PACIVS IN L.

namely, that the obligation does not appear to be acquired by the father as long as the peculium a sum of money or property managed by a son or slave but belonging to the father or master remains with the son. For if it follows from the fact that the son has a peculium that the obligation is not seen as acquired by the father, then whenever the son has a peculium, there will be room for a fiction of this kind. Since when the cause is posited, the effect is posited, and where the reason is the same, the law ought to be the same, as in the common law original: "l. illud sup. ad l. Aquil.".

Next, it must be observed that when a son acquires a natural obligation for his father, he also acquires it for himself. For it is said that a slave owes the master what he owes the master’s son referencing Digest 15.1.9.2 and related texts on the peculium. However, a slave owes only naturally referencing Digest 12.6.13, etc.. Therefore, it is owed naturally not only to the father but also to the son. Ulpian signified this in the first paragraph of the law concerning the father’s power original: "l. 1. in p. ĵ. fià par. qu. ma. fit." when he says, Whatever a son acquires, he acquires the profit of it for his father. And Africanus in the paragraph regarding inquiry referencing Digest 44.7.1, § "quaesitum" says that the father owes the son naturally. For if this can be said of a father, it will be said much more of a brother, a slave, and others. The law Placet It pleases Digest 28.5.79 is opposed to this opinion, in which place whether an inheritance...