A new kind of succession has arisen through a Constitution of the Divine
Marcus; for if those who have received freedom from their masters by a will
under which no entry is made upon the estate, wish the property to be delivered
to them in order that their freedom may be preserved, they shall be heard.
(1) This is set forth in a Rescript of the Divine Marcus to Popilius
Rufus, in the following words: "If the estate of Virginius Valens, who, by
will, bestowed freedom upon certain slaves, is in such a condition that it is
required to be sold, there being no successor to him by reason of intestacy, he
who has jurisdiction of the same must attend to your request; so that delivery may be made to you of the said estate
in order to preserve enfranchisements, not only such as are bequeathed
directly, but also such as have been left in trust, if you provide sufficient
security for the payment to creditors of the full amount to which each one is
entitled. And those to whom liberty has been granted directly shall be free,
just as if the estate had been entered upon, and those whom the heir has been
asked to manumit shall obtain their freedom from you; provided also that if you
do not desire the property to be delivered to you on any other condition, even
those who have received their freedom directly shall become your freedmen; for
We authorize this request of yours, if those whose condition is concerned
consent. And in order that the advantage arising from this Our Rescript may not
become unavailable for another reason, namely, through the Treasury wishing to
claim the estate; those who have charge of Our affairs must remember that the
cause of liberty takes precedence of Our pecuniary advantage, and that the
estate must be seized in such a way that freedom shall be preserved for those
who would have been able to obtain it if the estate had been entered upon in
compliance with the terms of the will."
(2) Relief is granted by the said Rescript both to persons who are set
free and to the deceased, so that the property of the latter is not seized and
sold by creditors; for it is evident that if property is delivered for this
reason the sale of it is hindered; as there is a defender of the deceased in
existence and one who is indeed suitable, since he provides security for the
payment of the full amount due to the creditors.
(3) The Rescript is applicable at once every time that freedom is
granted by will. What then if a party dying intestate should bestow freedom by
a codicil, and the estate not be entered upon because of intestacy? The
advantage of the Constitution should here be applicable, for evidently if a man
dies intestate and grants freedom by a codicil, no one can entertain a doubt
that the grant is sufficient in law.
(4) The language shows that the Constitution applies when there is no
successor by reason of intestacy; and, therefore, as long as it is uncertain
whether there is one or not, the Constitution is not applicable, and as soon as
it is evident that there will be none, the Constitution becomes operative.
(5) If he who is entitled to complete restitution rejects the estate,
the Constitution can become operative and the transfer of property be made,
even though the party may be entitled to full restitution. What then occurs, if
complete restitution be made to him after the transfer for the purpose of
preserving grants of freedom? Unquestionably it must be held that grants of
freedom after they have once been bestowed shall not be revoked.
(6) This Constitution was introduced for the purpose of protecting
grants of freedom; and therefore, if there are no grants of this description,
the Constitution ceases to be applicable. What then, if a party in his lifetime
bestows grants of freedom, or does so in anticipation of death, and the parties ask for a transfer of the estate to be
made to themselves in order that no inquiry may be instituted as to whether
this was, or was not done for the purpose of defrauding creditors; are they to
be heard? It is preferable that they should be, although the terms of the
Constitution are lacking on this point.
(7) But as We saw that there were many omissions in the aforesaid
Constitution, another which is much more full has been enacted by Us, in which
many cases are brought together, and the law of this kind of succession is
thereby rendered perfectly complete; which anyone may ascertain from the
perusal of the Constitution itself.
|