[IULIANUS libro quadragensimo nono digestorum. ] §42.8.15.prSi quis, cum haberet Titium creditorem et sciret se soluendo non esse, libertates dederit testamento, deinde dimisso Titio postea Sempronium creditorem habere coeperit et eodem testamento manente decesserit: libertates datae ratae esse debent, etsi hereditas soluendo non sit, quia, libertates ut rescindantur, utrumque in eorumdem persona exigimus et consilium et euentum et, si quidem creditor, cuius fraudandi consilium initum erat, non fraudatur, aduersus eum qui fraudatur consilium initum non est.
[JULIANUS in the forty-ninth book of the Digests.]\n If anyone, while he had Titius as a creditor and knew that he was insolvent, should have granted manumissions by testament, and then, Titius having been discharged, afterwards began to have Sempronius as a creditor, and died while the same testament remained in force: the granted manumissions ought to be valid, even if the inheritance is insolvent, because, for manumissions to be rescinded, we require both the intention and the result in the person of the same individuals, and indeed if the creditor against whom the intention of defrauding was formed is not defrauded, the intention was not formed against the one who is defrauded.
libertates itaque ratae sunt,
Therefore, the manumissions are valid,