1. Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXIX.

The Prætor says: "After the death of him who was under the control of another, or after he has been emancipated, manumitted, or alienated, I will grant an action only to the amount of the peculium, within a year from the time when proceedings could first have been instituted with reference to the matter, where anything has been done through the malicious intent of him under whose control the party was, on account of which the value of the peculium is diminished."

(1) So long as the slave or the son is under control, the action on the peculium is not limited by time, but after his death, or after he has been emancipated, manumitted, or alienated, it becomes limited by time, that is to say to a year.

(2) The year will, however, be computed to the extent that it is available, and therefore Julianus says that if the obligation is conditional, the year must be computed, not from the time when the party was emancipated, but from that at which, if the condition was complied with, suit could be brought.

(3) The Prætor, with good reason, made the action temporary in this instance, for, as the peculium is extinguished by death or alienation, it is sufficient for the obligation to be extended for a year.

(4) Alienation and manumission, however, relate to slaves, and not to sons, but death refers to slaves as well as sons, emancipation, however, to sons alone. Moreover, if he ceases to be under control in some other way, without emancipation, the action will only lie for the term of a year. Also if the son becomes his own master through the death or deportation of his father, the heir of his father, or the Treasury, will be liable to the action on the peculium within a year.

(5) In case of alienation, a vendor is undoubtedly included, who is liable to an action on the peculium within a year.

(6) But also, if he has given away the slave, or exchanged him, or bestowed him by way of dowry, he is in the same position.

(7) So, likewise, is the heir of one who has bequeathed the slave, but not with his peculium; for if he had bequeathed him with his peculium, or had directed him to be free, a question might arise; and it seems to me to be the better opinion that the action De peculio should not be granted against a manumitted slave, nor against him to whom the peculium was bequeathed. Will the heir then be liable? Cæcilius says that he will be liable, because the peculium is in the hands of him who released himself from obligation by delivering it to the legatee.

Pegasus, however, says that security should be furnished to the heir by him to whom the peculium has been bequeathed, because the creditors apply to him, and therefore if he delivers it without security, suit can be brought against him.

(8) Where the heir is asked to deliver up the estate the slave and the peculium being reserved, and an action on the peculium is brought against him, he cannot make use of the Trebellian exception; as Marcellus, when discussing this point, admits. He, however, to whom the estate is delivered, is not liable, as Scævola says, since he has not the peculium, nor has committed any fraudulent act to avoid having it.

(9) Pomponius also, in the Sixty-first Book, says that if an usufruct is extinguished, the action should be granted against the usufructuary within a year.

(10) The question was raised by Labeo whether if you, during the lifetime of the son whom you believed to be dead, brought an action, and, because the year had elapsed, were defeated by an exception; you should be permitted to again institute proceedings after the mistake had been discovered? He says you should be permitted to do so only for the amount of the peculium, but not for what had been employed for the benefit of the property of the other party; for in the former case the action with reference to any advantage which had been obtained by its employment was properly brought, because the exception based on the lapse of a year relates to the peculium, and not to what had been used for the benefit of the property.

2. Paulus, On the Edict, Book XXX.

Since, after the death of a son under paternal control, an action, limited to a year, will lie against the father, just as a perpetual action will lie during the lifetime of the son; therefore, if an action De peculio, in a case involving a rescission of contract, is brought, it must be within six months after the death of the son; and the same should be said with reference to all other actions which are of a temporary character.

(1) Where a slave, to whom money has been loaned, is in the hands of the enemy, the action on the peculium against the master is not limited to a year, so long as the slave can return under the law of postliminium.

3. Pomponius, On Quintus Mucius, Book IV.

The term peculium must sometimes be employed even if the slave has ceased to exist in the course of nature, and the Prætor grants an action on the peculium within a year; for, in this instance also, both increase and diminution are to be taken into consideration, as belonging to the peculium, although it has ceased to exist, as such, through the death or manumission of the slave; so that there may be an accession to it as to a peculium, by crops, or by the yield of flocks, or by the offspring of female slaves, and a diminution, as, for instance, where an animal has died, or has been lost in any other way.