factum testamentum decesserit testator, non tamen apud eum qui heres sit dies legati cedere intellegitur, cum hereditas a legato separata sit et possit per eum servum alius heres effici, si prius, quam iussu domini adeat, in alterius potestatem translatus sit, vel manumissus ipse heres efficitur: quibus casibus utile est legatum: quodsi in eadem causa permanserit 34 et iussu legatarii adierit, evanescit legatum. Ante heredis institutionem inutiliter antea legabatur, scilicet quia testamenta vim ex institutione heredum accipiunt et ob id veluti caput atque fundamentum intellegitur totius testamenti heredis institutio. pari ratione nec libertas ante heredis institutionem dari poterat. sed quia incivile esse putavimus ordinem quidem scripturae sequi (quod et ipsi antiquitati vituperandum fuerat visum), sperni autem testatoris voluntatem: per nostram constitutionem et hoc vitium emendavimus, ut liceat et ante heredis institutionem et inter medias heredum institutiones legatum relinquere et multo magis libertatem, cuius usus 35 favorabilior est. Post mortem quoque heredis aut legatarii

simili modo inutiliter legabatur: veluti si quis ita dicat: 'cum heres meus mortuus erit, do lego:' item 'pridie quam heres aut legatarius morietur.' sed simili modo et hoc correximus firmitatem huiusmodi legatis ad fideicommissorum similitudinem praestantes, ne vel in hoc casu deterior causa legatorum 36 quam fideicommissorum inveniatur. Poenae quoque nomine

to a slave of the institutus had been supported by the Sabinians: the Proculians held it void in either case: Servius maintained that the bequest was provisionally valid, whether conditional or not, but became void if the legatee was in the institutus' power on the dies legati cedens, Gaius ii. 244. The Proculian view was based upon what is called the regula Catoniana, because it was ascribed to one of the Catos: 'regula Catoniana sic definit; quod, si testamenti facti tempore decessisset testator, inutile foret, id legatum, quandocunque decesserit, non valere' Dig. 34. 7. I. But this rule did not apply to conditional legacies, whose validity was tested at the fulfilment of the condition, Dig. 35. 1. 98, or to those which were given ex die : 'Catoniana regula non pertinet ad ea legata, quorum dies non mortis tempore, sed post aditam cedit hereditatem' Dig. 34. 7. 3.

§ 34. Cod. 6. 23. 24: see note on Tit. 14 pr. supr. ad init. The words 'quod et ipsi antiquitati vituperandum fuerat visum' relate to the whole sentence, 'ordinem scripturae sequi, sperni autem testatoris voluntatem.' §35. Gaius says (ii. 232) that a legacy 'cum heres meus morietur' was

inutiliter legabatur et adimebatur vel transferebatur. poenae autem nomine legari videtur, quod coercendi heredis causa relinquitur, quo magis is aliquid faciat aut non faciat : velut, si quis ita scripserit: 'heres meus si filiam suam in matrimonium Titio collocaverit' (vel ex diverso si non collocaverit),'' dato decem aureos Seio,' aut si ita scripserit heres meus si servum Stichum alienaverit' (vel ex diverso 'si non alienaverit),'' Titio decem aureos dato.' et in tantum haec regula observabatur, ut perquam pluribus principalibus constitutionibus significetur nec principem quidem agnoscere, quod ei poenae nomine legatum sit. nec ex militis quidem testamento talia legata valebant, quamvis aliae militum voluntates in ordinandis testamentis valde observantur. quin etiam nec libertatem poenae nomine dari posse placebat. eo amplius nec heredem poenae nomine adici posse Sabinus existimabat, veluti si quis ita dicat: 'Titius heres esto: si Titius filiam suam Seio in matrimonium collocaverit, Seius quoque heres esto:' nihil enim intererat, qua ratione Titius coerceatur, utrum legati datione an coheredis adiectione. at huiusmodi scrupulositas nobis non placuit et generaliter ea quae relinquuntur, licet poenae nomine fuerint relicta vel adempta vel in alios translata, nihil distare a ceteris legatis constituimus vel in dando vel in adimendo vel in transferendo: exceptis his videlicet, quae impossibilia sunt vel legibus interdicta aut alias probrosa huiusmodi enim testatorum dispositiones valere secta temporum meorum non patitur.

valid, but one 'cum heres meus mortuus erit' or 'pridie quam heres meus morietur' was void: a distinction, he adds, 'quod non pretiosa ratione receptum videtur.' The ground of the rule was 'ne ab heredis herede legari videatur, quod iuris civilis ratio non patitur' Ulpian, reg. 24. 16, cf. Paul. sent. rec. 3. 6. 5, which itself was only an application of the larger principle 'inelegans visum, ex heredis persona incipere obligationem' Gaius iii. 100: see on Bk. iii. 19. 13 inf. A fideicommissum was valid in any of the three forms given above, Gaius ii. 277, Ulpian, reg. 24. 16. Justinian's enactments on the subject are in Cod. 4. 11. 1; 8. 38. 11. § 36. Some conditional legacies are difficult to distinguish from legacies poenae nomine, viz. those in which the fulfilment of the condition depends on the legatee himself. These, however, were not necessarily treated as penal under the old law: the test was the intention of the testator (' poenam a condicione voluntas testatoris separat, et an poena, an condicio sit ex

XXI.

DE ADEMPTIONE LEGATORUM ET TRANSLATIONE.

Ademptio legatorum, sive eodem testamento adimantur sive codicillis, firma est, sive contrariis verbis fiat ademptio, veluti si, quod ita quis legaverit 'do lego,' ita adimatur non do non lego,' sive non contrariis, id est aliis quibuscumque 1 verbis. Transferri quoque legatum ab alio ad alium potest, veluti si quis ita dixerit: 'hominem Stichum, quem Titio legavi, Seio do lego,' sive in eodem testamento sive in codicillis hoc fecerit : quo casu simul Titio adimi videtur et Seio dari.

XXII.

DE LEGE FALCIDIA.

Superest, ut de lege Falcidia dispiciamus, qua modus novissime legatis impositus est. cum enim olim lege duodecim tabularum libera erat legandi potestas, ut liceret vel totum patrimonium legatis erogare (quippe ea lege ita cautum esset: uti legassit suae rei, ita ius esto): visum est hanc legandi licentiam coartare, idque ipsorum testatorum gratia provisum est ob id, quod plerumque intestati moriebantur,

voluntate defuncti apparet' Dig. 34. 6. 2); unless it appeared that the testator designed the legacy as a means of compulsion, it was valid, Dig. 31. 3. 2.

Tit. XXI. For codicilli see Tit. 25 and notes inf. Besides the modes mentioned in the text, a legacy might be taken away by erasing the disposition from the will, Dig. 34. 4. 16 and 17, or tacitly by any act from which it could be gathered that the testator no longer wished the legatee to have the bequest, e. g. by alienation of the res legata, 12 supr., Dig. 34. 4. 15, and a legacy was even held to be revoked if the relations between the parties became such that a continuance of the testator's benevolent intention could not be presumed, e. g. if a serious enmity arose between them, Dig. 34. 4. 3. II. Under the older law contraria verba had been required for an express ademption, 'dum tamen eodem modo adimatur, quo modo datum est' Ulpian, reg. 24. 29.

§ 1. 'Translatio legati fit quattuor modis: aut enim a persona in personam transfertur, aut ab eo, qui dare iussus est, transfertur ut alius det: aut cum res pro re datur, ut pro fundo decem aurei: aut quod pure datum est, transfertur sub condicione' Dig. 34. 4. 6. pr.

Tit. XXII. For the well-known enactment of the Twelve Tables here

recusantibus scriptis heredibus pro nullo aut minimo lucro hereditates adire. et cum super hoc tam lex Furia quam lex Voconia latae sunt, quarum neutra sufficiens ad rei consummationem videbatur: novissime lata est lex Falcidia, qua cavetur, ne plus legare liceat, quam dodrantem totorum bonorum, id est ut, sive unus heres institutus esset sive plures, apud eum eosve pars quarta remaneret. Et cum quaesitum 1 esset, duobus heredibus institutis, veluti Titio et Seio, si Titii pars aut tota exhausta sit legatis, quae nominatim ab eo data sunt, aut supra modum onerata, a Seio vero aut nulla relicta sint legata, aut quae partem eius dumtaxat in partem dimidiam minuunt, an, quia is quartam partem totius here

quoted cf. Cic. de inv. 2. 50, Auctor ad Herenn. 1. 13, Dig. 50. 16. 120, Ulpian, reg. 11. 14; its content is pithily put by Gaius ii. 224 'quod quisque de re sua testatus esset, id ratum haberetur.'

The lex Furia testamentaria, B.C. 183, imposed a penalty of four times the excess upon any one (except the cognates of the person by whom the testator had been manumitted or emancipated, Ulpian, reg. 28. 7), who took as a legacy, or mortis causa, more than 1000 asses from the same person: it is remarkable for being the first enactment of the civil law relating to inheritance in which cognatio is recognised as a title. As Gaius remarks, it altogether failed in its object, 'qui enim verbi gratia quinque millium aeris patrimonium habebat, poterat quinque hominibus singulis millenos asses legando totum patrimonium erogare' ii. 225. The lex Voconia, B. C. 169 (Cic. pro Balbo 8, in Verr. 2. I. 42, 43, de senect. 5, de fin. 2. 17, de repub. 3. 10), which Gaius regards as an attempt to provide a more effectual remedy against intestacy, seems really to have been only a relaxation of the lex Furia in favour of wealthy testators; any person ranked in the first class of the census as owner of 100,000 sesterces or upwards (Cic. in Verr. loc. cit.) might bequeath away as much as he pleased, provided no legacy or gift mortis causa exceeded in amount the share which the heir (or each of two or more co-heirs) received himself. Both statutes were superseded by the lex Falcidia, B.C. 40, the terms of which ran as follows, 'quicunque civis Romanus post hanc legem rogatam testamentum faciet, is quantum cuique civi Romano pecuniam iure publico dare legare volet, ius potestasque esto, dum ita detur legatum, ne minus quam partem quartam hereditatis eo testamento heredes capiant' Dig. 35. 2. 1. pr. The provisions of the lex Falcidia were not extended to donationes mortis causa till the time of Septimius Severus, Dig. 24. 1. 32. I ; 31. 77. I.

§ 1. The maxim'in singulis heredibus ratio legis Falcidiae ponenda est' can best be explained by an illustration. A leaves a property of 800l. between B and C as co-heredes. He charges B with legacies to the extent of 350/.: C he leaves comparatively free. The legatees argue that

ditatis aut amplius habet, Titio nihil ex legatis, quae ab eo relicta sunt, retinere liceret : placuit retinere licere, ut quartam partem suae partis salvam habeat: etenim in singulis here2 dibus ratio legis Falcidiae ponenda est. Quantitas autem patrimonii, ad quam ratio legis Falcidiae redigitur, mortis tempore spectatur. itaque si verbi gratia is, qui centum

their legacies ought to be paid in full, for even so the heirs between them will get far more than a fourth of the whole inheritance. B argues that they ought not, for else he will not get a clear fourth, but only an eighth, of his own share. B's argument prevails, each heir being entitled separately to claim the Falcidian fourth on his share of the inheritance, even though the legatees collectively thus get less than the three-fourths to which they are apparently entitled under the statute.

If B had refused to accept, C would by accrual have had two distinct shares in the same inheritance, and as this might happen in other ways, it is important to determine how the Falcidian fourth is calculated, if necessary, in such cases. Three different modes of such calculation are found in the authorities. (1) The several shares in the inheritance, and the legacies charged upon them respectively, are taken in the aggregate, and a fourth deducted from that aggregate only. (2) The several shares are regarded as still belonging to different heirs, and the maxim stated in this section is applied to them severally. (3) They are still kept separate, and the fourth is calculated on each share by itself: but the excess on some shares is allowed to benefit the legatees whose bequests are charged on others, but not vice versa. This is the principle applied in the case of accrual between B and C supposed; the legatees whose bequests are charged on the heir who takes (C) are benefited by the surplus (if there be one) on the share of the heir who refuses, but not conversely, 'quod si alterutro eorum deficiente alter heres solus extiterit, utrum perinde ratio legis Falcidiae habenda sit, ac si statim ab initio is solus heres institutus esset, an singularum portionum separatim causae spectandae sunt? et placet, si eius pars legatis exhausta sit, qui heres extiterit, adiuvari legatarios per deficientem partem ... si vero defecta pars fuerit exhausta, perinde in ea ponendam rationem legis Falcidiae, atque si ad eum ipsum pertineret, a quo defecta fieret' Dig. 35. 2. 78. We find the same system in cases of substitution. The first method of calculating the fourth is found pure and simple only where the same heres is instituted to different shares ('ex variis portionibus' Dig. 35. 2. 11.7) in the same inheritance, though we often see it in combination with the second (as in the case of accrual); the second applies by itself where one of two co-heirs becomes heir to, or otherwise entitled to the share of, the other after acceptance, 'si coheredem meum post aditam hereditatem adrogavero, non dubitatur quin separandae sint portiones, perinde atque si coheredi meo heres extitissem' Dig. 35. 2. 1. 15.

§ 2. The mode in which the fourth was ascertained was as follows.