[GAIUS libro tertio decimo ad legem Iuliam et Papiam. ] §40.7.31.prSi seruo sub condicione rationum editarum legatum sit, per eam condicionem eum iussum esse legatum accipere, ut pecuniam reliquorum reddat, non dubitatur.
[GAIUS, from the thirteenth book on the Lex Iulia et Papia.] If a legacy is bequeathed to a slave under the condition of submitting accounts, there is no doubt that by this condition he is ordered to receive the legacy on terms of paying back the money of the balances.
§40.7.31.1Et ideo cum quaesitum est 'Stichus cum rationes dederit, cum contubernali sua liber esto' an mortuo Sticho ante condicionem contubernalis eius libera esse possit: Iulianus dixit quaestionem esse in hac specie, quae et in legatis agitatur 'illi cum illo do', an altero deficiente alter ad legatum admittatur: quod magis sibi placere, perinde ac si ita scriptum esset 'illi et illi'. aliam etiam esse quaestionem, an contubernali quoque condicio iuncta sit: quod magis esset.
And therefore, when it was asked, regarding the clause "Let Stichus, when he has rendered his accounts, be free together with his companion," whether, if Stichus dies before the condition is fulfilled, his companion can be free: Julianus said that the question in this case is of the same kind as that which is debated in the case of legacies, "I give to X along with Y," namely, whether if one fails, the other is admitted to the legacy; which was more pleasing to him, just as if it had been written "to X and to Y." There is also another question, whether the condition is also linked to the companion: which was more likely the case.
itaque si nulla reliqua Stichus habuerit, statim eam liberam esse, si habuerit reliqua, debere eam numerare pecuniam: nec tamen liciturum ex suo peculio dare, quia id illis permissum sit, qui principaliter pro sua libertate pecuniam dare iubentur.
Therefore, if Stichus had no outstanding balances, she is free immediately; if he had balances, she must pay the money; and yet it will not be permitted to pay it out of her own peculium, because this is allowed to those who are principally ordered to give money for their own freedom.