A Roman wrote his will for a son who was never born, and Rome's two leading lawyers fought over whether the words or the intention ruled

A Roman citizen made his will while his wife was expecting a child. He named the expected son as heir and provided that if the son died before reaching adulthood, Manius Curius would inherit. The man died. His wife did not give birth to a son. The condition the will named, a son who died young, never happened. Marcus Coponius, the testator's nearest relative, claimed the estate on the literal words: the substitution covered only a son who died as a minor, so it never took effect and the estate passed to him by intestacy. The case came before the centumviral court in 93 BC. Quintus Mucius Scaevola, Rome's leading jurist, argued for Coponius and the words. Lucius Licinius Crassus, its leading orator, argued for Curius and what the testator plainly meant. Crassus won, and Curius took the estate. Cicero retold the case in several works. A 2000 study argues the split between jurist and orator is a modern construction and that the court confirmed an accepted understanding. A 2022 study calls the case the starting point of the debate over words against intention in reading legal documents.