7 mationem, agere potest. Ea quoque res, quae in rerum natura non est, si modo futura est, recte legatur, veluti fructus qui in illo fundo nati erunt, aut quod ex illa ancilla natum 8 erit. Si eadem res duobus legata sit sive coniunctim sive disiunctim, si ambo perveniant ad legatum, scinditur inter eos legatum: si alter deficiat, quia aut spreverit legatum aut vivo testatore decesserit aut alio quolibet modo defecerit, totum ad collegatarium pertinet. coniunctim autem legatur, veluti si quis dicat Titio et Seio hominem Stichum do lego:' disiunctim ita Titio hominem Stichum do lego, Seio Stichum do lego.' sed et si expresserit eundem hominem Stichum,'

so far as he obtained it after the execution of the will for valuable consideration. If at that time it belonged to him, the disposition is void, even though he subsequently ceased to be its owner, unless the legacy was made conditional on his alienating it before the testator's death (Dig. 34. 7. 1. 2), or unless his own ownership was revocable (Dig. 1. 82. 1), or, thirdly, unless the testator or the heir had some real right over the object by which the legatee could practically be deprived of its enjoyment (e. g. pignus, usufruct, or emphyteusis), or a personal right by which he could be forced to deliver it up, Dig. 1. 71. 5, ib. 39. 2.

§ 8. So far as the form per vindicationem is concerned, the rule as to legacy of the same thing disiunctim to two or more persons is similarly stated by Gaius ii. 199, but in § 205 he adds 'si eadem res duobus pluribusve per damnationem legata sit . . . disiunctim, singulis solida res debetur, ut scilicet heres alteri rem, alteri aestimationem eius praestare debeat.' In this point the SC. Neronianum appears not to have operated at all otherwise it is difficult to see how the rule did not become exactly the contrary of that which is here stated in the text. Justinian enacted that in no case should co-legatees of the same thing be entitled, the one to it, the other or rest to its value, 'nisi testator apertissime et expressim disposuerit, ut uni quidem res solida, aliis autem aestimatio rei singulis in solidum praestetur' Cod. 6. 51. II. As Gaius remarks (ii. 206), an important modification was made in the law of accrual between co-heirs and co-legatees by the leges Iulia and Papia Poppaea, for which see on Tit. 14. pr. supr.; these statutes, however, were no longer in force under Justinian, who speaks of the caducitas which they introduced as altogether abolished from his system, Cod. 1. 17. 7, Const. Tanta 2. 6.

Two or more persons are said to be co-heirs or co-legatees when the same thing is given to both or all of them. As to the technical expressions or modes by which testators could effect such conjunction, we must at the outset exclude what is called conjunction 'verbis,' in which each of the apparently conjoined heirs or legatees is in fact given something different from the other or rest, 'item verbis, non etiam re [con

aeque disiunctim legatum intellegitur. Si cui fundus alienus 9 legatus fuerit et emerit proprietatem detracto usu fructu et usus fructus ad eum pervenerit et postea ex testamento agat, recte eum agere et fundum petere Iulianus ait, quia usus fructus in petitione servitutis locum optinet: sed officio iudicis contineri, ut deducto usu fructu iubeat aestimationem praestari.

iuncti videntur]: Titio et Seio fundum aequis partibus do lego' Dig. 32. 89; here Titius and Seius are not co-legatees in the proper sense, for what is bequeathed to them is not the same thing, but equal shares in the same thing, i. e. different things, or, as Pomponius puts it in Dig. 28. 6. 66 'quia non tam coniunxisse quam celerius dixisse videatur.' In such cases, as there is no true conjunction, the ius adcrescendi has no application. Genuine conjunction, in which the co-heirs or co-legatees, though limiting one another's rights, are regarded as against other heirs or legatees as one person (coniunctim heredes institui, and 'coniunctim legari, hoc est, totam hereditatem et tota legata singulis data esse, partes autem concursu fieri' Dig. 32. 80), could be produced in two ways, (1) 're et verbis (the coniunctim of the text): 'nec dubium est, quin coniuncti sint, quos et nominum et rei complexus iungit: veluti Titius et Maevius ex parte dimidia heredes sunto: vel ita, Titius Maeviusque heredes sunto: vel, Titius cum Maevio ex parte dimidia heredes sunto. Videamus autem ne, etiamsi hos articulos detrahas, et, que, cum interdum tamen coniunctos accipi oporteat, veluti, Lucius Titius, Publius Maevius ex parte dimidia heredes sunto, vel ita: P. Maevius, L. Titius heredes sunto: Sempronius ex parte dimidia heres esto, ut Titius et Maevius veniant in partem dimidiam, et re et verbis coniuncti videantur ' Dig. 50. 16. 142; (2) 're (the disiunctim of the text): re coniuncti videntur, non etiam verbis, cum duobus separatim eadem res legatur' Dig. 32. 89; for this mode of conjoining heirs see Dig. 50. 16. 142.

The general rule of accrual between co-legatees is tersely stated in the text, though there was some difference according to the form employed. If they were conjoined re, i. e. disiunctim, and one or more of them failed to take, the accrual operated ipso iure: there was no right of refusal in those who took, and who consequently were unaffected by any fideicommissa or other burdens imposed by the testator on those who had failed if they were conjoined re et verbis, they had the option of refusing the shares of those who failed, or of taking them subject to such charges, Cod. 6. 51. 11.

§ 9. That by 'pervenerit' is meant 'has come by a lucrativa causa' is clear from the passage of Julianus referred to, 'fundus mihi legatus est : proprietatem eius fundi redemi, detracto usufructu: postea venditor capite minutus est ([8], p. 210 supr.), et ususfructus ad me pertinere coepit: si ex testamento egero, iudex tanti litem aestimare debebit, quantum mihi aberit (Marcellus). idem erit, et si partem redemero, pars mihi legata aut donata sit: partem enim duntaxat petere debebo' Dig. 30. 82. 2 and 3.

10 Sed si rem legatarii quis ei legaverit, inutile legatum est, quia quod proprium est ipsius, amplius eius fieri non potest: et licet alienaverit eam, non debetur nec ipsa nec aestimatio eius. 11 Si quis rem suam quasi alienam legaverit, valet legatum: nam plus valet, quod in veritate est, quam quod in opinione. sed et si legatarii putavit, valere constat, quia exitum voluntas 12 defuncti potest habere. Si rem suam legaverit testator posteaque eam alienaverit, Celsus existimat, si non adimendi animo vendidit, nihilo minus deberi, idque divi Severus et Antoninus rescripserunt. idem rescripserunt eum, qui post testamentum factum praedia quae legata erant pignori dedit, ademisse legatum non videri et ideo legatarium cum herede agere posse, ut praedia a creditore luantur. si vero quis partem rei legatae alienaverit, pars quae non est alienata omnimodo debetur, pars autem alienata ita debetur, si non adi13 mendi animo alienata sit. Si quis debitori suo liberationem legaverit, legatum utile est et neque ab ipso debitore neque ab herede eius potest heres petere nec ab alio qui heredis loco est: sed et potest a debitore conveniri, ut liberet eum. potest 14 autem quis vel ad tempus iubere ne heres petat. Ex contrario si debitor creditori suo quod debet legaverit, inutile est

§ 10. Cf. Bk. iv. 6. 14 inf. For the principle (regula Catoniana) upon which a legacy of this kind was void see on § 32 inf.

§ 11. It is difficult to see why the rule 'plus valet quod in veritate est quam quod in opinione' did not apply to legacy of a res aliena which the testator thought was sua, which in § 4 supr. is said to be void: cf. also Dig. 29. 2. 15 'plus est in opinione quam in veritate.'

§ 12. The generally received opinion in Gaius' time (ii. 198) was that such a legacy was void, unless given per damnationem, and even then the heir on being sued could repel the legatee by exceptio doli: cf. Pomponius in Dig. 30. 8. pr. si partem alienasset, partem duntaxat . . . deberi.'

§ 13. If the testator was himself the creditor, the debtor, under Justinian, was usually released ipso facto by the legacy; for his right to compel the heir to release him cf. Dig. 34. 3. 3. 3 ‘agere, ut liberer per acceptilationem.' If the creditor was some one else, the debtor could compel the heir to pay the debt and so discharge him, Dig. ib. 8. pr., ib. II and 14. If the supposed debt was non-existent, the legatee got nothing; and the legacy was extinguished by extinction of the debt during the testator's lifetime.

§ 14. Where money due on a certain day, or on the fulfilment of a

legatum, si nihil plus est in legato quam in debito, quia nihil amplius habet per legatum. quodsi in diem vel sub condicione debitum ei pure legaverit, utile est legatum propter repraesentationem. quodsi vivo testatore dies venerit aut condicio extiterit, Papinianus scripsit utile esse nihilo minus legatum, quia semel constitit. quod et verum est: non enim placuit sententia existimantium extinctum esse legatum, quia in eam causam pervenit, a qua incipere non potest. Sed si uxori 15 maritus dotem legaverit, valet legatum, quia plenius est legatum quam de dote actio. sed si quam non acceperit dotem legaverit, divi Severus et Antoninus rescripserunt, si quidem. simpliciter legaverit, inutile esse legatum: si vero certa pecunia vel certum corpus aut instrumentum dotis in praelegando demonstrata sunt, valere legatum. Si res legata sine facto heredis 16 perierit, legatario decedit. et si servus alienus legatus sine facto heredis manumissus fuerit, non tenetur heres. si vero heredis servus legatus fuerit et ipse eum manumiserit, teneri eum Iulianus scripsit, nec interest, scierit an ignoraverit a se legatum esse. sed et si alii donaverit servum et is cui donatus

condition, is paid before the time or the occurrence of the event specified, the creditor is pro tanto better, the debtor pro tanto worse off: this gain or loss is called interusurium, commodum or incommodum repraesentationis, in modern mercantile language rabatt or disconto. If a testator leaves to a supposed creditor the amount of a non-existent debt, the legacy is void if the debt is simply referred to, but if its amount is clearly specified it can be claimed, 'si decem quae Titio debeo legavero nec quicquam debeam, falsa demonstratio (§ 30 inf.) non perimit legatum' Dig. 30. 75. 1, cf. Dig. 31. 88. 10, and the next section of this Title. The doctrine of Papinian here stated is not universally recognised in the Corpus iuris; it is confirmed by Dig. 50. 17. 85. I, but is contradicted, in its general form, in Dig. 34. 8. 3. 2 ‘nam quae in eam causam pervenerunt a qua incipere non poterant pro non scriptis habentur,' and in its particular application in Dig. 31. 82. pr. (Paulus) 'dicendum erit inutile effici legatum, quanquam constiterit ab initio.' For the technical meaning of dies venit in connection with obligations see on § 20 inf.

§ 15. The advantages of the action on the legacy over the actio de dote were that the heir could not claim the statutory interval of one year before restitution, which was allowed in ordinary cases (which probably is the explanation of 'praelegare,' so common in this form of legacy), Dig. 33. 4. 1. 2, and that certain sets-off were excluded which could be pleaded in the action, Dig. 31. 82. pr.

est eum manumiserit, tenetur heres, quamvis ignoraverit a se eum legatum esse. Si quis ancillas cum suis natis legaverit, etiamsi ancillae mortuae fuerint, partus legato cedunt. idem est, si ordinarii servi cum vicariis legati fuerint, ut, licet mortui 17 sint ordinarii, tamen vicarii legato cedant. sed si servus cum peculio fuerit legatus, mortuo servo vel manumisso vel alienato et peculii legatum extinguitur. idem est, si fundus instructus vel cum instrumento legatus fuerit: nam fundo alienato et 18 instrumenti legatum extinguitur. Si grex legatus fuerit posteaque ad unam ovem pervenerit, quod superfuerit vindicari potest. Grege autem legato etiam eas oves, quae post testamentum factum gregi adiciuntur, legato cedere Iulianus ait: esse enim gregis unum corpus ex distantibus capitibus, sicuti 19 aedium unum corpus est ex cohaerentibus lapidibus: aedibus denique legatis columnas et marmora, quae post testamentum factum adiecta sunt, legato cedere. Si peculium legatum 20 fuerit, sine dubio quidquid peculio accedit vel decedit vivo testatore, legatarii lucro vel damno est. quodsi post mortem testatoris ante aditam hereditatem servus adquisierit, Iulianus

§ 17. The opposition of ordinarius to vicarii servi is found in Dig. 14. 4. 5. 1; 15. 1. 17, ib. 19. pr. The former was a slave holding some definite post in his master's household, the latter were his assistants, and usually formed part of his peculium: in fact, a slave often bought a vicarius with part of his peculium to lighten his own duties, Horace, Sat. 2. 7. 79; for the whole subject v. Becker's Gallus.

For the difference between instructus and cum instrumento cf. Dig. 33. 7. 12. 27 'plus esse, cum instructus fundus legetur, quam si cum instrumento: . . . omnia, quae eo collata sunt, ut instructior esset paterfamilias, instructo contineri,' ib. pr. 'instrumentum [fundi] est apparatus rerum diutius mansurarum, sine quibus exerceri nequiret possessio,' ib. 16. pr. inter instrumentum et ornamentum multum interesse, instrumenti enim ea esse, quae ad tutelam domus pertinerent, ornamenti, quae ad voluptatem.' Thus 'instrumentum involved the idea of a means to an end, but that end was to get the use of the land; it did not include household furniture. Fundus instructus, although there was some variety of opinion on the subject, seems to have been considered as including not only instrumentum, but everything prepared for the comfort or pleasure of the owner. Such a legacy, therefore, includes the furniture of the farmhouse, the clothes, gold, silver, wine, and utensils of the testator, also the domestic slaves, the books and library, but not the crop ready for the market.' Hunter, Roman Law p. 723.

§ 20. Dies cedit marks the commencement of a right, or the moment