[ULPIANUS libro quinto ad edictum. ] §5.4.1.prPost actionem, quam proposuit praetor ei qui ad se solum hereditatem pertinere contendit, consequens fuit et ei proponere qui partem hereditatis petit.
After the action which the praetor proposed for him who claims that the inheritance belongs to him alone, it was consequential also to propose one for him who claims a part of the inheritance.
§5.4.1.1Qui hereditatem uel partem hereditatis petit, is non ex eo metitur quod possessor occupauit, sed ex suo iure: et ideo siue ex asse heres sit, totam hereditatem uindicabit, licet tu unam rem possideas, siue ex parte, partem, licet tu totam hereditatem possideas.
He who claims an inheritance or a part of an inheritance does not measure it by what the possessor has occupied, but by his own right: and therefore, whether he is heir to the whole, he will claim the whole inheritance, even though you possess only one thing, or whether he is heir to a part, he will claim a part, even though you possess the whole inheritance.
§5.4.1.2Quin immo si duo possideant hereditatem et duo sint, qui ad se partes pertinere dicant, non singuli a singulis petere contenti esse debent, puta primus a primo uel secundus a secundo, sed ambo a primo et ambo a secundo: neque enim alter primi, alter secundi partem possidet, sed ambo utriusque pro herede.
Nay, on the contrary, if two persons possess the inheritance and there are two who say that the parts belong to them, they ought not to be content to claim individually from individuals, for example, the first from the first or the second from the second, but both from the first and both from the second: for one does not possess the part of the first, and the other of the second, but both possess the part of each as heir.
et si possessor et petitor possideant hereditatem, cum unusquisque eorum partem dimidiam hereditatis sibi adserat, inuicem petere debebunt, ut partes rerum consequantur: aut si controuersiam sibi non faciunt hereditatis, familiae herciscundae experiri eos oportebit.
And if the possessor and the claimant possess the inheritance, while each of them asserts a half part of the inheritance for himself, they will have to claim from each other in turn, so that they may obtain the parts of the things; or, if they do not raise a dispute about the inheritance among themselves, they will have to bring an action for the division of the inheritance.
§5.4.1.3Si ego ex parte me dicam heredem, coheres autem meus possideat hereditatem cum extraneo, cum non plus coheres haberet sua parte, utrum a solo extraneo an uero et a coherede deberem petere hereditatem, quaeritur.
If I say that I am heir to a part, while my co-heir possesses the inheritance together with an outsider, since the co-heir does not have more than his own part, the question is raised whether I ought to claim the inheritance from the outsider alone, or indeed from the co-heir as well.
et Pegasus fertur existimasse a solo extraneo me petere debere eumque restituturum quidquid possidet, et fortassis hoc officio iudicis debeat fieri: ceterum ratio facit, ut a duobus petam hereditatem, hoc est et a coherede meo, et ille quoque dirigat actionem aduersus exterum possessorem: sed Pegasi sententia utilior est.
And Pegasus is reported to have thought that I ought to claim from the outsider alone and that he will restore whatever he possesses, and perhaps this ought to be done by the office of the judge; but reason dictates that I should claim the inheritance from both, that is, also from my co-heir, and that he too should direct an action against the outsider possessor; but Pegasus' opinion is more useful.
§5.4.1.4Item si, cum me ex parte dimidia heredem dicerem, trientem hereditatis possiderem, deinde residuum sextantem uelim persequi, qualiter agam uideamus.
Likewise, if, while I claim to be heir to a half part, I possess one-third of the inheritance, and then wish to pursue the remaining one-sixth, let us see how I should act.
et Labeo scribit utique partem dimidiam me petere debere a singulis: sic fieri ut a singulis sextantem consequar, et habebo bessem: quod uerum puto: sed ipse tenebor ad restitutionem sextantis ex triente quem possidebam.
And Labeo writes that I ought by all means to claim a half part from each individual: thus it happens that I obtain one-sixth from each, and I will have two-thirds; which I think is correct. But I myself will be bound to restore one-sixth out of the one-third which I possessed.
et ideo officio iudicis inuicem compensatio erit admittenda eius quod possideo, si forte coheredes sint a quibus hereditatem peto.
And therefore, by the office of the judge, a mutual set-off of what I possess will have to be admitted, if by chance those from whom I claim the inheritance are co-heirs.
§5.4.1.5Interdum praetor incertae partis hereditatis petitionem indulget idoneis causis interuenientibus: ut puta est defuncti fratris filius, sunt et uxores defunctorum fratrum praegnates: quam partem fratris filius hereditatis uindicet incertum est, quia quot edantur fratrum defuncti filii incertum est.
Sometimes, when suitable causes intervene, the praetor grants a claim for an uncertain part of the inheritance: as, for example, there is a son of a deceased brother, and there are also pregnant wives of deceased brothers: what part of the inheritance the brother’s son should claim is uncertain, because it is uncertain how many sons of the deceased brothers will be born.
aequissimum igitur est incertae partis uindicationem ei concedi.
It is therefore most equitable that the claim for an uncertain part be granted to him.
non audenter itaque dicetur, ubicumque merito quis incertus est quam partem uindicet, debere ei incertae partis uindicationem concedi.
Thus, it will not be said rashly that, wherever someone is justly uncertain what part he should claim, the claim for an uncertain part ought to be granted to him.