As We see that many questions with reference to our original birth (that is to say, concerning marriage and the procreation of children), as well as respecting the end of life and what relates to the last wills and testaments of dying persons are discussed in the laws, We have resolved closely to examine what an ancient law prescribes with reference to dotal instruments, which provides that the nuptial contracts between both parties to a marriage shall transfer property of equal value; that, for example, one of them shall not stipulate for half, and the other for a third or a fourth of a certain sum, but an equitable course must be pursued, as prescribed by the law which provides that the agreement made by each shall be equal, that is to say, that the profit obtained. by the parties severally shall be the half, the third, the quarter, or any other share whatsoever; but it does not require that the articles given should be the same in number, for it permits one of the spouses to stipulate for one or two thousand aurei, or more, and the other to stipulate for less, in such a way that the equality consists rather in the words or letters alone than in the articles themselves.

  Therefore, when correcting all these matters, We desire above all things that whatever is given by these contracts shall be equal, so far as both the dowries and ante-nuptial donations are concerned; that the husband shall stipulate for an advantage as great as the wife; that this advantage shall be of as great a value as the parties desire, but the amounts must be equal. For the principles of justice and equity cannot be observed if the parties to the marriage deceive one another in a business transaction, where they seem to make equal stipulations, but the effect of the latter is unequal, and articles are not furnished by both of them in the same quantity. Thus, for instance, the law would be held to have been entirely evaded if the husband should agree to give two thousand aurei, and his wife agreed to bring him six thousand; or if the parties to the contract should stipulate to receive the fourth of what they consented to give, for in this instance the wife would only obtain five hundred aurei, that is to say, the fourth of what her husband had promised, while the latter would obtain fifteen hundred, which also is the fourth of the sum promised by his wife. In consequence of this, the fourth of one of the parties would be much larger than that of the other, and from this fictitious uniformity a great inequality would result. Dotal contracts which have already been drawn up shall retain the form which has already been given them, as it is impossible for what has already taken place to be considered as not having been accomplished; but We desire that hereafter, in every donation, the stipulation for advantages shall be uniform on both sides, and that the husband and wife shall agree upon equal profits, which We decree in order that We may, in every respect, honor justice and equity. Where one of the parties is more wealthy than the other, he or she will be allowed to favor his or her consort by employing a different method, which is lawful and acknowledged by Our laws, but whoever does this is forbidden to grant his or her spouse a greater advantage by means of a stipulation, which, though appearing to be equitable, will in fact result in inequality. These are the provisions prescribed by the present law with reference to this subject for the purpose of treating all persons with justice.

  We have examined and carefully considered matters relating to ante-nuptial donations, and We shall now treat of their increase. For, as preceding legislators as well as Ourselves have already discussed this subject, We have made use of many philosophical precepts which it would be difficult to enumerate, by means of which We repress and correct frauds perpetrated by some persons under such circumstances, the justice of which precepts We now confirm. For We have granted to dowries the privilege of being preferred to hypothecations of older date, for the reason that when creditors have made contracts with their debtors, they only took into account the property of the latter, and not that of their wives, which perhaps did not yet belong to them. We have likewise permitted persons to stipulate for increases (which was also done in ancient times), and We have granted this power to the husband and the wife; to both of them together if they so desire, or to one of them alone. And, at first, for fear some fraud might be perpetrated, We direct that where the increase of a dowry or a donation on account of marriage is desired to be made, one of the parties interested shall not be permitted to make it and the other confine himself or herself to the original stipulation, but both of them must agree to the increase at the same time; and compliance with this provision is not only enjoined upon each one but is required of both; and they must always keep the amount of the two increases the same, in accordance with the Constitution of Our Father. The reason which has induced Us to establish this rule is to prevent the augmentation from being simulated instead of genuine; especially on the part of the woman, who otherwise would be enabled to avail herself of her privilege, and thereby defraud her husband's creditors. When each of the parties owns land, it is preferable for the stipulation providing for the increase to be made for the same kind of property for which the stipulation was entered into at the time of the marriage, and that the increase subsequently made should be certain. Where only one of the married persons has immovable property, the addition of the wife shall be made in land, in order that the dowry and its increase may be equally privileged, so far as other creditors are concerned, and that the existence of the augmentation may not be doubtful. The increase of the husband shall consist of personal property, for no injury to anyone can result under such circumstances. But where the estate of the woman consists of land, and she stipulates that the increase shall be furnished in movables, she is hereby notified that she will not be entitled to any other privilege than that attaching to her dowry in the first place, and that the increase in this instance is only fictitious. For stipulations made in the beginning are not absolutely liable to suspicion like those which are entered into afterwards to the prejudice of creditors, and for this very reason give rise to doubt; and We do not desire creditors to be injured by the privilege which We grant to dowries. Where, however, the husband is not indebted to anyone, and hence no suspicion of fraud toward his creditors can arise, the increase may be stipulated between the parties to consist of money or anything else that they wish; provided always that this is done equally so far as each of them is concerned, and in such a way that justice may be preserved. For how can there be a suspicion of fraud when the husband is not indebted to anyone, and the increases are agreed upon without deception?

  The determination of matters in doubt in cases of this kind is a legitimate consequence. For We are aware that certain hypothecations, although of more recent date, are preferred to those of older creditors on account of privileges granted by the laws, and this occurs when the creditor has, by advancing money, furnished them means to either purchase, build, or repair a ship, to erect a house, to buy a field, or to do something else of this kind; and he has also a prior lien over other creditors whose claims are much older than his. The question, however, arises, if when a woman, claiming to enjoy the privilege based upon a dowry and its increase, to which this privilege also applies (as has already been stated) wishes to be preferred to prior creditors, and, on the other hand, a creditor whose claim is actually of later date, but who, because a ship, a house, or a field has been bought or repaired with the money which he loaned, demands the same privilege with respect to the property which has been purchased or repaired, whether the dowry shall be preferred to the claim of a creditor of this kind, and will be privileged so far as he is concerned ; or whether, on the contrary, his claim shall be considered preferable for the reason that the property has been increased in value by the expenditure of his money. Therefore We, having devoted much attention to this point, decree that it is not just for the woman under such circumstances to yield to a privilege of this description. For We have seen (which is a legal absurdity) some females make a profit of their own bodies, and earn a livelihood by fornication, while others, who are opposed to such practices, and deliver themselves and their property to their husbands, so far from profiting by this, have their fortunes impaired, and when their husbands are unsuccessful in business, lose all hope of recovering their dowries. Hence We decree that where a creditor has loaned money to repair a house, or to purchase a field, he cannot plead his privilege to the prejudice of a woman, for We are aware of the natural weakness of the sex, and how easily they are defrauded. Nor do We permit their dowries to be diminished, for it is sufficient for them to be deprived of their advantages (if they have obtained any) by a prior antenuptial donation, as this loss is considerable for them, and We do not wish them to run any risk of losing their dowries.

  As inquiries have also been made of Us whether creditors who have loaned money for the purchase of offices shall be preferred, We direct that if anyone has loaned money for the purchase of an office or for the establishment of an institution, or for any other purpose of this kind, and the reason for the loan is expressly stated in the instrument, and it was agreed that if the object was accomplished, the person who lent the money for the purchase should have a preferred claim to all others, it will take precedence of the privilege of the woman in this instance alone; the creditor, however, will not readily be believed, even if he can produce testimony, for a written instrument bearing the signatures of witnesses and drawn up solely with this end in view will be required. If the claim is derived from an obligation contracted in this way, no suspicion will arise, and the contracting parties will not be deprived of the benefit of their own agreement, but, under all other circumstances, wives will be preferred by virtue of the privilege which We have already conceded to them.

  Wherefore Your Highness will hasten to communicate to all persons, and cause to be perpetually observed the provisions which it has pleased Us to promulgate by means of this Imperial Law.