Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §49.14.26.pr

Emancipation of a Son by a Capital Defendant and Fraud on the Treasury

Passage 8547 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

It cites a rescript stating that when a defendant facing a capital charge emancipates his son to let him accept an inheritance, it is not considered a fraud against the treasury regarding what has not yet been acquired.

[IDEM libro trigensimo primo ad Sabinum. ] §49.14.26.prCum quidam capitis reus emancipasset filium, ut hereditatem adiret, rescriptum est non uideri in fraudem fisci factum, quod adquisitum non est.
[THE SAME, On Sabinus, Book XXXI.] When a person accused of a capital crime had emancipated his son in order that the latter might enter upon an inheritance, it was stated in a rescript that what has not been acquired is not considered to have been done to defraud the treasury.

Notes

  1. §49.14.26.prcapitis reus — The genitive "capitis" is a genitive of charge or penalty, referring to a capital crime or one involving the loss of civil status (caput).
  2. §49.14.26.prquod adquisitum non est — A relative clause with an omitted antecedent, meaning "that which has not been acquired." It functions as the subject within the accusative and infinitive construction, explaining that if the inheritance had not yet been acquired by the father (and thus could not be confiscated by the treasury), its diversion via emancipation cannot constitute a fraud against the treasury.

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §49.14.26.pr. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:49.14.26.pr

Please note the AI-draft status of the translation and the date accessed.

Translation, notes and summary are AI-generated drafts, revised through reader feedback.