[ULPIANUS libro octauo decimo ad edictum. ] §9.2.23.prInde Neratius scribit, si seruus heres institutus occisus sit, etiam hereditatis aestimationem uenire.
[ULPIANUS, from the eighteenth book on the Edict.] Hence Neratius writes that if a slave who has been instituted as heir is killed, the valuation of the inheritance also comes into the assessment.
§9.2.23.1Iulianus ait, si seruus liber et heres esse iussus occisus fuerit, neque substitutum neque legitimum actione legis Aquiliae hereditatis aestimationem consecuturum, quae seruo competere non potuit: quae sententia uera est.
Julian says that if a slave who has been ordered to be free and heir is killed, neither the substitute nor the intestate heir will obtain, by an action under the Lex Aquilia, the valuation of the inheritance, which could not have belonged to the slave; which opinion is correct.
pretii igitur solummodo fieri aestimationem, quia hoc interesse solum substituti uideretur: ego autem puto nec pretii fieri aestimationem, quia, si heres esset, et liber esset.
Therefore, [according to Julian,] only a valuation of his price is made, because only this would seem to be the interest of the substitute. But I think that not even a valuation of his price is made, because, if he were the heir, he would also be free.
§9.2.23.2Idem Iulianus scribit, si institutus fuero sub condicione 'si Stichum manumisero' et Stichus sit occisus post mortem testatoris, in aestimationem etiam hereditatis pretium me consecuturum: propter occisionem enim defecit condicio: quod si uiuo testatore occisus sit, hereditatis aestimationem cessare, quia retrorsum quanti plurimi fuit inspicitur.
The same Julian writes that if I have been instituted under the condition 'if I manumit Stichus', and Stichus is killed after the death of the testator, I will also obtain the value of the inheritance in the assessment; for because of the killing, the condition failed. But if he is killed while the testator is still alive, the valuation of the inheritance does not apply, because we look backward to how much he was worth at his highest during that year.
§9.2.23.3Idem Iulianus scribit aestimationem hominis occisi ad id tempus referri, quo plurimi in eo anno fuit: et ideo et si pretioso pictori pollex fuerit praecisus et intra annum, quo praecideretur, fuerit occisus, posse eum Aquilia agere pretioque eo aestimandum, quanti fuit priusquam artem cum pollice amisisset.
The same Julian writes that the valuation of a killed slave is referred to that time at which he was worth the most in that year; and therefore, if the thumb of a valuable painter is cut off, and he is killed within the year in which it was cut off, his master can bring an action under the Lex Aquilia, and he must be valued at that price which he was worth before he lost his skill along with his thumb.
§9.2.23.4Sed et si seruus, qui magnas fraudes in meis rationibus commiserat, fuerit occisus, de quo quaestionem habere destinaueram, ut fraudium participes eruerentur, rectissime Labeo scribit tanti aestimandum, quanti mea intererat fraudes serui per eum commissas detegi, non quanti noxa eius serui ualeat.
But also, if a slave who had committed great frauds in my accounts is killed, whom I had intended to put to torture so that the accomplices in the frauds might be discovered, Labeo very rightly writes that he must be valued at the amount of my interest in having the frauds committed by the slave through him detected, and not at the value of the body of that slave.
§9.2.23.5Sed et si bonae frugi seruus intra annum mutatis moribus occisus sit, pretium id aestimabitur, quanto ualeret, priusquam mores mutaret.
But also, if a well-behaved slave, having changed his character within the year, is killed, that price will be assessed at which he was worth before he changed his character.
§9.2.23.6In summa omnia commoda, quae intra annum, quo interfectus est, pretiosiorem seruum facerent, haec accedere ad aestimationem eius dicendum est.
In short, it must be said that all advantages which, within the year in which he was killed, would make the slave more valuable, are added to his valuation.
§9.2.23.7Si infans sit occisus nondum anniculus, uerius est sufficere hanc actionem, ut aestimatio referatur ad id tempus, quo intra annum uixit.
If an infant who is not yet a year old is killed, it is more correct that this action is sufficient, so that the valuation is referred to that time during which he lived within the year.
§9.2.23.8Hanc actionem et heredi ceterisque successoribus dari constat: sed in heredem uel ceteros haec actio non dabitur, cum sit poenalis, nisi forte ex damno locupletior heres factus sit.
It is established that this action is granted also to the heir and other successors; but this action will not be granted against the heir or others, since it is penal, unless perhaps the heir has become richer from the damage.
§9.2.23.9Si dolo seruus occisus sit, et lege Cornelia agere dominum posse constat: et si lege Aquilia egerit, praeiudicium fieri Corneliae non debet.
If a slave is killed with wrongful intent, it is established that the owner can also bring an action under the Lex Cornelia; and if he brings an action under the Lex Aquilia, this should not create a prejudicial effect on the Cornelia.
§9.2.23.10Haec actio aduersus confitentem competit in simplum, aduersus negantem in duplum.
This action lies for single damages against one who admits the fact, and for double damages against one who denies it.
§9.2.23.11Si quis hominem uiuum falso confiteatur occidisse et postea paratus sit ostendere hominem uiuum esse, Iulianus scribit cessare Aquiliam, quamuis confessus sit se occidisse: hoc enim solum remittere actori confessoriam actionem, ne necesse habeat docere eum occidisse: ceterum occisum esse hominem a quocumque oportet.
If someone falsely admits that he has killed a living man and is afterwards prepared to show that the man is alive, Julian writes that the Aquilian action does not apply, although he admitted that he killed him; for this confession in the action only excuses the plaintiff from the necessity of proving that the defendant killed him; but otherwise, it is necessary that the man has been killed by someone.