[ULPIANUS libro trigensimo octauo ad edictum. ] §47.4.1.prSi dolo malo eius, qui liber esse iussus erit, post mortem domini ante aditam hereditatem in bonis, quae eius fuerunt, qui eum liberum esse iusserit, factum esse dicetur, quo minus ex his bonis ad heredem aliquid perueniret: in eum intra annum utilem dupli iudicium datur.
[ULPIANUS on the Edict, book 38.] If, by the bad faith of someone who has been ordered to be free, after the death of the master and before the acceptance of the inheritance, it is alleged that an act has been committed concerning the property which belonged to the person who ordered him to be free, so that less of this property should reach the heir, an action for double value is granted against him within an available year.
§47.4.1.1Haec autem actio, ut Labeo scripsit, naturalem potius in se quam ciuilem habet aequitatem, si quidem ciuilis deficit actio: sed natura aequum est non esse impunitum eum, qui hac spe audacior factus est, quia neque ut seruum se coerceri posse intellegit spe imminentis libertatis, neque ut liberum damnari, quia hereditati furtum fecit, hoc est dominae, dominus autem dominaue non possunt habere furti actionem cum seruo suo, quamuis postea ad libertatem peruenerit uel alienatus sit, nisi si postea quoque contrectauerit.
Moreover, this action, as Labeo wrote, has in itself natural rather than civil equity, since indeed a civil action is lacking. But it is naturally equitable that he who has been made bolder by this hope should not go unpunished, because he understands that he cannot be punished as a slave due to the hope of his imminent freedom, nor be condemned as a free person because he committed a theft against the inheritance—that is, against his mistress, and a master or mistress cannot have a theft action against their own slave, even if he afterwards attains freedom or is alienated, unless he also handles the property afterwards.
e re itaque esse praetor putauit calliditatem et proteruitatem horum, qui hereditates depopulantur, dupli actione coercere.
Therefore, the praetor thought it advantageous to restrain the cunning and insolence of those who plunder inheritances by an action for double value.
§47.4.1.2Non alias tenebitur iste libertus, quam si dolo quid dissipasse proponatur.
That freedman will not be liable unless it is proposed that he squandered something by bad faith.
culpa autem neglegentiaque serui post libertatem excusata est, sed culpa dolo proxima dolum repraesentat.
The negligence and carelessness of a slave after freedom is excused, but negligence closest to bad faith represents bad faith.
proinde si quid damni dedit sine dolo, cessabit ista actio, quamuis alias Aquilia tenetur ob hoc, quod damnum qualiterqualiter dederit.
Therefore, if he caused any damage without bad faith, this action will not apply, even though in other cases he would be liable under the Aquilian law because of having caused damage in whatever manner.
habet itaque certum finem ista actio, ut et dolo fecerit iste et post mortem domini et ante aditam hereditatem.
Consequently, this action has a certain limit, namely, that he acted both with bad faith, after the death of his master, and before the acceptance of the inheritance.
ceterum si sine dolo, aut dolo quidem, uerum uiuo domino, non tenebitur hac actione: quin immo et si post mortem post aditam hereditatem, cessabit actio: nam ubi adita hereditas est, iam quasi liber conueniri potest.
However, if it was without bad faith, or indeed with bad faith but while the master was alive, he will not be liable under this action. Nay, even if it was after the death but after the acceptance of the inheritance, the action will not apply; for once the inheritance is accepted, he can already be sued as if he were a free person.
§47.4.1.3Quid tamen, si sub condicione accepit libertatem? ecce nondum liber est: sed ut seruus potest coerceri: idcirco dicendum est cessare hanc actionem.
What, however, if he received his freedom under a condition? Behold, he is not yet free; but he can be punished as a slave; therefore, it must be said that this action does not apply.
§47.4.1.4Sed ubi libertas competit continuo, dicendum est posse et debere hanc actionem dari aduersus eum, qui peruenit ad libertatem.
But where freedom is acquired immediately, it must be said that this action can and ought to be granted against him who has attained freedom.
§47.4.1.5Si seruus pure legatus ante aditam hereditatem quid admiserit in hereditate, dicendum est, quia dominium in eo mutatur, huic actioni locum esse.
If a slave bequeathed unconditionally has committed some offense against the inheritance before the acceptance of the inheritance, it must be said that, since the ownership in him is changed, there is room for this action.
§47.4.1.6Et generaliter dicimus, quo casu in seruo dominium uel mutatur uel amittitur uel libertas competit post interuallum modicum aditae hereditatis, eo casu hanc actionem indulgendam.
And generally we say that in whatever case ownership in a slave is either changed or lost, or freedom is acquired after a moderate interval from the acceptance of the inheritance, in that case this action is to be granted.
§47.4.1.7Sed si fideicommissaria libertas seruo data sit, quidquid in hereditate maleficii admisit, numquid non prius cogatur heres manumittere, quam si satisfecerit? est autem saepissime et a diuo Marco et ab imperatore nostro cum patre rescriptum non impediri fideicommissariam libertatem, quae pure data est.
But if fideicommissary freedom has been given to a slave, whatever wrongdoing he committed against the inheritance, is it not true that the heir is not compelled to manumit him before he has made satisfaction? However, it has been very frequently rescribed both by the Divine Marcus and by our Emperor with his father that fideicommissary freedom, which has been given unconditionally, is not impeded.
diuus sane Marcus rescripsit arbitrum ex continenti dandum, apud quem ratio ponatur: sed hoc rescriptum ad rationem ponendam pertinet actus, quem seruus administrauit.
To be sure, the Divine Marcus rescribed that an arbiter should be appointed immediately, before whom accounts should be rendered; but this rescript pertains to the rendering of accounts for the administration which the slave conducted.
arbitror igitur et hic posse hanc actionem competere.
Therefore, I think that this action can also apply here.