[ULPIANUS libro sexto fideicommissorum. ] §5.1.50.prSi fideicommissum ab aliquo petatur isque dicat alibi esse maiorem partem hereditatis, non erit ad praestationem compellendus: et ita multis constitutionibus cauetur, ut ibi petatur fideicommissum, ubi maior pars hereditatis est: nisi si probetur eo loco uoluisse testatorem fideicommissum praestari, ubi petitur.
[ULPIANUS libro sexto fideicommissorum.] If a fideicommissum is claimed from someone, and they state that the greater part of the inheritance is elsewhere, they shall not be compelled to perform it: and it is so provided by many constitutions, that the fideicommissum should be claimed where the greater part of the inheritance is: unless it is proved that the testator wished the fideicommissum to be performed in that place where it is claimed.
§5.1.50.1Tractatum est de aere alieno: si in ea prouincia, ubi fideicommissum petitur, plus esset aeris alieni, an quasi maior pars alibi esset, praescriptio locum haberet.
There has been a discussion concerning debts: if in that province where the fideicommissum is claimed, there were more debts, whether the objection would have place, as if the greater part were elsewhere.
sed et hic placuit nihil facere aeris alieni nomen, cum non loci sit aes alienum, sed uniuersarum facultatium: aes enim alienum patrimonium totum imminuere constitit, non certi loci facultates.
But here also it was decided that the designation of debt does nothing, since debt belongs not to a place, but to the entire assets: for it is established that debt diminishes the whole patrimony, not the resources of a certain place.
quid tamen si forte certis oneribus destinatum sit id patrimonium, ut puta alimentis praestandis quae Romae praestari pater familias iusserat, uel tributis uel quibusdum aliis inexcusabilibus oneribus, an possit praescriptio locum habere? hic putem iustius dici locum habere.
What, however, if that patrimony should happen to be destined for certain burdens, such as providing maintenance which the paterfamilias had ordered to be provided at Rome, or taxes, or some other unavoidable burdens, could the objection have place? Here I should think it more just to say that it has place.
§5.1.50.2Sed et rescriptum est, ut illic fideicommissum petatur, ubi domicilium heres habet.
But it was also replied by rescript, that the fideicommissum should be claimed where the heir has his domicile.
quotiens autem coepit quis fideicommissum soluere, non potest hac praescriptione uti,
Whenever, however, anyone has begun to pay a fideicommissum, they cannot use this objection,