On the Estate of Hagnias

The daughter of Eubulides and the mother of Hagnias, in an action against me, since they were not claiming on the same grounds, might have made an agreement, that if one of them were successful, she should give a share to the defeated claimant; for the votes accorded to each of them would be placed in different urns. But with us it was quite otherwise; we stood in the same relationship and were making two separate claims, each to have half the estate; and when two claimants found their claims on the same grounds, only one voting urn is employed, so that it would be impossible for one to be unsuccessful and the other successful, but we both ran the same risk, so we could not possibly have made any compact or agreement about the inheritance.

But when Stratocles died before the actions claiming half the estate, which we were each bringing, could come on, and so there was no further question of his participating in the estate, nor had this child of his any title owing to the law, but the whole inheritance devolved upon me as next-of-kin, if I could defeat those who are now in possession, then and not till then does my opponent devise and invent these fictions, expecting easily to mislead you by these stories. That no such compact was possible but that all the details of procedure are already provided for, can easily be seen from the law. Please take and read it to the court.

Law

Does it appear to you that the law gives any liberty for a concerted arrangement? Or are not its provisions in an exactly contrary sense, since, even if a previous arrangement existed, it expressly ordains that each party shall bring an action for his own share, and prescribes a single voting-urn, when the two parties base their claims on the same ground, and makes this the system of adjudication? But my opponent, in spite of these legal provisions and the impossibility of a preconcerted arrangement, has had the impudence to invent this lie against all common sense.

But he has not stopped there; he has also invented the most inconsistent story possible, to which, gentlemen, please give your close attention. He declares that I agreed, if I won my case against the present possessors of the estate, to give the child a half-share of the inheritance. Yet if the child had any right to a share in virtue of his relationship, as my opponent declares, what need was there for this agreement between me and them? For the half of the estate was adjudicable to them just as much as to me, if what they say is true.

If, on the other hand, they had no claim by right of kinship, why should I have agreed to give them a share, when the laws have given me the right of succession to the whole estate? Was it then impossible for me to make my claim without their consent? But the law gives full liberty to anyone who likes to make a claim, so that they could not possibly make this allegation. Did I then require some evidence from them material to my case, in default of which I was unlikely to secure the adjudication of the estate? No, I was claiming by right of kinship, not of testamentary disposition, so that I had no need of witnesses.

And indeed, if it was impossible for me to have made an arrangement with Stratocles in his lifetime; if his father did not bequeath the estate to him, since he never had any of it adjudicated to him; if it was unlikely that I should have agreed to give the child half the inheritance; and since you awarded me the estate by your adjudication and my opponents brought no action at the time and have never yet thought of disputing the estate—how can you believe their allegations to be true? In my opinion you cannot possibly do so.

Seeing that you might reasonably be astonished that they did not at the time bring a suit claiming half the estate, my opponent pretends that I was the cause of their not bringing a suit against the other parties, because I had agreed to give them a share and so they did not make the necessary deposit, while they allege that the laws forbade them to bring a suit against me on the ground that orphans may not bring actions against their guardians. Both these statements are untrue.