De testamentaria tutela
(Concerning Testamentary Guardianship.)
1 Gaius libro duodecimo ad edictum provinciale. Lege duodecim tabularum permissum est parentibus liberis suis sive feminini sive masculini sexus, si modo in potestate sint, tutores testamento dare. 1Item scire debemus etiam postumis filiis vel nepotibus vel ceteris liberis licere parentibus testamento tutores dare, qui modo in ea causa sint, ut, si vivo eo nati fuerint, in potestate eius futuri sint neque testamentum rupturi. 2Item ignorandum non est eum, qui filium in potestate et nepotem ex eo aeque in potestate habebit, si nepoti tutorem dederit, ita recte dedisse videri, si nepos post mortem eius in patris sui potestatem recasurus non sit: quod evenit, si vivo testatore filius in potestate eius esse desierit.
1 Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book XI. Parents are permitted by the Law of the Twelve Tables to appoint by will guardians for their children of either the female or the male sex, provided they are under their control. 1We should also remember that parents are allowed to appoint testamentary guardians for their posthumous children, grandchildren, or any other descendants, if, where such children were born during the lifetime of the testator they would have been under his control, and would not have broken the will. 2It should also not be forgotten that, where anyone has a son, and also a grandson by the said son, under his control, and he appoints a guardian for his grandson, he must be held to have properly appointed him, if the grandson, after his death, does not again come under the control of his father, which would be the case if his son should cease to be under his control during the lifetime of the testator.
2 Ulpianus libro secundo ad Sabinum. Nec militem liberis recasuris in potestatem tutorem dare posse a divis fratribus rescriptum est.
2 Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book II. It was stated in a Rescript by the Divine Brothers, that a soldier cannot appoint a guardian for his grandchildren, if they were liable to again come under the control of their father.
3 Idem libro trigesimo quinto ad edictum. Testamento datos tutores accipere debemus etiam eos, qui codicillis testamento confirmatis scripti sunt. 1Sed eos demum testamento datos accipere nos oportet, qui iure dati sunt.
4 Modestinus libro septimo differentiarum. Pater heredi instituto filio vel exheredato tutorem dare potest, mater autem non nisi instituto, quasi in rem potius quam in personam tutorem dare videatur. sed et inquiri in eum, qui matris testamento datus est tutor, oportebit, cum a patre datus, quamvis minus iure datus sit, tamen sine inquisitione confirmatur, nisi si causa, propter quam datus videbatur, in eo mutata sit, veluti si ex amico inimicus vel ex divite pauperior effectus sit.
4 Modestinus, Differences, Book VII. A father can appoint a guardian for his son whether he has appointed him his heir, or disinherited him. A mother, however, cannot do this, unless she has constituted her son her heir, as a guardian is held to have been appointed rather with reference to property than to the person. It is necessary for the party appointed by the will of the mother to be confirmed only after examination, since, where he is appointed by the father—even though this has been done with the omission of some legal formalities—he will still be confirmed without any examination, unless the reason for his appointment appears to have been changed; for instance, where from a friend he has become an enemy, or where having previously been rich, he has become poor.
5 Ulpianus libro quinto decimo ad Sabinum. Si quis filiabus suis vel filiis tutores dederit, etiam postumae videtur dedisse, quia filiae appellatione etiam postuma continetur.
5 Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XV. Where anyone appoints a guardian for his daughters or his sons, he is held also to have appointed him for a posthumous daughter, because the term “posthumous” is included in the term daughter.
6 Idem libro trigesimo nono ad Sabinum. Quid si nepotes sint? an appellatione filiorum et ipsis tutores dati sint, videndum. et magis est, ut ipsis quoque dati videantur, si modo liberos dixit: ceterum si filios, non continebuntur: aliter enim filii, aliter nepotes appellantur. plane si postumis dederit, tam filii postumi quam ceteri liberi continebuntur.
6 The Same, On Sabinus, Book XXXIX. But suppose there are grandchildren, must it be held that a guardian is appointed for them under the name of “children”? The better opinion is that the guardian is also appointed for them, provided the testator made use of the word “children”. If, however, he used the word “sons”, they will not be included, for the term son is one thing, and the term grandson another. It is clear that if he appointed a guardian for his posthumous children, the offspring of the latter, as well as the other children, will be included.
7 Paulus libro tertio ad Sabinum. Tutores non ab herede, sed a testatore protinus proficiscuntur, simul atque aliquis heres exstitisset: nam et ipse heres tutor dari potest et post mortem heredis tutor recte dari potest.
7 Paulus, On Sabinus, Book III. Guardians do not derive their authority from the heir, but directly from the testator, and they are vested with it as soon as an heir appears; or the heir himself can be appointed guardian, and a guardian can legally be appointed after the death of the heir.
8 Ulpianus libro vicesimo quarto ad Sabinum. Tutor datus vetari tutor esse potest vel testamento vel codicillis. 1Sed si sub condicione fuerit tutor datus, deficiente condicione tutor non erit. 2Tutorem autem et a certo tempore dare et usque ad certum tempus licet et sub condicione et usque ad condicionem. 3In tutoris dationem utrum levissima condicio an novissima, ut in legato, spectanda est? ut puta ‘Titius cum poterit tutor esto’: ‘Titius si navis ex Asia venerit tutor esto’. et Iulianus libro vicesimo digestorum recte scripsit novissimam scripturam esse spectandam.
8 Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXIV. Where a guardian is appointed, the appointment can be revoked either by another will, or by a codicil. 1If a guardian is appointed under certain conditions, and the condition fails to take place, the appointment is void. 2Moreover, a guardian can be appointed from a certain time, and up to a certain date, as well as under a condition, and until the fulfillment of the condition. 3In the appointment of a guardian, must it be considered whether the condition is most easy of fulfillment, or latest; as, for instance, in the case of a legacy, where Titius is appointed guardian, when he is able to act, or where he is appointed, if a ship should come from Asia? Julianus very properly states in the Twentieth Book of the Digest, that the latest condition which is mentioned should be considered.
9 Pomponius libro tertio ad Quintum Mucium. Si nemo hereditatem adierit, nihil valet ex his, quae testamento scripta sunt: si vero unus ex pluribus adierit, tutelae statim valent nec exspectandum erit, ut omnes hereditatem adeant.
9 Pomponius, On Quintus Mucius, Book III. Where no one enters upon the estate, nothing stated in the will is valid. If, however, one out of several heirs enters upon it, the appointment of a guardian will be valid, and it will not be necessary to wait for all the heirs to accept the estate.
10 Ulpianus libro trigesimo sexto ad Sabinum. Si hereditas nondum adita sit, ex qua tutor speratur, verius est alium tutorem posse dari, quasi nondum sit, nec speretur. 1In tutelis testamentariis id sequimur quod novissimum est, et si saepius tutor datus sit, novissimam scripturam intuemur. 2Qui filium et ex eo nepotem habebat, si nepoti tutorem dederit, habet disceptationem, an aliquo casu non sit utilis datio: ut puta si proponas filium vivo patre decessisse et nepotem ex eo successisse vivo avo. et fortius dicendum est tutelam quoque e lege Iunia Vellea confirmatum: nam et Pomponius libro sexto decimo ex Sabino scripsit valere tutoris dationem. cum enim confirmatum sit testamentum, consequenter tutoris quoque datio valebit in eo testamento scripta quod valet, id est ubi nepos vel heres institutus sit vel nominatim exheredatus sit. 3Si furiosus testamento tutor detur, si quidem, cum furere desierit, tutorem esse recte datum Proculus existimat: quod si datus sit pure, negat Proculus valere dationem. sed est verius, quod et Pomponius ait, recte videri datum et tunc fore tutorem, cum sapere coeperit. 4Servus alienus ita dari tutor potest ‘si liber erit, tutor esto’. quin immo et si pure datus sit, videtur inesse haec condicio ‘cum liber erit’. potest autem quis et extraneo servo defendere ex hac causa fideicommissariam libertatem: quid enim interest, suum servum an alienum tutorem scripserit, cum pupilli favore et publicae utilitatis adsumpta libertas sit in persona eius, qui tutor scriptus est? potest igitur et huic fideicommissaria libertas defendi, si voluntas apertissime non refragetur.
10 Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXXVI. If an estate is not yet entered upon, and the appointment of a guardian is expected under the will disposing of it, the better opinion is that another guardian can be appointed, just as if there was none, nor any expectation of one. 1In testamentary guardianship, the last will of the testator is observed, and if he has appointed several guardians, we accept the last one mentioned. 2Where a man had a son, and a grandson by him, and appointed a guardian for the grandson, there may be a question whether an appointment under such circumstances will not be valid; for example, if one supposes that the son died during the lifetime of his father, and for this reason the grandson will become the heir to his grandfather during the lifetime of the latter. It must be positively held that such a guardianship is confirmed by the Lex Junia Velleia. Pomponius stated in the Sixteenth Book on Sabinus that the appointment of such a guardian is valid. For as the will is valid, the appointment of the guardian made therein will consequently also be valid; that is to say, where the grandson is either appointed heir, or expressly disinherited. 3Where an insane person is appointed a guardian by will, Proculus thinks that the appointment is properly made, if it is stated that he shall act when he ceases to be insane. If, however, he is appointed unconditionally, Proculus denies that the appointment is valid. What Pomponius says is more correct, that is, that the appointment was held to have been properly made, and that the guardian can act when he recovers his reason. 4A slave belonging to another can be appointed a guardian, where it is stated that he shall act if he becomes free. And even if the slave should be appointed without any condition, the acquisition of his freedom is held to be a condition upon which his appointment depends. Where, however, a slave belonging to another is appointed, anyone, however, can maintain that, by doing so, the testator has bequeathed him his freedom by means of a trust. For what difference does it make whether he appoints his own slave, or that of another, since, in the interest of the ward, and in consideration of the public welfare, the freedom of him who is appointed guardian is assumed? Therefore, it can be maintained that freedom through a trust has been conferred upon the slave, unless it is perfectly clear that this was not the intention of the testator.
11 Idem libro trigesimo septimo ad Sabinum. Si quis sub condicione vel ex die tutorem dederit, medio tempore alius tutor dandus est, quamvis legitimum tutorem pupillus habeat: sciendum est enim, quamdiu testamentaria tutela speratur, legitimam cessare. 1Et si semel ad testamentarium devoluta fuerit tutela, deinde excusatus sit tutor testamentarius, adhuc dicimus in locum excusati dandum, non ad legitimum tutorem redire tutelam. 2Idem dicimus et si fuerit remotus: nam et hic idcirco abit, ut alius detur. 3Quod si tutor testamento datus decesserit, ad legitimum tutela redit, quia hic senatus consultum cessat. 4Plane si duo pluresve fuerint tutores testamentarii, in locum eius, qui decessit vel in civitate esse desiit, poterit dari alius: ceterum si nullus supersit vel in civitate sit, legitima tutela succedit.
11 The Same, On Sabinus, Book XXXVII. If anyone appoints a guardian under a condition or from a certain date, another guardian should be appointed in the meantime, even though the ward may already have a legal guardian; for it must be remembered that legal guardianship is not operative so long as the appointment of a testamentary guardian is expected. 1Where the office of guardian devolves upon one appointed by will, and the testamentary guardian is afterwards excused from serving; we can say in this instance that another should be appointed in the place of the one who was excused, and that the office does not revert to the legal guardian. 2We also say that, if the guardian should be removed, the same rule will apply; for he retires in order that another may be appointed. 3If, however, the testamentary guardian should die, the office will revert to the original guardian, because in this instance the Decree of the Senate does not apply. 4It is evident that if two or more testamentary guardians are appointed, and one of them dies or forfeits his civil rights, another can be appointed in his stead; but if neither of them survives, or retains his civil rights, the legal guardianship will be established.
12 Idem libro trigesimo octavo ad Sabinum. Certarum rerum vel causarum testamento tutor dari non potest nec deductis rebus.
12 The Same, On Sabinus, Book XXXVIII. A guardian cannot be appointed by will for the management of certain affairs, without including the administration of property.
13 Pomponius libro septimo decimo ad Sabinum. Et si datus fuerit, tota datio nihil valebit,
13 Pomponius, On Sabinus, Book XVII. And if one should be appointed under such conditions, the entire appointment will be void:
14 Marcianus libro secundo institutionum. quia personae, non rei vel causae datur.
14 Marcianus, Institutes, Book II. For the reason that a guardian is appointed to have charge of the person, and not merely for the care of certain property, or the transaction of some business.
15 Ulpianus libro trigesimo octavo ad Sabinum. Si tamen tutor detur rei Africanae vel rei Syriaticae, utilis datio est: hoc enim iure utimur.
15 Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXXVIII. Where, however, a guardian is appointed for property which is situated in Africa or Syria, the appointment will be valid, for this is our practice.
16 Idem libro trigesimo nono ad Sabinum. Si quis ita dederit ‘filiis meis tutorem do’, in ea condicione est, ut tam filiis quam filiabus dedisse videatur: filiorum enim appellatione et filiae continentur. 1Si quis filio tutorem dederit et plures filios habeat, an omnibus filiis dedisse videatur? et de hoc Pomponius dubitat: magis autem est, ut omnibus dedisse videatur. 2Si quis liberis tutores dederit vel filiis et habeat quosdam apud hostes, etiam ipsis dedisse videbitur, si non aliud aperte probetur testatorem sensisse. 3Si quis cum ignoraret se filium Titium habere, filiis tutores dederit, utrum his solis dedisse videatur, quos in potestate scit an ei quoque, quem ignoravit se habere? et magis est, ut huic dedisse non videatur, licet nomen filiorum admittit et ipsum: sed quia de ipso non sensisset, dicendum est cessare in personam eius dationem. 4Proinde et si certus fuit filium decessisse, qui supererat, idem erit dicendum: nec enim videtur ei dedisse, quem obisse credebat. 5Si postumis dederit tutores hique vivo nascantur, an datio valeat? et magis est, ut utilis datio fiat etiam si vivo eo nascantur.
16 The Same, On Sabinus, Book XXXIX. If anyone should name a guardian as follows: “I appoint So-and-So guardian of my children”, the appointment will be held to have been made for the sons as well as the daughters of the testator, for daughters are included in the term children. 1If a man should appoint a guardian for his son, and he has several sons, will he be held to have appointed him for all of them? Pomponius is in doubt on this point; but the better opinion is that he will be held to have made the appointment for all. 2Where anyone appoints a guardian for his children, or merely for his sons, he will be held to have made the appointment for any whom he may have who are held captive by the enemy, if it is not clearly established that the intention of the testator was otherwise. 3If anyone should appoint a guardian for his children, not being aware that Titius was his child; shall he be considered to have made the appointment only for those whom he knew to be under his control, or also for him who he did not know was his son? The better opinion is that he should not be considered to have made the appointment for the latter, although he is included among the number of his sons; but, for the reason that he did not have him in mind at the time, it must be said that the appointment does not have reference to him. 4Hence the same rule will apply where a man was certain that his son was dead, while in fact he was living; for he is not held to have appointed a guardian for one whom he believed was dead. 5Where anyone appoints a guardian for his posthumous children, and the latter are born during his lifetime, will the appointment be valid? The better opinion is that it will be valid, even though the said children should be born while he is living.
17 Idem libro trigesimo quinto ad edictum. Testamento datos tutores non esse cogendos satisdare rem salvam fore certo certius est: sed nihilo minus cum quis offert satisdationem, ut solus administret, audiendus est, ut edicto cavetur. sed recte praetor etiam ceteris detulit hanc condicionem, si et ipsi velint satisdare: nam et si ipsi parati sunt satisdare, non debent excludi alterius oblatione, sed impleta videlicet ab omnibus satisdatione omnes gerent, ut qui contentus est magis satis accipere quam gerere, securus esset. 1Non omnimodo autem is qui satisdet praeferendus est: quid enim si suspecta persona sit vel turpis, cui tutela committi nec cum satisdatione debeat? vel quid si iam multa flagitia in tutela admisit? nonne magis repelli et reici a tutela, quam solus administrare debeat? nec satis non dantes temere repelluntur, quia plerumque bene probati et idonei atque honesti tutores, etiamsi satis non dent, non debent reici: quin immo nec iubendi sunt satisdare. 2Duplex igitur causae cognitio est, una ex persona eius qui optulerit satisdationem, quis et qualis est, alia contutorum, quales sunt, num forte eius existimationis vel eius honestatis sunt, ut non debeant hanc contumeliam satisdationis subire.
17 The Same, On the Edict, Book XXXV. It is perfectly certain that testamentary guardians should not be compelled to give security for the preservation of the property of their wards. Still, when one of several offers to furnish security that he will administer the office alone, he should be heard, as is provided by the Edict. Moreover, the Prætor very properly inquires of the others whether they also are willing to give security, for if they are ready to do so, they should not be excluded by the offer of the first one; but if security is furnished by all, all can administer the trust, so that any of them who prefers to receive security rather than administer it will be rendered safe. 1By no means, however, is a guardian who offers to give security always to be preferred. For what if he was a suspicious person, or one who is infamous to whom the guardianship should not be entrusted, even if he gave security? Or, if he had already been guilty of many crimes in the administration of the guardianship, should he not rather be dismissed and expelled from his office, than be allowed to administer it alone? Those who do not give security should not rashly be rejected, because, generally speaking, persons who are of good repute, solvent, and honest, should not be excluded as guardians, even if they do not furnish security, nor, indeed, should they be ordered to furnish it. 2Therefore the examination instituted by the Prætor is twofold in its nature; on the one hand, it must be ascertained who, and what kind of a person he is who offers to give security; and on the other, the character and qualifications of his fellow guardian should be investigated. For it is necessary to learn what their standing and honesty are, so that they may not be subjected to the insult of being compelled to give security.
18 Callistratus libro tertio edicti monitorii. Quod si plures satisdare parati sint, tunc idonior praeferendus erit, ut et tutorum personae inter se et fideiussorum comparentur.
18 Callistratus, On the Monitory Edict, Book III. Where several guardians are prepared to furnish security, the most solvent of them should be given the preference; so that comparison may be made between the guardians and their sureties.
19 Ulpianus libro trigesimo quinto ad edictum. Si nemo tutorum provocet ad satisdationem, sed exsistat quidam qui tutor non est desideraretque, ut aut satisdent tutores, aut, si non dent, parato sibi satisdare committant tutelam, non est audiendus: neque enim aut extero committenda tutela est, aut testamento dati tutores contra ius satisdationi subiciendi sunt. 1Hoc edictum de satisdatione ad tutores testamentarios pertinet: sed et si ex inquisitione dati sint tutores, Marcellus ait et ad hos pertinere hoc edictum et id oratione etiam divorum fratrum significari. ideoque et illi clausulae sunt subiecti, ut, si cui maior pars tutorum decernat, is gerat quem maior pars eligat, quamvis verba edicti ad testamentarios pertineant. 2Testamento datus postumo tutor nondum est tutor, nisi postumus edatur: datur tamen adversus eum substituto pupilli negotiorum gestorum actio. sed si partus editus fuerit, deinde hic tutor, priusquam quicquam gereret, remotus a tutela fuerit, et hic eadem actione tenebitur. si quid plane gessit post editum partum, de eo quoque, quod ante gessit, tutelae iudicio tenebitur et omnis administratio in hac actione veniet.
19 Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXXV. If none of the guardians volunteer to give security, but a certain person who is not a guardian appears, and requests that the guardians furnish it, or, if they do not do so, that the guardianship should be given to him, he being ready to provide security; he should not be heard. For guardianships ought not to be entrusted to a stranger, and testamentary guardians should not be compelled to give security contrary to law. 1This Edict with reference to the furnishing of security applies to testamentary guardians. Where, however, guardians are appointed after an examination, Marcellus says that this Edict is also applicable to them, and this is also indicated by an Address of the Divine Brothers. They therefore come under the same rule, hence if the majority of the guardians so decide, he shall administer the guardianship whom the majority may select, although the terms of the Edict specifically apply to testamentary guardians. 2Where a guardian is appointed by will for a posthumous child, he cannot administer the office until the posthumous child is born. An action on the ground of voluntary agency will, however, be granted to the substituted ward as against the guardian. But where the child is born, and the guardian is removed from office before he discharges any of its duties, he will be liable to this same action. If, however, he transacts any business after the child is born, he will be liable to an action on guardianship with reference also to any matters which he has previously attended to, and his entire administration will be included in this action.
20 Paulus libro trigesimo octavo ad edictum. Tutor incertus dari non potest. 1Testamento quemlibet possumus tutorem dare, sive is praetor sive consul sit, quia lex duodecim tabularum id confirmat.
21 The Same, Abridgments, Book VIII. Those can be appointed testamentary guardians who are competent to take under the will.
22 Ulpianus libro quadragesimo quinto ad edictum. Si quis tutorem dederit filio suo servum, quem putabat liberum esse, cum esset servus, is neque liber neque tutor erit.
22 Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XLV. If anyone should appoint a slave the guardian of his son, thinking that he was free, when, in fact, he was a slave; he shall neither become free, nor act as guardian under the provisions of the will.
23 Africanus libro octavo quaestionum. Tutor ita recte non datur: ‘illi aut illi filiis meis, utri eorum volet, Titius tutor esto’; quid enim dicemus, si Titius constituere nolit, utri ex filiis tutor esse velit? 1Ita autem recte tutor dabitur: ‘Titius si volet illi filio meo tutor esto’.
23 Africanus, Questions, Book VIII. The appointment of a guardian is not legally made in the following terms: “Titius shall be the guardian of such-and-such of my children, whichever he prefers”. For what could we say if Titius refused to decide for which one of the children he preferred to be the guardian? 1A guardian can, however, be properly appointed in the following terms: “I appoint Titius to be the guardian of So-and-So, my son, if he is willing”.
24 Iavolenus libro quinto ex Cassio. Si plures tutores sint, a praetore curatorem posci litis causa supervacuum est, quia altero auctore cum altero agi potest.
24 Javolenus, On Cassius, Book V. Where there are several guardians, it is superfluous to petition the Prætor to appoint a curator for the purpose of conducting a lawsuit against one of them, because the ward can begin the action with the authority of another guardian.
25 Modestinus libro quarto pandectarum. Duobus pupillis tutor datus etsi alterius tutela se excusare potest, cum res separatae sint, attamen alterius tutor manet.
25 Modestinus, Pandects, Book IV. Where a guardian is appointed for two minors, even if he can excuse himself from the guardianship of one of them, he will still remain the guardian of the other, if the property of the minors is separate.
26 Papinianus libro quarto responsorum. Iure nostro tutela communium liberorum matri testamento patris frustra mandatur, nec, si provinciae praeses imperitia lapsus patris voluntatem sequendam decreverit, successor eius sententiam, quam leges nostrae non admittunt, recte sequetur. 1Honoris causa tutor datus non videtur, quem pater a ceteris tutoribus, quibus negotia gerenda mandavit, rationes accipere voluit. 2Propter litem inofficiosi testamenti ordinandam exheredato filio, cui tutorem pater dedit, eundem a praetore confirmari oportet: eventus iudicatae rei declarabit, utrum ex testamento patris an ex decreto praetoris auctoritatem acceperit.
26 Papinianus, Opinions, Book IV. In accordance with our laws, the guardianship of their common children cannot be left to the mother by the father’s will, and if the Governor of the province, through ignorance, should decide that the will of the father shall be carried out, his successor cannot properly adopt his decision which is not permitted by our laws. 1A guardian is not considered to be an honorary one that the father appointed for the purpose of receiving accounts from other guardians, whom he directed to transact the business of his children. 2Where a son, who is disinherited, was provided with a guardian by the last will of his father, and desires to institute proceedings against the will as inofficious, the appointment of the guardian must be confirmed by the Prætor; and the result of the action will establish whether he received his authority from the will of the father, or from the decree of the Prætor.
27 Tryphoninus libro quarto decimo disputationum. Idem fiet, si intestatum decessisse patrem pupilli nomine defendatur falsumve testamentum nomine pupilli dicatur et si patruus exstet legitimus tutor futurus ab intestato, quia tutorem habenti tutor dari non potest. nam commodius ipse, qui scriptura continetur, a praetore dabitur, ut sine ullo litis praeiudicio iustus tutor auctor pupillo ad eam litem fiat. 1Cum autem ipse patruus, quem tutorem legitimum sibi dicebat pupillus esse, subiectum filium criminaretur et ad se legitimam hereditatem pertinere contenderet, alium tutorem petendum Iulianus respondit.
27 Tryphoninus, Disputations, Book XIV. The same rule applies where the defence is set up in the name of the ward that his father died intestate, or where the allegation that the will is forged is made in the name of the ward; and if a paternal uncle is living, he will become the legal guardian ab intestato, because a guardian cannot be appointed for a ward who is already provided with one. It is, however, more convenient that the guardian mentioned in the will should be appointed by the Prætor, so that the legal guardian may authorize the ward to proceed without any prejudice to the case. 1Where a paternal uncle, whom the ward declares ought to be his lawful guardian, accuses him of being a supposititious child, and claims that the estate lawfully belongs to him; Julianus is of the opinion that application for the appointment of another guardian should be made.
28 Papinianus libro quarto responsorum. Qui tutelam testamento mandatam excusationis iure suscipere noluit, ab his quoque legatis summovendus erit, quae filiis eius relicta sunt, modo si legata filii non affectione propria, sed in honorem patris meruerunt. 1Verbis fideicommissi manumissus non iure tutor testamento datur: post libertatem itaque redditam ex voluntate testatoris ad tutelam vocatur. 2Impuberi liberto patronus frustra tutorem dabit, sed voluntatem eius, si fides inquisitionis congruat, praetor sequetur.
28 Papinianus, Opinions, Book IV. Where a testamentary guardian is unwilling to undertake the duties of the office, and gives reasons for which he should be excused, he shall be deprived of any legacies which may been bequeathed to his children by the will; provided the latter have deserved these legacies not through special affection, but for the sake of their father. 1When a slave has been manumitted under the terms of a trust, he cannot legally be appointed a guardian by will. Hence, after his freedom has been granted him, he may be called to the guardianship in accordance with the desire of the testator. 2A patron cannot appoint a guardian for his freedman by will, but the Prætor can carry out his wishes if, after examination, he finds the character of the appointee to be suitable.
29 Idem libro quinto decimo responsorum. Ex sententia senatus consulti Liboniani tutor non erit, qui se testamento pupillo tutorem scripsit: cum autem patris voluntas hoc ipsum manu sua declarantis ambigua non esset, eum, quamvis alii tutores essent, curatorem dandum respondi, nec admittendam excusationem, quam iure publico habebat, quoniam promississe videbatur, nec ut suspectum removeri.
29 The Same, Opinions, Book XV. According to the terms of the Libonian Decree of the Senate, a person cannot act who appointed himself the testamentary guardian of a ward. For as the intention of the father is not doubtful, since he stated it in an instrument in his own hand, I gave the opinion that he should be appointed curator, even though there may be other guardians. In this instance, the excuse to which he would be entitled by law should not be admitted, since he is held to have bound himself, nor can he be removed on the ground of suspicion.
30 Paulus libro sexto quaestionum. Duo sunt Titii, pater et filius: datus est tutor Titius nec apparet, de quo sensit testator: quaero, quid sit iuris. respondit: is datus est, quem dare se testator sensit: si id non apparet, non ius deficit, sed probatio, igitur neuter est tutor.
30 Paulus, Questions, Book VI. Two persons are named Titius, father and son; Titius is appointed guardian, but it does not appear which one the testator meant. I ask what is the law in the case? The answer was, that he should be appointed whom the testator had in his mind. If his intention is not apparent the law is not defective, but the evidence is lacking. Therefore neither of them can act as guardian.
31 Scaevola libro quarto quaestionum. Si pater exheredatae filiae tutores dederit et testamentum eius ruptum dicatur nato postumo, commodissimum est eosdem tutores pupillae dari ad petendam intestati hereditatem.
31 Scævola, Questions, Book IV. If a father should appoint guardians for a daughter whom he has disinherited, and the will should be declared to be broken on account of the birth of a posthumous child, it will be best for the said guardians to be appointed for the ward, for the purpose of claiming the inheritance of the intestate.
32 Paulus libro nono responsorum. Quaero, an non eiusdem civitatis cives testamento quis tutores dare possit? Paulus respondit posse. 1Idem Paulus respondit eum quoque, qui propter rerum notitiam tutor datus est, perinde in omnibus et administrationis et accessionis iure conveniri posse atque ceteros tutores, qui eodem testamento dati sunt. 2Lucius Titius heredes instituit filios suos pupillaris aetatis eisque tutores his verbis dedit: ‘filiis meis tutores sunto Gaius Maevius et Lucius Eros’, cui Eroti libertatem non dedit: fuit autem Eros intra viginti quinque annos aetatis: quaero an possit libertatem sibi vindicare. Paulus respondit, quoniam placet eum, qui a domino tutor datus est, libertatem quoque meruisse videri, eum quoque de quo quaeritur in eadem causa habendum et liberum quidem ab adita hereditate esse, tutela autem post legitimam aetatem onerari.
32 Paulus, Opinions, Book IX. I ask whether anyone can appoint as testamentary guardians citizens who do not reside in the same town as the ward. Paulus answered that he can do so. 1Paulus also gives it as his opinion that a man who has been appointed guardian on account of his knowledge of certain matters, can legally be sued with reference to everything pertaining to the administration of the office, just as other guardians appointed by the same will. 2Lucius Titius appointed his minor children his heirs, and appointed guardians for them in the following words: “Gaius Mævius and Lucius Eros shall be the guardians of my children”. But he did not bequeath his freedom to Eros, who was a slave. The latter, however, was under the age of twenty-five years, and I ask whether he could claim his freedom. Paulus gave it as his opinion, that as it had been decided that a slave who was appointed a guardian by his master is considered to have deserved his freedom, he also, with respect to whom the inquiry is made, should be considered to be in the same position, and therefore should be free as soon as the estate was entered upon, and should be entitled to the guardianship when he attained lawful age.
33 Iavolenus libro octavo ex posterioribus Labeonis. Tutoribus ita datis: ‘Lucium Titium tutorem do. si is non vivit, tum Gaium Plautium tutorem do’ Titius vixerat et tutelam gesserat, deinde mortuus erat. Trebatius negat ad Plautium pertinere tutelam, Labeo contra, Proculus quod Labeo. ego Trebatii sententiam probo, quia illa verba ad mortis tempus referuntur.
33 Javolenus, On the Last Works of Labeo, Book VIII. Certain guardians were appointed as follows: “I appoint Lucius Titius guardian, and if he should not be living, I then appoint Gaius Plautius”. Titius lived and administered the guardianship, and afterwards died. Trebatius denies that the guardianship belongs to Plautius; Labeo holds the opposite opinion, and Proculus agrees with him; but I have adopted the opinion of Trebatius because the words of the testator have reference to the time of death.
34 Scaevola libro decimo digestorum. Cum codicillis ideo alios tutores dare significasset, quoniam testamento datos quosdam defunctos aut excusationem habere posse comperisset, an nihilo minus qui eorum viverent nec excusati essent, tutores permanerent? respondit nihil proponi, cur non permanerent.
34 Scævola, Digest, Book X. A testator appointed other guardians by a codicil because those whom he had appointed by will were either dead, or had offered good excuses for declining to accept the trust. Shall the surviving guardians, who were not excused, still remain in office? The answer was that there was nothing in the facts stated to prevent them from continuing in office.