[AFRICANUS libro tertio quaestionum. ] §48.10.6.prSi quis legatum sibi adscripserit, tenetur poena legis Corneliae, quamuis inutile legatum sit: nam et eum teneri constat, qui eo testamento, quod postea ruptum uel etiam quod initio non iure fieret, legatum sibi adscripserit.
[AFRICANUS, Questions, Book III] If anyone writes a legacy to himself, he is liable to the penalty of the Lex Cornelia, even though the legacy is invalid: for it is clear that he too is liable who writes a legacy to himself in a will which is subsequently revoked, or even one which from the beginning was not legally made.
hoc tamen tunc uerum est, cum perfectum testamentum erit.
This, however, is true only when the will has been completed.
ceterum si non signatum fuerit, magis est ut senatus consulto locus non sit, sicuti nec interdictum de tabulis testamenti exhibendis locum habet: prius enim oportet esse aliquod testamentum uel non iure factum, ut senatus consulto locus sit.
But if it has not been sealed, the better opinion is that there is no room for the senatusconsultum, just as the interdict for producing the tablets of a will does not apply: for there must first be some will, even if not legally made, for there to be room for the senatusconsultum.
nam et falsum testamentum id demum recte dicitur, quod, si adulterinum non esset, uerum tamen testamentum recte dicetur.
For indeed, a forged will is only properly so called if, were it not counterfeit, it would be properly called a genuine will.
similiter igitur et non iure factum testamentum id appellatur, in quo si omnia rite facta essent, iure factum diceretur.
Similarly, therefore, a will not legally made is so called when, if all things had been properly done, it would be said to have been legally made.
§48.10.6.1Si institutus heres exheredationem nominatim filii uel aliarum personarum adscribat, senatus consulto tenetur.
If an appointed heir writes the disinheritance of a son or of other persons by name, he is liable under the senatusconsultum.
§48.10.6.2Similiter et is, qui libertatem sua manu ademit serui testatoris et maxime cui a se legata uel fideicommissa data erant, senatus consulto tenetur.
Similarly, he also is liable under the senatusconsultum who by his own hand deprives a slave of the testator of his freedom, and especially one to whom legacies or fideicommissa had been given by himself.
§48.10.6.3Si patronus testamento liberti legatum sibi scripserit et uenia inpetrata abstinere legato iussus est, an emolumentum bonorum possessionis contra tabulas habere possit? et magis placet non posse.
If a patron has written a legacy to himself in the will of his freedman and, having obtained pardon, has been ordered to abstain from the legacy, can he have the benefit of possession of goods contrary to the will? And the better opinion is that he cannot.
nec tamen huic consequens est, ut et, si uxor dotem uel creditor id, quod in diem sibi deberetur, sibi adscripserit et similiter uenia impetrata abstinere se legato iubeantur, aut mulieri dotis aut creditori actio sua denegari debet, ne eorum uterque merito debito careat.
Yet it does not follow from this that if a wife has written a dowry for herself, or a creditor has written for himself what was due to him on a future day, and they are similarly ordered to abstain from the legacy after obtaining pardon, either the woman should be denied her action for the dowry or the creditor his action, lest either of them be deprived of what is justly owed to them.