factum testamentum decessisset testator, hoc non debet ideò valere, quia diutiùs testator vixerit. Sub conditione verò rectè legatur servo, ut requiramus, an, quo tempore dies legati cedit, in potestate hæredis hon sit. the testator; for a bequest, void if the testator had expired immediately after he had made it, ought not to become valid, merely because he happened to enjoy a longer life. But à testator may give a conditional legacy to the slave, (of his instituted heir,) which will be good, if the slave be not under power of the heir, when the condition is fulfilled. De domino hæredis. § XXXIII. Ex diverso, hærede instituto servo, quin domino rectè etiam sinè conditione legetur, non dubitatur: nam, etsi statim post factum testamentum decesserit testator, non tamen apud eum, qui hæres sit, dies legati cedere intelligitur: cùm hæreditas à legato separata sit, et possit per eum servum alius hæres effici, si prius, quam jussu domini adeat, in alterius potestatem translatus sit; vel manumissus ipse hæres efficitur: quibus casibus utile est legatum. Quod si in eâdem causâ permanserit, et jussu legatarii adierit, evanescit lega tum. $33. On the contrary it is not doubted, but if a slave be appointed heir, that his master may take an unconditional legacy (by the same testament:) for, although the testator should die instantly, yet the legacy does not become immediately due from the slave who is heir; for the inheritance is here separate from the legacy, and another may become heir by means of the slave, if he should be transferred to a new master, before he hath entered upon the inheritance, at the command of his master, who is the legatee; or the slave himself may become heir in his own right by manumission; and, in these cases, the legacy would be good. But, if the slave should remain in the same state, and enter upon the inheritance by order of his master, who is the legatee, the legacy becomes extinct. tum, intelligitur totius testamenti hæredis institutio. Pari ratione, nec libertas ante hæredis institutionem dari poterat. Sed, quia incivile esse putavimus, scripturæ ordinem quidem sequi, (quod et ipsi antiquitati vituperandum fuerat visum,) sperni autem testatoris voluntatem, per nostrâm constitutionem et hoc vitium emendavimus, ut liceat et antè hæredis institutionem et inter medias heredum institutiones legatum relinquere, et multò magis libertatem, cujus usus favorabilior est. son the institution of an heir should always precede the grant of freedom. But we have thought it wrong that the mere order of writing should be attended to, in opposition to the express intention of a testator: and the ancients themselves seem to have thought so: we have therefore, by our constitution, amended the law in this point; so that a legacy, and à fortiori, a grant of liberty, which is always favoured, may now be bequeathed, before the institution of an heir, (where there is but one; and, either before, or between the institutions of heirs, where there are several.) De legato post mortem hæredis, vel legatarii. XXXV. Post mortem quoque hæredis aut legatarii simili modo inutilitèr legabatur: veluti, si quis ita dicat, cum hæres meus mortuus fuerit, do, lego: item pridie quam hæres aut legatarius morietur. Sed simili modo et hoc correximus, firmitatem hujusmodi legatis ad fideicommissorum similitudinem præstantes; ne in hoc casu deterior causa legatorum, quam fidei-commissorum, inveniatur. Si pœnæ nomine relinquatur, XXXVI. Pœnæ quoque nomine inutilitèr antea legabatur, et adimebatur, vel transferebatur. Pœnæ autem nomine legari videtur, quod coercendi hæredis causâ relinquitur, quo magis aliquid faciat, 35. A bequest, made to take place after the death of an heir or legatee, was also ineffectual: for, if a testator had said, when my heir is dead, I give and bequeath, or even thus, I give and bequeath the day preceding the day of the death of my heir, or, of my legatee, the legacies were void. But we have corrected the ancient rule in this respect, by giving all such legacies the same validity, as gifts in trust; lest trusts should be found to be more favoured, than legacies. · adimatur, vel transferatur. § 36. Also formerly, if a testator had given, revoked, or transferred a legacy nomine pœnæ, he would have acted ineffectually: and a legacy is reputed to be bequeathed nomine pœnæ, [i. e. as a punishment or penal aut non faciat: veluti si quis ita scripserit, hæres meus si filiam suam in matrimonium Titio collocaverit; vel ex diverso, si non collocaverit, dato decem aureos Seio ; aut si ita scripserit, hæres meus si sersum Stichum alienaverit: vel ex diverso, si non alienaverit, Titio decem aureos dato. Et in tantùm hæc regula observabatur, ut quam plurimis principalibus constitutionibus significaretur, nec principem agnoscere, quod ei pœnæ nomine legatum sit: nec ex militis quidem testamento talia legata valebant: quamvis aliæ militum voluntates in ordinandis testamentis valdè observabantur: quinetiam nec libertates pœnæ nomine dari posse placebat: eo ampliùs, nec hæredem pœnæ nomine adjici posse, Sabinus existimabat: veluti si quis ita dicat, Titius hæres esto; si Titius filiam suam in matrimonium Seio collocaverit, Seius quoque hæres esto. Nihil enim intererat, quâ ratione Titius coerceretur, utrum legati datione, an cohæredis adjectione. Sed hujusmodi scrupulositas nobis non placuit; et generalitèr ea, quæ relinquuntur, licèt pœnæ nomine fuerint relicta vel adempta, vel in alium translata, nihil distare à cæteris legatis constituimus, vel in dando, vel in adimendo, vel in transferendo: exceptis videlicèt iis, quæ impossibilia sunt, vel legibus interdicta, aut alias probrosa. Hujusmodi enim testamentorum disposi ty,] when an heir is put under the necessity of doing or not doing something; as if a testator had thus written; if my heir give his daughter in marriage to TITIUS; or, if he do not give her in marriage to TITIUS, let him pay ten AUREI to SEIUS: or thus, if my heir shall alien my slave STICHUS; or, if my heir shall not alien my slave STICHUS, let him pay ten AUREI to TITIUS. And this rule was so far observed, that it was expressly ordained by many constitutions, that even the emperor could not receive a legacy, which was bequeathed nomine pœnæ ; nor could a penal legacy be valid, even when bequeathed by the testament of a soldier; although, in every other respect, the intention of a testator in a military testament was scrupulously adhered to. And even freedom could not be bequeathed, nor, in the opinion of SABINUS could an heir he added in a testament, nomine pœnæ : for, if a testator had said, let TITIUS be my heir, but if he give his daughter in marriage to SEIUS, let SEIUS also be my heir, the appointment of Seius would have been void; for the manner, in which an heir was laid under coercion, whether by the gift of a legacy, or by the addition of another heir, worked no alteration in the general rule of law. But this strictness hath not pleased us, and we have therefore ordained generally that things left, revoked, or transferred, nomine tiones valere secta meorum tempo- pœnæ, should fall under the same rum non patitur. rules of law as other legacies, whereof the condition is neither impossible, prohibited by law, or contrary to good manners, for the morality, of the present times, will not suffer testamentary dispositions of this cha SUPEREST, ut de lege Falcidia dispiciamus, quâ modus novissimè legatis impositus est. Cum enim olim lege duodecim tabularum libera erat legandi potestas, ut liceret vel totum patrimonium legatis erogare; quippè, cum eâ lege ita cautum esset, uti quisque legassit suæ rei, ita jus esto, visum est hanc legandi licentiam coarctare; idque ipsorum testamentorum gratiâ provisum est, ob id, quod plerumque intestati moriebantur, recusantibus scriptis hæredibus pro nullo aut minimo lucro hæreditates adire. Et, cum super hoc tam lex Furia, quam lex Voconia latæ sunt, quarum neutra sufficiens ad rei consummationem videbatur, novissimè lata est lex Falcidia, quâ cavetur, ne plus legare liceat, quam dodrantem totorum bonorum; id est, ut, sive unus hæres institutus sit, sivè plures, apud eum eosve pars quarta remaneat. De pluribus § I. Et, cum quæsitum esset, duobus hæredibus institutis (veluti Titio et Seio) si Titii pars aut tota exhausta sit legatis, quæ nominatim ab eo data sunt, aut supra modum onerata, à Seio verò aut nulla relic It remains to speak of the law Falcidia, by which legacies have received their latest regulation. By the law of the 12 tables, uti quisque legassit suæ rei, ita jus esto, a testator was permitted to dispose of his whole patrimony in legacies: but it was thought proper to restrain this licence even for the benefit of testators themselves, because they frequently died intestate, their heirs refusing to enter upon an inheritance, from which they could receive little or no profit. And this gave rise first to the law Furia, and afterwards the law Voconia: but neither of these being found adequate to the purpose, the Falcidian law was at length enacted; which forbids a testator to give more in legacies, than three fourths of all his effects; so that, whether there be one or more heirs, there must now remain to him, or them, an intire fourth part of the whole. hæredibus. § 1. When two heirs are instituted, as TITIUS and SEIUS, and Titius's part of the inheritance is overcharged by specific legacies; while Seius's part is wholly free or only partially incumbered; it hath |