[PAPINIANUS libro uicensimo septimo quaestionum. ] §45.3.18.prSi seruus communis Maeuii et castrensis peculii defuncto filio familias milite, antequam adeat institutus hereditatem, stipuletur, socio, qui solus interim dominus inuenitur, tota stipulatio quaeretur, quoniam partem non facit hereditas eius quae nondum est.
[PAPINIANUS, from the twenty-seventh book of Questions.] If a slave held in common by Maevius and a castrense peculium (after the death of a filius familias who was a soldier), should stipulate before the instituted heir enters upon the inheritance, the entire stipulation will be acquired for the co-owner, who alone is found to be the owner in the meantime, since an inheritance that does not yet exist does not constitute a part of the ownership.
non enim, si quis heredem existere filio familias dixerit, statim et hereditatem eius iam esse consequens erit, cum beneficium principalium constitutionum in eo locum habet, ut filius familias de peculio testari possit: quod priuilegium cessat, priusquam testamentum aditione fuerit confirmatum.
For indeed, if someone says that an heir will exist for a filius familias, it will not immediately follow that his inheritance already exists, since the benefit of the imperial constitutions takes place in this, that a filius familias can make a will regarding his peculium; which privilege ceases before the will is confirmed by the entry of the heir.
§45.3.18.1Si seruus Titii et Maeuii partem, quae Maeuii est, sibi dari stipuletur, nulla stipulatio est, cum, si Titio dari stipulatus fuisset, Titio adquireretur.
If a slave of Titius and Maevius should stipulate that the share which belongs to Maevius be given to himself, the stipulation is void, whereas if he had stipulated that it be given to Titius, it would have been acquired for Titius.
quod si simpliciter concepta est stipulatio, ueluti: 'partem eam, quae Maeuii est, dare spondes?' non adiecto 'mihi', prope est, ut, quia sine uitio concepta est stipulatio, sequatur eius personam, cuius potest.
But if the stipulation was formulated simply, such as: "Do you promise to give that share which is Maevius's?" without adding "to me," it is close to the view that, because the stipulation was formulated without defect, it follows the person of him for whom it is possible.
§45.3.18.2Seruus capto domino ab hostibus domino dari stipulatus est.
When his master was captured by the enemy, a slave stipulated that something be given to his master.
quamuis quae simpliciter stipulatur uel ab alio accepit, etiam ad heredem captiui pertinent aliudque sit iuris in persona filii, quia nec tunc fuit in potestate, cum stipularetur, nec postea deprehenditur (ut seruus) in hereditate, tamen in proposito potest quaeri, num ex hac stipulatione nihil adquisitum heredi uidetur, quomodo si seruus hereditarius defuncto aut etiam heredi futuro stipulatus fuisset.
Although what he stipulates simply or receives from another also belongs to the heir of the captive, and the rule of law is different in the person of a son (because he was neither in power when he stipulated, nor is he subsequently found, like a slave, in the inheritance), nevertheless in the case proposed it can be asked whether it seems that nothing has been acquired for the heir from this stipulation, just as if a slave belonging to an inheritance had stipulated for the deceased or even for the future heir.
sed in hac specie seruus filio exaequabitur: nam et si filius captiui patri suo stipulatus fuerit dari, res in pendenti erit et si pater apud hostes decesserit, nullius momenti uidebitur fuisse stipulatio, quoniam alii, non sibi stipulatus est.
But in this case the slave will be equated to the son; for even if the son of a captive should stipulate that something be given to his father, the matter will be in suspense, and if the father dies among the enemy, the stipulation will be seen to have been of no effect, since he stipulated for another and not for himself.
§45.3.18.3Cum seruus fructuarius operas suas locasset et eo nomine pecuniam in annos singulos dari stipulatus esset, finito fructu domino residui temporis adquiri stipulationem Iulianus scriptum reliquit.
When a fructuary slave had leased his services and stipulated that money be given for each year on that account, Julian left it written that once the usufruct is ended, the stipulation for the remaining time is acquired for the owner.
quae sententia mihi uidetur firmissima ratione subnixa: nam si in annos forte quinque locatio facta sit, quoniam incertum est, fructus in quem diem duraturus sit, singulorum annorum initio cuiusque anni pecunia fructuario quaereretur: secundum quae non transit ad alterum stipulatio, sed unicuique tantum adquiritur, quantum ratio iuris permittit.
This opinion seems to me to be supported by the strongest reason: for if the lease should happen to be made for five years, since it is uncertain to what day the usufruct will last, at the beginning of each year the money of that year would be acquired for the fructuary; according to which, the stipulation does not pass to another, but is acquired for each only so far as the rule of law permits.
nam et cum idem seruus ita stipuletur: 'quantam pecuniam tibi intra illum diem dedero, tantam dari spondes?' in pendenti est, quis ex stipulatu sit habiturus actionem: si enim ex re fructuarii uel operis suis pecuniam dedero, fructuario, si uero aliunde, domino stipulatio quaeretur.
For also when the same slave stipulates thus: "Do you promise to give as much money as I shall have given to you within that day?" it is in suspense who will have the action on the stipulation: for if I give money from the property of the fructuary or from his services, the stipulation will be acquired for the fructuary, but if from elsewhere, for the owner.