Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §41.1.33.pr-41.1.33.2

Acquisitions by Camp-Slaves and Acceptance of Inheritance

Passage 6663 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

The fragment discusses whether the validity of a legacy or a stipulation made by a soldier's camp-slave depends on the person of the deceased or the father, based on whether the inheritance is accepted. The same distinction applies to theft actions and the condictio.

[ULPIANUS libro quarto disputationum. ] §41.1.33.prIn eo, quod seruo castrensi ante aditam hereditatem filii familias militis legatur, uel eo, quod stipulatur seruus, tractatur apud Marcellum libro uicensimo, ex cuius persona uel stipulatio uires habeat uel legatum.
[ULPIAN, Disputations, book 4]\n In the case of that which is bequeathed to a camp-slave before the inheritance of a soldier filius familias is accepted, or in that which the slave stipulates, it is discussed in Marcellus, book 20, from whose person either the stipulation or the legacy derives its validity.
et puto uerius, quod et Scaeuolae uidetur et ipse Marcellus tractat, si quidem adeatur hereditas, omnia ut in hereditario seruo, si adita non sit, ut in proprio patris esse spectanda: et si usus fructus fuerit huic seruo relictus, modo patri uideri delatum, modo heredi, nec a persona in personam creditur transisse. §41.1.33.1Eadem distinctione quis utetur etiam, si res fuerit subtracta: aut cessare aut non furti actionem dicet, si ex testamento adierit, quoniam hereditati furtum non fit, aut, si non adierit, patri dabitur furti actio. §41.1.33.2Nam et condictio, quotiens seruus hereditarius stipulatur uel per traditionem accipit, ex persona defuncti uires assumit, ut Iuliano placet: cuius et ualuit sententia testantis personam spectandam esse opinantis.
And I think it more correct, as also seems right to Scaevola and Marcellus himself discusses, that if indeed the inheritance is accepted, all things are to be regarded as in the case of an inherited slave; if it is not accepted, as in the case of the father's own slave. And if a usufruct has been left to this slave, it is deemed to have been deferred at one time to the father, at another to the heir, and it is not believed to have passed from person to person.\n One will apply the same distinction also if a thing has been stolen: he will say that the action for theft is not available, if he accepts under the testament—since theft is not committed against an inheritance—or, if he does not accept, the action for theft will be given to the father.\n For also the condictio, whenever an inherited slave stipulates or receives by delivery, derives its force from the person of the deceased, as Julian pleases; and his opinion has prevailed, holding that the person of the testator is to be regarded.

Notes

  1. 41.1.33.prseruo castrensi — Refers to a slave belonging to the military peculium (peculium castrense). Although a filius familias (son under paternal power) normally could not own property, if he was a soldier, he was allowed to hold and dispose of property acquired during military service.
  2. 41.1.33.prante aditam hereditatem filii familias militis — The preposition ante governs the accusative noun phrase aditam hereditatem (with the past participle aditam functioning dominantly to mean 'before the acceptance of the inheritance'), which is further qualified by the genitive phrase filii familias militis.
  3. 41.1.33.1aut cessare aut non furti actionem dicet — The phrase aut cessare aut non presents syntactic difficulties. It can be interpreted as coordinating cessare (to fail) with an implicit competere or esse (or not to lie). In any case, it expresses that the action for theft does not lie when the inheritance is accepted under the testament.
  4. 41.1.33.2cuius et ualuit sententia testantis personam spectandam esse opinantis — The genitive present participle opinantis agrees with the genitive relative pronoun cuius (referring to Julian). The participle opinantis takes the accusative-with-infinitive clause testantis personam spectandam esse as its object, meaning 'the opinion of him (Julian) who thought that the person of the testator must be regarded.'

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §41.1.33.pr-41.1.33.2. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:41.1.33.pr-41.1.33.2

Please note the AI-draft status of the translation and the date accessed.

Translation, notes and summary are AI-generated drafts, revised through reader feedback.