[ULPIANUS libro sexagesimo tertio ad edictum. ] §42.5.17.prQuaesitum est, utrum ita demum priuilegium habet funeraria, si is cuius bona ueneunt funeratus sit, an etiam si proponas alium esse funeratum.
[Ulpian, on the Edict, book 63] The question was raised whether the funeral action has a privilege only if the person whose property is sold has been buried, or also if you suppose that someone else has been buried.
et hoc iure utimur, ut quicumque sit funeratus, id est siue is, cuius de bonis agitur, siue quid is debuit, quod reddere eum, si uiueret, funeraria actione cogi oporteret, priuilegio locus sit paruique referre dicamus, qua actione hic sumptus repetatur, funeraria an familiae erciscundae an qua alia, dummodo sumptus funeris causa factus sit.
And we follow this rule of law: that whoever has been buried—that is, whether it be the person whose property is in question, or whether he owed something which, if he were alive, he would have been compelled to return by the funeral action—there is room for the privilege, and we say that it matters little by which action this expense is recovered, whether by the funeral action, or the action for partition of an inheritance, or any other, provided only that the expense was incurred for the sake of the funeral.
quacumque igitur actione ob funeris sumptum utatur, etiam funerariam ei competere.
Therefore, by whichever action one sues for the funeral expense, the funeral action is also available to him.
quare si in stipulatum funeris inpensa deducta est, dicendum est locum esse priuilegio. legio, si modo quis non abiciendi priuilegii causa stipulatus est.
Hence, if the funeral expense has been brought into a stipulation, it must be said that there is room for the privilege, provided only that one did not stipulate for the sake of abandoning the privilege.
§42.5.17.1Si sponsa dedit dotem et nuptiis renuntiatum est, tametsi ipsa dotem condicit, tamen aequum est hanc ad priuilegium admitti, licet nullum matrimonium contractum est: idem puto dicendum etiam, si minor duodecim annis in domum quasi uxor deducta sit, licet nondum uxor sit:
If a betrothed woman has given a dowry and the marriage is called off, although she herself sues for the return of the dowry, yet it is equitable that she be admitted to the privilege, even though no marriage was contracted. I think the same must be said also if a girl under twelve years of age has been led into the house as if she were a wife, even though she is not yet a wife.