Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §5.3.5.pr-5.3.5.2

Disposal of Inheritance Assets and Stay of Proceedings

Passage 1001 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

Ulpian explains the rescript of Antoninus Pius prohibiting the disposal of disputed inheritance before litigation along with the praetor's exceptions (such as funerals and pledges), and outlines Hadrian's rule on suspending inheritance petitions during forgery trials, emphasizing the overriding authority of inheritance lawsuits.

[ULPIANUS libro quarto decimo ad edictum. ] §5.3.5.prDiuus Pius rescripsit prohibendum possessorem hereditatis, de qua controuersia erit, antequam lis inchoaretur, aliquid ex ea distrahere: nisi maluerit pro omni quantitate hereditatis uel rerum eius restitutione satisdare.
[ULPIANUS in the fourteenth book on the Edict.] The Divine Pius issued a rescript stating that the possessor of an inheritance about which there is a dispute must be prohibited from disposing of anything from it before the lawsuit is initiated, unless he prefers to give security for the entire value of the inheritance or for the restoration of its property.
causa autem cognita, etsi non talis data sit satisdatio, sed solita cautio, etiam post litem coeptam deminutionem se concessurum praetor edixit, ne in totum deminutio impedita in aliquo etiam utilitates alias impediat.
However, the praetor declared in his edict that, after an inquiry into the case, even if such security is not given but only the customary caution is provided, he will permit a reduction of the property even after the lawsuit has begun, lest a reduction completely prevented should also in some respect impede other utilities.
ut puta si ad funus sit aliquid necessarium: nam funeris gratia deminutionem permittit.
As for example, if something is necessary for a funeral; for he permits a reduction for the sake of a funeral.
item si futurum est, ut, nisi pecunia intra diem soluatur, pignus distrahatur.
Likewise, if it is to happen that, unless the money is paid within the day, the pledge will be sold.
sed et propter familiae cibaria necessaria erit deminutio.
Furthermore, a reduction will be necessary because of the essential provisions for the household.
sed et res tempore perituras permittere debet praetor distrahere.
Moreover, the praetor ought to permit the disposal of things that will perish with time.
§5.3.5.1Diuus Hadrianus Trebio Sergiano rescripsit, ut Aelius Asiaticus daret satis de hereditate quae ab eo petitur, et sic falsum dicat: hoc ideo, quia sustinetur hereditatis petitionis iudicium, donec falsi causa agatur.
The Divine Hadrian issued a rescript to Trebius Sergianus that Aelius Asiaticus should give security concerning the inheritance claimed from him, and then plead forgery; this is because the trial of the petition for inheritance is suspended until the case of forgery is conducted.
§5.3.5.2Eorum iudiciorum, quae de hereditatis petitione sunt, ea auctoritas est, ut nihil in praeiudicium eius iudicii fieri debeat.
The authority of those trials which concern the petition for inheritance is such that nothing ought to be done to the prejudice of that trial.

Notes

  1. §5.3.5.prprohibendum possessorem — In the indirect speech, `esse` is omitted after the gerundive `prohibendum`. The verb `prohibere` takes the construction 'to prohibit [someone, accusative] from doing [something, infinitive]', where `possessorem` is the accusative and `distrahere` is the infinitive indicating the prohibited action.
  2. §5.3.5.prne in totum deminutio impedita — `impedita` is a perfect passive participle modifying the subject `deminutio`, conveying a conditional or hypothetical sense ('if a reduction is completely prevented'). `in totum` adverbially modifies `impedita` to mean 'completely' or 'entirely'.
  3. §5.3.5.1daret satis... et sic falsum dicat — In the `ut` clause introduced by the historical perfect `rescripsit`, the first verb `daret` (imperfect subjunctive) follows the sequence of tenses, whereas the subsequent `dicat` (present subjunctive) shifts away from the sequence. This tense shift highlights the act of pleading forgery (`falsum dicere`) as a distinct, subsequent, and direct procedural action following the giving of security.

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §5.3.5.pr-5.3.5.2. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:5.3.5.pr-5.3.5.2

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.