[PAULUS libro uicensimo ad edictum. ] §5.3.36.prSi a domino uel a patre, qui pretia possidet, hereditas petatur, an filio uel seruo mortuo uel seruo manumisso uel emancipato filio intra annum agi debeat? et an debitum sibi dominus uel pater deducere potest? Iulianus uerius esse ait, id quod Proculus quoque respondit, perpetuo actionem dandam nec deduci oportere id quod ipsi debetur, quia non de peculio agatur, sed hereditas petatur.
[PAULUS in his twentieth book on the Edict.] If an inheritance is claimed from a master or a father who possesses the price, must the action be brought within a year after the death of the son or slave, or after the manumission of the slave or the emancipation of the son? And can the master or father deduct what is owed to himself? Julian says it is more correct—which Proculus also answered—that the action should be granted without time limit, and that what is owed to him ought not to be deducted, because the action is not brought concerning the peculium, but the inheritance is claimed.
haec recte, si pretia habeat seruus uel filius familias.
This is correct if the slave or the son-in-power holds the price.
quod si propterea hereditas petatur a domino, quod seruus debitor fuit, perinde haberi debebit, atque si de peculio ageretur.
But if the inheritance is claimed from the master on the ground that the slave was a debtor, it must be treated just as if the action were brought concerning the peculium.
idem dicendum Mauricianus ait etiam si pecuniam ex pretio perceptam seruus uel filius consumpserit, sed alias ex peculio eius solui potest.
Mauricianus says that the same should be said even if the slave or son has spent the money received from the price, provided that it can be paid otherwise from his peculium.
§5.3.36.1Sed et a filio familias peti hereditatem posse non est dubium, quia restituendi facultatem habet, sicut ad exhibendum.
But there is no doubt that an inheritance can also be claimed from a son-in-power, because he has the power of restoring it, just as in an action for production.
multo magis dicimus posse peti hereditatem a filio familias, qui, cum pater familias esset et possideret hereditatem, adrogandum se praestauit.
We say much more that an inheritance can be claimed from a son-in-power who, when he was a father of a family and possessed the inheritance, offered himself for adrogation.
§5.3.36.2Si possessor hereditarium seruum occiderit, id quoque in hereditatis petitione ueniet: sed Pomponius ait actorem debere eligere, utrum uelit sibi eum condemnari, ut caueat se non acturum lege Aquilia, an malit integram sibi esse actionem legis Aquiliae omissa eius rei aestimatione a iudice.
If a possessor kills a slave belonging to the inheritance, that also will come into the claim for inheritance. But Pomponius says that the plaintiff must choose whether he wishes the defendant to be condemned to him for the slave, promising that he will not bring an action under the Lex Aquilia, or whether he prefers to keep his action under the Lex Aquilia intact, with the valuation of that thing being omitted by the judge.
quae electio locum habet, si ante aditam hereditatem occisus sit seruus: nam si postea, ipsius actio propria effecta est nec ueniet in hereditatis petitionem.
This choice is available if the slave was killed before the inheritance was accepted; for if afterwards, the action became the plaintiff's own proper action and will not come into the claim for inheritance.
§5.3.36.3Si praedo dolo desisset possidere, res autem eo modo interierit, quo esset interitura et si eadem causa possessionis mansisset: quantum ad uerba senatus consulti melior est causa praedonis quam bonae fidei possessoris, quia praedo, si dolo desierit possidere, ita condemnatur atque si possideret, nec adiectum esset, si res interierit. sed non est dubium, quin non debeat melioris esse condicionis quam bonae fidei possessor.
If a robber has ceased to possess by fraud, and the thing has perished in the same way as it would have perished even if the same condition of possession had remained: as far as the words of the senate decree are concerned, the position of the robber is better than that of the bona fide possessor, because the robber, if he has ceased to possess by fraud, is condemned just as if he were possessing, and no addition was made "if the thing has perished." But there is no doubt that he ought not to be in a better position than a bona fide possessor.
itaque et si pluris uenierit res, electio debebit esse actoris, ut pretium consequatur: alioquin lucretur aliquid praedo.
Therefore, even if the thing was sold for a higher price, the choice must belong to the plaintiff to obtain the price; otherwise, the robber would make some profit.
§5.3.36.4Quo tempore locupletior esse debeat bonae fidei possessor, dubitatur: sed magis est rei iudicatae tempus spectandum esse.
At what time a bona fide possessor ought to be enriched is doubted; but it is more accepted that the time of the judgment should be looked at.
§5.3.36.5Fructus intelleguntur deductis impensis, quae quaerendorum cogendorum conseruandorumque eorum gratia fiunt.
Fruits are understood to be after the deduction of expenses incurred for the purpose of acquiring, collecting, and preserving them.
quod non solum in bonae fidei possessoribus naturalis ratio expostulat, uerum etiam in praedonibus, sicut Sabino quoque placuit.
This natural reason demands not only in the case of bona fide possessors, but also in the case of robbers, as was also approved by Sabinus.