[ULPIANUS libro sexagensimo octauo ad edictum. ] §43.5.3.prlocum habet hoc interdictum.
[ULPIANUS, on the Edict, book sixty-eight.] this interdict applies.
§43.5.3.1Si tabulae in pluribus codicibus scriptae sint, omnes interdicto isto continentur, quia unum testamentum est.
If the tablets are written in several codices, they are all covered by this interdict, because there is but one testament.
§43.5.3.2Si tabulae testamenti apud aliquem depositae sunt a Titio, hoc interdicto agendum est et cum eo qui detinet et cum eo qui deposuit.
If tablets of a testament have been deposited with someone by Titius, action must be brought under this interdict both against him who holds them and against him who deposited them.
§43.5.3.3Proinde et si custodiam tabularum aedituus uel tabularius suscepit, dicendum est teneri eum interdicto.
Therefore, likewise, if a temple keeper or a record keeper has undertaken the custody of the tablets, it must be said that he is bound by the interdict.
§43.5.3.4Si penes seruum tabulae fuerint, dominus interdicto tenebitur.
If the tablets are in the possession of a slave, the master will be bound by the interdict.
§43.5.3.5Si ipse testator, dum uiuit, tabulas suas esse dicat et exhiberi desideret, interdictum hoc locum non habebit, sed ad exhibendum erit agendum, ut exhibitas uindicet.
If the testator himself, during his lifetime, asserts that the tablets are his and desires them to be produced, this interdict will have no application, but action for production must be brought so that he may claim them once produced.
quod in omnibus, qui corpora sua esse dicunt instrumentorum, probandum est.
This rule must be approved in the case of all persons who assert that the physical bodies of instruments belong to them.
§43.5.3.6Si quis dolo malo fecerit, quo minus penes eum tabulae essent, nihilo minus hoc interdicto tenebitur, nec praeiudicatur aliquid legi Corneliae testamentariae, quasi dolo malo testamentum suppresserit.
If anyone has by willful fraud caused the tablets not to be in his possession, he will nonetheless be bound by this interdict, nor does this cause any prejudice to the Cornelian Law on Testaments, as though he had suppressed the testament by willful fraud.
nemo enim ideo impune retinet tabulas, quod maius facinus admisit, cum exhibitis tabulis admissum eius magis manifestetur.
For no one retains tablets with impunity on the ground that he has committed a greater crime, since by the production of the tablets his crime is rendered more manifest.
et posse aliquem dolo malo facere, ut in eam legem non incidat, ut puta si neque amouerit neque celauerit tabulas, sed idcirco alii tradiderit, ne eas interdicenti exhiberet, hoc est si non supprimendi animo uel consilio fecit, sed ne huic exhiberet.
And it is possible for someone to act with willful fraud and yet not fall under that law, for example, if he neither removed nor concealed the tablets, but delivered them to another for the sole purpose of not producing them to the person applying for the interdict; that is, if he did this not with the intention or design of suppressing them, but in order not to produce them to this person.
§43.5.3.7Hoc interdictum exhibitorium est.
This interdict is exhibitory.
§43.5.3.8Quid sit exhibere, uideamus.
Let us see what it is to produce.
exhibere hoc est materiae ipsius adprehendendae copiam facere.
To produce is to offer the opportunity of taking hold of the material object itself.
§43.5.3.9Exhibere autem apud praetorem oportet, ut ex auctoritate eius signatores admoniti uenirent ad recognoscenda signa: et si forte non optemperent testes, Labeo scribit coerceri eos a praetore debere.
Moreover, production should take place before the praetor, so that, by his authority, the signers, having been summoned, may come to recognize their seals; and if by chance the witnesses do not comply, Labeo writes that they ought to be compelled by the praetor.
§43.5.3.10Solent autem exhiberi tabulas desiderare omnes omnino, qui quid in testamento adscriptum habent.
Moreover, it is customary that production of the tablets may be desired by absolutely all who have anything written in their favor in the testament.
§43.5.3.11Condemnatio autem huius iudicii quanti interfuit aestimari debet.
Moreover, the condemnation in this action ought to be assessed at the amount of the interest involved.
§43.5.3.12Quare si heres scriptus hoc interdicto experiatur, ad hereditatem referenda est aestimatio:
Therefore, if the instituted heir brings action under this interdict, the assessment must be referred to the inheritance.
§43.5.3.13Et si si legatum sit, tantum uenit in aestimationem, quantum sit in legato:
And if it is a legacy, only so much enters into the assessment as is contained in the legacy.
§43.5.3.14Et si sub condicione legatum sit, quasi condicione existente sic aestimandum est, nec compelli debebit ad cauendum, ut se restituturum caueat, quidquid consecutus est, si condicio defecerit, quia poena contumaciae praestatur ab eo qui non exhibet.
And if the legacy has been given under a condition, the assessment must be made as if the condition had already been fulfilled, nor will the plaintiff be compelled to give security that he will restore whatever he has obtained if the condition should fail, because a penalty for contumacy is paid by him who fails to produce.
§43.5.3.15Inde quaeritur, si hinc consecutus aestimationem legatarius postea legatum petat, an sit audiendus.
Hence the question is asked: if a legatee, having obtained the assessment from this action, later sues for the legacy, is he to be heard?
et putem, si heres idem praestitit, exceptione doli repellendum, si alius, repelli non oportere.
And I think that if the same heir paid the assessment, the legatee should be barred by the plea of fraud; but if someone else paid, he should not be barred.
et ideo et si heres sit, qui interdicto usus est aestimationem consecutus, eadem est distinctio.
And therefore, even if it is the heir who, having used the interdict, has obtained the assessment, the same distinction applies.
§43.5.3.16Interdictum hoc et post annum competere constat. sed et heredi ceterisque successoribus competit.
It is well established that this interdict is available even after a year; moreover, it is available to the heir and other successors.