[ULPIANUS libro sexagensimo quarto ad edictum. ] §42.6.1.9Si filii familias bona ueneant, qui castrense peculium habet, an separatio fiat inter castrenses creditores ceterosque, uideamus.
If the assets of a son-in-power who has a military peculium are sold, let us see whether a separation takes place between the military creditors and the others.
simul ergo admittentur, dummodo, si qui cum eo contraxerunt, antequam militaret, fortasse debeant separari: quod puto probandum.
Therefore, they will be admitted together, provided that, if there are any who contracted with him before he entered military service, they should perhaps be separated; which I think should be approved.
ergo qui ante contraxerunt, si bona castrensia distrahantur, non possunt uenire cum castrensibus creditoribus.
Therefore, those who contracted before cannot, if the military assets are sold, come in with the military creditors.
item si quid in rem patris uersum est, forte poterit et creditori contradici, ne castrense peculium inquietet, cum possit potius cum patre experiri.
Likewise, if anything has been turned to the father's advantage, perhaps the creditor can also be opposed, so that he does not disturb the military peculium, since he could rather bring an action against the father.
§42.6.1.10Illud sciendum est eos demum creditores posse impetrare separationem, qui non nouandi animo ab herede stipulati sunt.
It must be known that only those creditors can obtain separation who have taken a stipulation from the heir without the intention of novating.
ceterum si eum hoc animo secuti sunt, amiserunt separationis commodum (quippe cum secuti sunt nomen heredis) nec possunt iam se ab eo separare, qui quodammodo eum elegerunt.
Otherwise, if they followed him with this intention, they have lost the benefit of separation (inasmuch as they followed the name of the heir) and they can no longer separate themselves from him, having in a certain way chosen him.
sed et si usuras ab eo ea mente quasi eum eligendo exegerunt, idem erit probandum.
But even if they have exacted interest from him with that mind, as if choosing him, the same must be approved.
§42.6.1.11Item quaeritur, si satis acceperunt ab eo, an impetrent separationem.
Likewise, the question is raised, if they have received sufficient security from him, whether they may obtain separation.
et non puto: hi enim secuti sunt eum.
And I think not; for these have followed him.
forte quem mouebit: quid ergo, si satis non idoneum acceperunt? et sibi imputent, cur minus idoneos fideiussores accipiebant.
Perhaps someone will object: what then, if they received security that was not sufficient? Let them blame themselves for accepting less suitable sureties.
§42.6.1.12Praeterea sciendum est, posteaquam bona hereditaria bonis heredis mixta sunt, non posse impetrari separationem: confusis enim bonis et unitis separatio impetrari non poterit.
Moreover, it must be known that after the inherited assets have been mixed with the assets of the heir, separation cannot be obtained; for when the assets are confused and united, separation cannot be obtained.
quid ergo si praedia extent uel mancipia uel pecora, uel aliud quod separari potest? hic utique poterit impetrari separatio nec ferendus est, qui causatur bona contributa, cum praedia contribui non possint, nisi ita coniunctae possessiones et permixtae propriis, ut impossibilem separationem effecerint: quod quidem perraro contingere potest.
What then, if estates, or slaves, or cattle, or anything else that can be separated, still exist? Here, indeed, separation can certainly be obtained, and he who pleads that the assets have been contributed is not to be tolerated, since estates cannot be contributed, unless possessions have been so joined and mixed with one's own as to make separation impossible; which indeed can happen very rarely.
§42.6.1.13Quod dicitur post multum temporis separationem impetrari non posse, ita erit accipiendum, ut ultra quinquennium post aditionem numerandum separatio non postuletur.
When it is said that separation cannot be obtained after a long time, it must be understood in this way, that separation is not to be demanded beyond five years to be counted from the entry upon the inheritance.
§42.6.1.14De his autem omnibus, an admittenda separatio sit nec ne, praetoris erit uel praesidis notio, nullius alterius, hoc est eius, qui separationem indulturus est.
But concerning all these matters, whether separation is to be admitted or not, the decision belongs to the praetor or governor, and to no one else, that is, to him who is to grant the separation.
§42.6.1.15Si quis pignus ab herede acceperit, non est ei concedenda separatio, quasi eum secutus sit: neque enim ferendus est, qui qualiterqualiter, eligentis tamen mente, heredis personam secutus est.
If anyone has accepted a pledge from the heir, separation is not to be granted to him, as if he followed him; for he is not to be tolerated who, in whatever way, yet with the mind of one choosing, followed the person of the heir.
§42.6.1.16Quaesitum est, si forte sint plures creditores, quidam secuti heredem, quidam non secuti, et hi, qui heredem secuti non sunt, impetrauerint separationem, an eos secum admittant, qui secuti sunt.
The question was raised, if perhaps there are several creditors, some of whom followed the heir and some did not, and those who did not follow the heir obtained a separation, whether they admit with themselves those who followed.
et putem nihil eis prodesse: hos enim cum creditoribus heredis numerandos.
And I should think it benefits them nothing; for these must be numbered with the creditors of the heir.
§42.6.1.17Item sciendum est uulgo placere creditores quidem heredis, si quid superfuerit ex bonis testatoris, posse habere in suum debitum, creditores uero testatoris ex bonis heredis nihil.
Likewise, it must be known that it is commonly held that the creditors of the heir can indeed, if there is any surplus from the goods of the testator, apply it to their debt, but the creditors of the testator can get nothing from the goods of the heir.
cuius rei ratio illa est, quod qui impetrauit separationem, sibi debet imputare suam facilitatem, si, cum essent bona idonea heredis, illi maluerint bona potius defuncti sibi separari, heredis autem creditoribus hoc imputari non possit.
The reason for this is that he who has obtained a separation must blame himself for his own facility, if, when the assets of the heir were sufficient, they preferred the assets of the deceased to be separated for them, and this cannot be imputed to the creditors of the heir.
at si creditores defuncti desiderent, ut etiam in bonis heredis substituantur, non sunt audiendi: separatio enim, quam ipsi petierunt, eos ab istis bonis separauit.
But if the creditors of the deceased desire to be substituted also in the goods of the heir, they are not to be heard; for the separation which they themselves sought has separated them from those assets.
si tamen temere separationem petierunt creditores defuncti, impetrare ueniam possunt, iustissima scilicet ignorantiae causa allegata.
However, if the creditors of the deceased have rashly sought separation, they can obtain indulgence, provided that a most just cause of ignorance is alleged.
§42.6.1.18Item sciendum est necessarium heredem seruum cum libertate institutum impetrare posse separationem, scilicet ut, si non attigerit bona patroni, in ea causa sit, ut ei quidquid postea adquisierit separetur: sed et si quid ei a testatore debetur.
Likewise, it must be known that a necessary heir, a slave appointed with his freedom, can obtain separation; namely, so that, if he has not touched the assets of his patron, he may be in such a position that whatever he afterwards acquires is separated for him; and also if anything is owed to him by the testator.