Aristodemus Against Leochares Regarding the Estate of Archiades (21-25)

Leocrates, who had become son by adoption to Archiades, himself returned to the Eleusinians, to whom he originally belonged, leaving Leostratus here in the family as a lawfully born son. Even then we did not as yet disturb any of the arrangements regarding the estate, but continued as before.

Well now, Leostratus here, although he was an adopted son and had been left in the family of Archiades, himself returned, as his father had done, to the Eleusinians, leaving in his place a lawfully born son, and, in defiance of the laws, setting up the original adoption as valid through the lives of three persons.

For how could it be other than contrary to the laws, when one, being himself an adopted son, returned to his original family leaving adopted sons in his place? That is what Leostratus has done up to this day, and by this means they think to rob us of our inheritance, making profit from the estate of Archiades, and supporting their children by it, and always returning from it to the estate of their fathers, keeping that intact, while spending the other.

Nevertheless, although matters were in this condition, as I have told you, we submitted to everything. Until when? Until Leocrates, who had been left by Leostratus in the house as a son, died without issue. But since he died without issue, we, who are nearest of kin to Archiades, claim to inherit the property; and we claim that the defendant cannot, in order to rob us of what is ours, give an adopted son to the dead man who was himself adopted.

For if Leocrates had himself adopted a son during his lifetime, even though the action was contrary to law, we should have made no protest; but since he had no son born to him, nor had adopted one during his lifetime, and as the law gives inheritances to the nearest of kin, how can it be other than right that we should not be robbed of this inheritance, to which we have a double title?