[PAULUS libro septimo decimo ad Plautium. ] §5.1.28.prSed et si restituatur ei hereditas ex Trebelliano, actio in eum non dabitur, siue sponte siue coactus heres eam adierit: commodius enim est reddi quidem ei hereditatem, perinde autem habendum, ac si ipse adisset hereditatem.
[PAULUS, in the seventeenth book on Plautius.] But also if the inheritance is restored to him under the Trebellian decree, an action will not be granted against him, whether the heir has entered upon it voluntarily or under compulsion; for it is more convenient that the inheritance should indeed be restored to him, but it must be held in the same way as if he himself had entered upon the inheritance.
§5.1.28.1Contra si legatus tempore legationis adierit et restituerit, datur in fideicommissarium actio, nec exceptio Trebelliani obstat ex persona legati, quia hoc legati personale beneficium est.
On the other hand, if an envoy, during the time of his embassy, has entered upon and restored it, an action is granted against the beneficiary of the trust, nor does the Trebellian exception on the part of the envoy stand in the way, because this is a personal privilege of the envoy.
§5.1.28.2Ex quibus autem causis non cogitur legatus iudicium accipere, nec iurare cogendus est se dare non oportere, quia hoc iusiurandum in locum litis contestatae succedit.
Moreover, for the same reasons that an envoy is not compelled to accept a trial, neither must he be compelled to swear that he is not bound to give, because this oath takes the place of joinder of issue.
§5.1.28.3Aedium nomine legatus damni infecti promittere debet aut uicinum admittere in possessionem.
On account of a building, an envoy ought to give security against impending damage, or admit his neighbor into possession.
§5.1.28.4Sed et si dies actionis exitura erit, causa cognita aduersus eum iudicium praetor dare debet, ut lis contestetur ita, ut in prouinciam transferatur.
But also if the period of limitation for an action is about to expire, the praetor, after investigating the case, ought to grant a trial against him, so that issue may be joined in such a way that the case may be transferred to the province.
§5.1.28.5Si pater familias mortuus esset relicto uno filio et uxore praegnate, non recte filius a debitoribus partem dimidiam crediti petere potest, quamuis postea unus filius natus sit, quia poterant plures nasci: cum per rerum naturam certum fuerit unum nasci.
If a head of a household died leaving one son and a pregnant wife, the son cannot rightly demand a half share of the debt from the debtors, although afterwards only one son was born, because more could have been born; even though by the nature of things it was certain that only one would be born.
sed Sabinus Cassius partem quartam peti debuisse, quia incertum esset an tres nascerentur: nec rerum naturam intuendam, in qua omnia certa essent, cum futura utique fierent, sed nostram inscientiam aspici debere.
But Sabinus and Cassius held that a fourth share ought to have been demanded, because it was uncertain whether three might be born; and that the nature of things, in which all things are certain, since future things will at all events happen, is not to be looked at, but our own ignorance must be regarded.