Argument
On the death of Dicaeogenes (II.), who had no children but left four sisters behind him, Proxenus came forward and produced a will by which the deceased Dicaeogenes (II.) adopted his (Proxenus's) son Dicaeogenes (III.) and left him a third of his estate. After they had distributed the whole property on this basis, Dicaeogenes (III.), the son of Proxenus, eventually came and alleged that he had been adopted as heir to the whole property; he won his case and took possession, in addition to his own share, of the two-thirds which had been held by the sisters of the deceased. At a still later date the sons of the sisters brought a successful action against Dicaeogenes (III.), and he agreed to hand back to them the two-thirds clear and free of all charges, Leochares acting as surety for the performance of this promise. In the present suit, as Dicaeogenes (III.) and Leochares repudiate their agreement, the sons of the sisters claim the two-thirds from Dicaeogenes (III.), as having agreed to restore the property, and from Leochares as surety. The discussion turns on a question of fact; for the adversaries deny their engagement.
1
We thought, gentlemen, that in the matter of our dispute with Dicaeogenes (III.) the agreement arrived at in court would be conclusive; for when Dicaeogenes (III.) gave up the two-thirds of the estate and furnished sureties that he would hand over that portion to us without dispute, we reciprocally abandoned our claims. But, gentlemen, since Dicaeogenes (III.) does not perform his agreement, we are bringing an action against Leochares, his surety, in accordance with our affidavit.On the meaning of ἀντωμοσία see Antiph. 5, On the Murder of Herodes fn. 5.
2
Please read the affidavit.
2
Affidavit
