Pacivs in l.

that if a brother is naturally obligated to a brother, and after the death of the father, to whom he succeeded in part, he pays, then according to this opinion he ought to recover nothing. For although the paternal obligation is removed by succession, the fraternal one remains, which hinders recovery. Since, therefore, recovery is given for a part in the beginning of this law, the obligation must not be placed in the person of the brother. Here, let us recall what was said above: that the peculium belongs to the father, not the son, and consequently the obligation pertaining to the peculium is acquired more for the father than for the son, since equity, upon which the natural obligation solely relies, suggests this. With this posited, I say that in the specific case of our law, the obligation sought for the brother is not considered, because it is removed by the greater obligation that is considered in the father. For it is expressly stated that a lesser obligation is removed by a greater one in the law regarding the debtor Digest 46.1.80. These matters will, I hope, be understood more clearly and perfectly later from the description that I will propose. Now, let us see what follows.

Since a brother is naturally obligated to a brother, I showed that the father becomes a creditor from the person of the creditor son. Now I say that the same father becomes a debtor from the person of the debtor son, so that he is naturally bound concerning the peculium.

For...