, nihilo minus eum paruisse condicioni ei dando et liberum fore.
Labeo thinks that what Quintus Mucius writes is true only if he who won was in reality the heir by law on intestacy: for if the true appointed heir under the will had been defeated by an unjust judgment of the judge, the slave would nonetheless have complied with the condition by giving to him, and would be free.
sed uerissimum est, quod et Aristo Celso rescripsit, posse dari pecuniam heredi ab intestato, secundum quem sententia dicta est; quoniam lex duodecim tabularum emptionis uerbo omnem alienationem complexa uideretur: non interesse, quo genere quisque dominus eius fieret et ideo hunc quoque ea lege contineri, secundum quem sententia dicta est, et liberum futurum eum, qui ei dedisset pecuniam.
But it is most true, as Aristo also wrote in reply to Celsus, that the money can be given to the heir on intestacy in whose favor the judgment was rendered; since the Law of the Twelve Tables would seem to have included every kind of alienation under the word "purchase": it does not matter by what means anyone becomes his master, and therefore he also, in whose favor the judgment was rendered, is covered by that law, and he who has given him the money will be free.
hunc autem, id est possessorem hereditatis, cui data esset summa, si uictus esset hereditatis petitione, cum ceteris hanc quoque pecuniam uictori restituere debere.
And this person, that is, the possessor of the inheritance to whom the sum had been given, if he is defeated in a petition for the inheritance, must restore this money also, along with the rest, to the victor.