missum restituat; et neque ex scriptura, neque ex quinque testium numero, qui in fidei-commissis legitimus esse noscitur, possit res manifestari, sed vel pauciores, vel nemo penitùs testis intervene rit; tunc, sivè pater hæredis, sivè alius quicunque sit, qui fidem hæredis elegerit, et ab eo restitui aliquid voluerit, si hæres perfidiâ tentus adimplere fidem recusat, negando rem ita esse subsecutam ; si fidei-commissarius ei jusjurandum detulerit, cum prius ipse de calumniâ juraverit, necesse eum habere, vel jusjurandum subire, quod nihil tale à testatore audiverit, vel recusantem ad fideicommissi vel universalis vel specialis solutionem coarctari; ne depereat ultima voluntas testatoris fidei hæredis commissa. Eadem observari censuimus, etsi a legataTio vel fidei-commissario aliquid similitèr relictum sit. Quod si is, à, quo relictum dicitur, [postquam negaverit,] confiteatur quidem, aliquid à se relictum esse, sed ad legis subtilitatem recurrat, omninò solvere cogendus est.

heritance, or any particular thing, and this trust cannot be made manifest by the depositions of five witnesses, (which is known to be the legal number in such cases,) there having been not so many, or perhaps no witnesses present, the heir at the same time perfidiously refusing to make any payment, and denying the whole transaction, then the fideicommissary, having previously taken the oath of calumny, may put the heir, although he be the son of the testator, to his oath; and thus force him either to deny the trust upon oath, or comply with it, whether the trust be universal or particular; and this is allowed, lest the last will of a testator, committed to the faith of an heir, should be defeated. And we have granted the same remedy against a legatee, or even a fidei-commissary, to whom any thing hath been thus bequeathed. And, if he, to whom something hath been so left, should confess the trust, after having denied it, but endeavour at the same time to shelter himself under subtility of the law, he may nevertheless be compelled to perform his duty.

I. Potest autem non solùm proprias res testator per fidei-commissum relinquere, sed et hæredis, aut legatarii, aut fidei-commissarii, aut cujuslibet alterius. Itaque ct legatarius et fidei-commissarius non solùm de eâ re rogari potest, ut eam alicui restituat, quæ ei relicta sit; sed etiam de aliâ, sivè ipsius, sivè alienâ sit. Hoc solùm observandum est, ne plus quisquam rogetur alicui restituere, quam ipse ex testamento ceperit; nam, quod amplius est, inutilitèr, relinquitur. Cum autem aliena res per fideicommissum relinquitur, necesse est ei, qui rogatus est, aut ipsam rem redimere et præstare, aut æstimationem ejus solvere.

§ 1. A testator may leave in trust not only his own property, but also that of his heir, of a legatee, of a fidei-commissary, or of any other: so that a legatee or fidei-commissary may not only be requested to give what hath been left to him, but what is his own, or even what is the property of another. The only caution necessary to be observed by the testator is, that no man be requested to give more, than he hath received under the will; for the excess will be ineffectually bequeathed. And, when the property of another is left in trust, the person, requested to restore it, is obliged either to obtain from the proprietor the very thing bequeathed, or to pay the value of it.

II. Libertas quoque servo per fidei-commissum dari potest, ut hæ

В

в

§ 2. Liberty may also be conferred upon a slave by virtue of a trusts

res eum rogetur manumittere, vel legatarius, vel fidei-commissarius; nec interest, utrùm de suo proprio servo testator roget, an de eo, qui ipsius hæredis, aut legatarii, vel etiam extranei sit: itaque et alienus servus redimi et manumitti debet. Quod si dominus eum non vendat, (si modò nihil ex judicio ejus, qui reliquit libertatem, perceperit,) non statim extinguitur fidei-commissaria libertas, sed differtur, quoad possit tempore procedente, ubicunque occasio servi redimendi fuerit, præstari libertas. Qui autèm ex fidei-commissi causâ manumittitur, non testatoris fit libertus, etiamsi testatoris servus sit, sed ejus, qui manumittit. At is, qui directò ex testamento liber esse jubetur, ipsius testatoris libertus fit; qui etiam Orcinus appellatur: nec alius ullus directò ex testamento libertatem habere potest, quam qui utroque tempore testatoris fuerit, et quo faceret testamentum, et quo moreretur. Directò autem libertas tunc dari videtur, cum non ab alio servum manumitti rogat, sed velut ex suo testamento libertatem ei competere vult.

for an heir, legatee, or fidei-commissary, may be requested to manumit: nor does it signify whether the testator request the manumission of his own slave, of the slave of his heir, of a legatee, or of a stranger: and therefore, when a slave is not the testator's own property, he must be bought, if possible, and manumitted. But, if the proprietor of the slave refuse to sell him, (which he may do, if he hath taken nothing under the will of the testator,) yet the fiduciary bequest is not extinguished, but deferred only, till it can be conveniently performed. Note, that he, who is manumitted in consequence of a trust, does not become the freedman of the testator, although he was the testator's own slave, but he becomes the freedman of the manumittor: but a slave, to whom liberty is directly given by testament, becomes the freedman of the testator, and is called Orcinus; and no one can obtain liberty directly by testament, unless he were the slave of the testator, not only at the time of the testator's death, but also at the time of making his testament. And liberty is understood to be directly given, not when a testator requests, that freedom shall be given to his slave by another, but when he wills it to take place by virtue of his own testament.

§ III. Verba autem fidei-commissorum hæc maximè in usu habentur; peto, rogo, volo, mando, fidei tuæ committo: quæ perindè sin

3. The terms generally used in the commitment of trusts are the following: I request, I ask, I desire, I commit, I confide: any of them,

anum congesta essent.

ANTE Augusti tempora constat, codicillorum jus in usu non fuisse sed primus Lucius Lentulus, ex cujus personâ etiam fideicommissa esse cœperunt, codicillos introduxit. Nam, cum decederet in Africa, scripsit codicillos testamento confirmatos, quibus ab Augusto petiit per fidei-commissum, ut faceret aliquid: et, cum D. Augustus voluntatem ejus implesset, deinceps reliqui, ejus auctoritatem secuti, fidei-commissa præstabant : et filia Lentuli, legata, quæ jure non debebat, solvit. Dicitur autem Augustus convocasse sapientes viros, interque eos Trebatium quoque, cujus tunc auctoritas maxima erat, et quæsisse, an posset recipi hoc, nec absonans à juris ratione codicillorum usus esset? et Trebatium suasisse Augusto, quod diceret, utilissimum et necessarium hoc civibus esse, propter magnas et longas peregrinationes, quæ apud veteres fuissent; ubi, si quis testamentum facere non posset, tamen codi cillos posset. Post que tempora,

It is certain, that codicils were not in frequent use before the reign of Augustus: for Lucius Lentulus, by whose means trusts became efficacious, was the first, who introduced codicils. When dying in Africa, he wrote several codicils, which were confirmed by his testament; and in these he requested Augustus to perform some particular act in consequence of a trust: the emperor complied with the request; and many other persons influenced by the emperor's example, executed trusts, committed to their charge; and the daughter of Lentulus paid debts, which in strictness of law were not due. But it is reported, that Augustus, having convened upon this occasion the sages of the law, among the rest Trebatius, whose opinion was of the greatest authority, demanded whether codicils could be admitted and whether they were not repugnant to the reason of the law? to which Trebatius answered, that codicils were most convenient, and necessary on account of the great