BOOK III. ❝ 1. 80, D. de leg. 111 (32) §§ 213-4 (sup.). e Sc. sinendi mode. (1) of the share that lapsed, always to the colegatee in the case of a legacy per vindicationem and per praeceptionem.ɑ Ulp. xxiv. 12: Si duobus eadem res per vindicationem legata sit, sive coniunctim, velut TITIO ET SEIO HOMINEM STICHVM DO LEGO, sive disiunctim, velut TITIO HOMINEM STICHVM DO LEGO, SEIO EVNDEM HOMINEM DO LEGO, concursu partes fiunt non concurrente altero pars eius iure civili alteri adcrescebat, sed post legem Papiam Poppaeam non capientis pars caduca fit.' (2) In the case of a legacy per damnationem, there was no right of accrual between the colegatees; if the same thing were left separately to several, each could claim it (or its aestimatio) entirely. Ib. § 13: Si per damnationem eadem res duobus legata sit, si quidem coniunctim, singulis partes debentur (et non capientis pars iure civili in hereditate remanebat; nunc autem caduca fit): quodsi disiunctim, singulis solidum debetur. (3) The legal relation of the co-legatees in the case of legatum sinendi modo was a subject of dispute. Gai. ii. § 215: Maior illa dissensio in hoc legato intervenit, si eandem rem duobus pluribusve disiunctim legasti; quidam putant utrisque 1 If the same thing have been bequeathed to two persons per vindicationem, whether jointly, as, 'I give and bequeath to Tit. and Sei. the slave Stichus,' or severally, as for example, 'I give and bequeath to Tit. the slave Stichus, I give and bequeath the same slave to Sei.,' if they together accept, shares are created, while if one did not accept, his share used to accrue to the other according to civil law; since the 1. Papia Poppaea, however, the share of him who does not take becomes a lapse. 2 If the same thing have been bequeathed to two persons per damnationem, and that jointly, a share is due to each (and the share of the one who did not take used to remain in the inheritance according to civil law, but now becomes a lapse); but if it have been bequeathed severally, the whole is due to them individually. solidum deberi, sicut per damnationem: nonnulli (4) In the Justinianean Law division and accrual obtain between all co-legatees who are 're coniuncti.' Imp. Iust. Ubi autem legatarii vel fideicommissarii duo forte vel plures sunt, quibus aliquid relictum sit, si quidem hoc coniunctim relinquatur et . . pars quaedam ex his deficiat, sancimus eam omnibus, si habere maluerint, pro civili portione cum omni suo onere adcrescere, vel si omnes noluerint, tunc apud eos remanere, a quibus derelictum est; cum vero quidam voluerint quidam noluerint, volentibus solummodo id totum accedere. Sin autem disiunctim fuerit relictum, si quidem omnes hoc accipere et potuerint et maluerint, suam quisque partem pro virili portione accipiat: . . . sin vero non omnes legatarii, quibus separatim res relicta est, in eius adquisitionem concurrant, sed unus forte eam accipiat, haec solida eius sit quia sermo testatoris omnibus prima facie solidum adsignare videtur, The following more important difference of view arises in respect of this kind of legacy, if you have bequeathed the same thing to two or more severally; some are of opinion that the whole is due to each, as in a legacy per damnationem; some think that the condition of the one who first appropriates it is the better, because since in that kind of legacy the heir is obliged to suffer the legatee to have the thing, it follows that if he extend toleration to the first legatee and he have taken the thing, he is safe against the other who afterwards demands the legacy, because he neither has the thing, so as to permit it to be taken from him, nor has he acted fraudulently, so as not to have it. BOOK III. Part III. BOOK III. a §§ 178. 181. (1. § 161. Brown, s. vv. aliis supervenientibus partes a priore abstrahentibus, ut ex aliorum quidem concursu prioris legatum minuatur.-C. 6, 51, 1. un. § 11.' § 184. LAPSE OF BEQUESTS. The grounds of the lapse of a bequest can be: Cels. Catoniana regula sic definit: quod, si testamenti facti tempore decessisset testator, inutile foret, id legatum, quandocumque decesserit, non valere; quae definitio in quibusdam falsa est. -1. I pr., D. de reg. Cat. 34, 7.3 Inst. ii. 20, § 10: 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.3 1 But when there are two, it may be, or several legatees or fideicommissaries, to whom something has been left, and it is left to them jointly, and a certain part thereof falls through, we enact that if they all prefer to have it, it shall accrue to all with its burdens, in the proportions prescribed by civil law, or if all decline it, it shall remain with those by whom it has been bequeathed; but when some wish for it, and some decline it, the whole accrues alone to those who care for it. If, however, anything shall be left severally, and all shall both be able and prefer to receive it, let each receive a single share; . ., but if not all the legatees to whom the property has been left severally agree upon the acquisition thereof, but perhaps only one will accept it, it shall wholly belong to him, because the language of the testator seems at first sight to assign the whole to all, when others coming in besides subtract shares from the first, so that by the joint action of the later ones the legacy of the first is diminished. 2 The Catonian rule is in the following terms: Such legacy as, if the testator had died at the time of making the testament would have been void, is of no effect, whensoever the testator shall have died. This definition in certain cases is erroneous. 3 If a man have bequeathed to a legatee the property of such, Pap. Catoniana regula non pertinet ad ea legata, quorum dies non mortis tempore, sed post aditam cedit hereditatem.-1. 3, D. de reg. Cat.' Ulp. Sed si sub condicione (res mea mihi) legetur, poterit legatum valere, si existentis condicionis tempore mea non sit . . . quia ad condicionalia (legata) Catoniana non pertinet.1. 41, § 2, D. de leg. I.2 Id. xxiv. 23: Ei, qui in potestate manu mancipiove est scripti heredis, sub condicione legari potest, ut requiratur, an quo tempore dies legati cedit, in potestate heredis non sit.3 BOOK III. Part III. (2) Revocation (ademptio legati)," which can occur a See Brown, s. either expressly or tacitly. Ulp. xxiv. 29: Legatum quod datum est adimi potest vel eodem testamentum, vel codicillis testamento confirmatis: dum tamen eodem modo adimatur, quo modo datum est.* Inst. ii. 20, § 12: Si rem suam legaverit testator posteaque eam alienaverit, Celsus existimat, si non animo adimendi vendidit, nihilominus deberi, idque divi Severus et Antoninus rescripserunt. the legacy is void, because what is a man's own cannot be made still more his property; and although he have alienated it, neither the thing itself nor its value is due. 1 The Catonian rule does not apply to those legacies the vesting of which takes place, not at the time of death, but after entry upon the inheritance. But if (my property) is bequeathed (to me) conditionally, the legacy can stand good so far as the thing is not my property upon the fulfilment of the condition . . . because the Catonian rule does not apply to conditional legacies. A legacy can be given conditionally to a person who is under the potestas, manus, or mancipium of the appointed heir; so as to require his not being under the potestas of the heir at the time the legacy vests. A legacy that has been given can be revoked either by the same testament, or by a codicil confirmed by the testament, provided, however, that it is revoked in the same mode in which it was given. 5 If a testator shall have bequeathed his own property, and afterwards have alienated it, Cels. thinks that the legacy is Ademptio. Cf. Story, § 1114(Grigsby, p. 772). BOOK III. a D 26, 2, 9; § 181, ad fin.; D. 29, 4, 17. § 168. Ulp. Non solum autem legata, sed et fideicommissa adimi possunt et quidem nuda voluntate. Unde... si capitales vel gravissimae inimicitiae intercesserint, ademptum (fideicommissum) videri. Secundum haec et in legato tractamus doli exceptione opposita.-D. 34, 4, 3, II.1 The revocation can also be accomplished by means of alteration or transfer of the legacy (translatio egati). Paul.: 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.-1. 6 pr. eod. (3) If the testament itself become invalid, or 'destitutum,' the bequests together collapse.* But the Praetorian edict ('si quis omissa causa testamenti ab intestato possidet hereditatem') protects the legatees, if the person instituted in the testament, to nullify the bequests, craftily does not enter upon the inheritance ex testamento, in order thus either himself to acquire it ab intestato or to appropriate it to another (intestate heirs or substitutes). Ulp. Praetor voluntates defunctorum tuetur et eorum calliditati occurrit, qui omissa causa still due, if the testator did not sell it with the intention of adeeming the legacy; and the late Empp. Severus and Antoninus have so decided by rescript. 1 Now not only legacies but gifts in trust can be revoked, and that by mere declaration. We must therefore consider that (a gift in trust) has been revoked if a mortal or very violent feud has arisen. We deal with a legacy according to the same rule when a plea of fraud has been set up. 2 The transfer of a legacy comes about in four ways; for it is either transferred from one person to another; or the transfer is made by him who is directed to convey, in order that another may convey; or if instead of one thing another is given, for example, instead of an estate, ten gold-pieces; or if anything given absolutely is transferred conditionally. |