would get all the legal rights of the testator but would also be obligated, possibly beyond the means of the estate, to satisfy the testator's debts. By the time of the Middle Ages in Europe, and especially in England after 1066, the property, but not the personal heirs of a testator, might be liable for the testator's debts: "The heir's rights became confined to real estate, and his liabilities to those connected with real estate."
As Maine notes, the rights and duties did not attach to individuals merely, but individuals who were members of (propertied) families who had standing as fully functional citizens in the Roman polis. What that came down to was the rights and duties incurred by the paterfamilias. To die intestate, i.e., without a will that enunciated disposition of the family's property, put one's heirs at risk because it created the public perception that the property was in a kind of disarray--disarray being a thing rather despised by Roman custom and practice. It appears that Roman civil law was structured to encourage citizens to exercise their responsibility to their families and make a will. By law, emancipated sons (i.e., those independent of paternal authority) of a citizen who died intestate would be disinherited, along with all kindred descended by the female line, while the unemancipated sons (doubtless of noble/citizen birth but otherwise unprotected by state authority) would be entitled to inherit. Absent any eligible heirs, the property would be disposed of by escheat, i.e., at the discretion of the state to "the entire body of Roman citizens bearing the same name with the deceased."
According to Holmes, the original basis for Roman law, the Twelve Tables, "recognize[d] the interest of the inferior members of the family in the family property," although this was not so much a recognition of simple justice as a reinforcement of the primacy of family status by Roman custom and practice. Maine speculates t...