[IAUOLENUS libro quarto ex posterioribus Labeonis. ] §40.7.39.pr'Stichum Attio do lego et, si is ei nummos centum dederit, liber esto'. si seruus ex testamento nummos Attio dedisset, eos repetere heredem non posse Labeo existimat, quia Attius eos a seruo suo acceperit, non ab heredis seruo.
[IAUOLENUS, from the fourth book on the posthumous works of Labeo.]\n\n'I give and bequeath Stichus to Attius, and if he gives him a hundred sesterces, let him be free.' If the slave, on the basis of the will, had given the money to Attius, Labeo thinks that the heir cannot claim it back, because Attius received it from his own slave, not from the heir's slave.
eum autem statuliberum esse Quintus Mucius, Gallus et ipse Labeo putant: Seruius, Ofilius non esse.
However, Quintus Mucius, Gallus, and Labeo himself think that he is a conditionally free slave (statuliber); Servius and Ofilius think he is not.
superiorem sententiam probo, ita tamen, ut is seruus heredis, non legatarii sit, utpote cum legatum statulibertate tollatur. §40.7.39.1'Stichus liber esto, quando aes alienum meum solutum creditoribusue meis satisfactum erit'. quamuis heres locuples extitisset, tamen non prius Stichum liberum futurum, quam creditores pecuniam aut satis accepissent alioue quo modo sibi cauissent, Labeo Ofilius responderunt. §40.7.39.2Si heres seruo pecuniam ad negotiandum dedisset, statuliberum eam ipsam numerando liberari ex testamento non posse Labeo Trebatius responderunt, quia reddere eam magis quam dare uideretur.
I approve of the former opinion, but only in such a way that the slave belongs to the heir, not to the legatee, inasmuch as a legacy is extinguished by the grant of conditional freedom.\n\n'Let Stichus be free when my debt is paid or satisfaction is given to my creditors.' Even if the heir had turned out to be wealthy, Labeo and Ofilius replied that Stichus would not become free before the creditors had received the money, or security, or had secured themselves in some other way.\n\nIf the heir had given money to a slave for business, Labeo and Trebatius replied that the conditionally free slave could not be freed under the will by paying that very money, because paying it seemed more like returning it than giving it.
ego puto, si peculiares nummi fuerunt, ex testamento eum liberum futurum. §40.7.39.3'Dama seruus cum heredi meo annorum septem operas soluerit, liber esto' et is seruus intra septem annos in iudicio publico esset et septimus annus praeterisset, Seruius ait eum non liberari debere, Labeo, et si postea soluisset annorum septem operas, liberum futurum: quod uerum est. §40.7.39.4'Si Stichus Attiae mille nummos dederit, liber esto'.
I think that if the coins were from his peculium, he would become free under the will.\n\n'When the slave Dama has rendered seven years of services to my heir, let him be free.' And if this slave was involved in a public trial within the seven years, and the seventh year had passed, Servius says that he ought not to be freed; Labeo says that if he had subsequently rendered seven years of services, he would become free, which is true.\n\n'If Stichus gives Attia a thousand sesterces, let him be free.' Attia died during the lifetime of the testator: Labeo and Ofilius replied that Stichus could not be free.
Attia uiuo testatore decessit: non posse Stichum liberum esse Labeo Ofilius responderunt: Trebatius, si ante testamentum factum Attia decessisset, idem: si postea, eum liberum futurum.
Trebatius replied that if Attia had died before the will was made, it was the same; if afterwards, he would become free.
Labeonis et Ofilii sententia rationem quidem habet, sed hoc iure utimur, ut is seruus ex testamento liber sit. §40.7.39.5Si seruus operas extraneo dare iussus esset, nullus nomine serui suas operas dando liberare seruum potest: quod in pecunia aliter obseruatur, utpote cum extraneus pro eo seruo dando pecuniam seruum liberaret.
The opinion of Labeo and Ofilius indeed has reason, but we follow this rule of law, that this slave is free under the will.\n\nIf a slave was ordered to give services to a stranger, no one can free the slave by giving his own services in the name of the slave; which is observed differently in the case of money, inasmuch as a stranger, by giving money on behalf of that slave, would free him.