[IDEM libro trigensimo quinto quaestionum. ] §49.17.15.prPater militi filio reuerso quod donat, castrensis peculii non facit, sed alterius peculii, perinde ac si filius numquam militasset.
[THE SAME in his thirty-fifth book of Questions.] What a father donates to his son who has returned from service, he does not make part of the castrense peculium, but of the other peculium, just as if the son had never served.
§49.17.15.1Si stipulanti filio spondeat, si quidem ex causa peculii castrensis, tenebit stipulatio: ceterum ex qualibet alia causa non tenebit.
If he promises to his son who stipulates, if indeed on account of the castrense peculium, the stipulation will hold; but on any other account, it will not hold.
§49.17.15.2Si pater a filio stipulatur, eadem distinctio seruabitur.
If the father stipulates from the son, the same distinction will be observed.
§49.17.15.3Seruus peculii, quod ad filium spectat, ab extero si stipuletur aut per traditionem accipiat, sine distinctione causarum res ad filium pertinebit: non enim ut filius duplex ius sustinet patris et filii familias, ita seruus, qui peculii castrensis est quique nullo iure, quamdiu filius uiuit, patri subiectus est, aliquid adquirere simpliciter stipulando uel accipiendo patri potest.
If a slave belonging to the peculium which pertains to the son stipulates from an outsider or receives through delivery, the thing will belong to the son without distinction of causes; for unlike the son who sustains a double right of a father and of a filius basins, the slave, who belongs to the castrense peculium and who by no right is subject to the father as long as the son lives, cannot acquire anything for the father simply by stipulating or receiving.
quae ratio suadet, ut, si ab ipso patre seruus, qui ad filium pertinet, stipuletur ex quacumque causa uel traditum accipiat, sic adquiratur filio res et stipulatio, quemadmodum si exter promisisset, quoniam persona stipulantis et accipientis ea est, ut sine differentia causarum quod per eum agitur emolumentum filii spectet.
This reasoning suggests that, if the slave who belongs to the son stipulates from the father himself on any account whatever or receives what is delivered, the thing and the stipulation are acquired for the son in the same manner as if an outsider had promised, since the person of the stipulator and receiver is such that, without difference of causes, the benefit of what is transacted through him looks to the son.
§49.17.15.4Si serui pater usum fructum amiserit, cuius proprietatem in castrensi peculio filius habebat, plenam proprietatem habebit filius.
If the father should lose the usufruct of a slave whose ownership the son held in his castrense peculium, the son will have full ownership.