De rebus eorum, qui sub tutela vel cura sunt, sine decreto non alienandis vel supponendis
(Concerning the property of those who are under guardianship or curatorship, and with reference to the alienation or encumbrance of their property without a decree.)
1 Ulpianus libro trigesimo quinto ad edictum. Imperatoris Severi oratione prohibiti sunt tutores et curatores praedia rustica vel suburbana distrahere. 1Quae oratio in senatu recitata est Tertullo et Clemente consulibus idibus Iuniis et sunt verba eius huiusmodi: 2‘Praeterea, patres conscripti, interdicam tutoribus et curatoribus, ne praedia rustica vel suburbana distrahant, nisi ut id fieret, parentes testamento vel codicillis caverint. quod si forte aes alienum tantum erit, ut ex rebus ceteris non possit exsolvi, tunc praetor urbanus vir clarissimus adeatur, qui pro sua religione aestimet, quae possunt alienari obligarive debeant, manente pupillo actione, si postea potuerit probari obreptum esse praetori. si communis res erit et socius ad divisionem provocet, aut si creditor, qui pignori agrum a parente pupilli acceperit, ius exsequetur, nihil novandum censeo’. 3Si defunctus dum viveret res venales habuerit, testamento tamen non caverit, uti distraherentur, abstinendum erit venditione: non enim utique qui ipse voluerit vendere, idem etiam postea distrahenda putavit. 4Si minor viginti quinque annis emit praedia, ut, quoad pretium solveret, essent pignori obligata venditori, non puto pignus valere: nam ubi dominium quaesitum est minori, coepit non posse obligari.
1 Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXXV. Guardians and curators are prohibited by a decree of the Emperor Severus from disposing of the lands of wards and others under their care, whether they are situated in the country, or in a city. 1This decree was published in the Senate during the consulship of Tertyllus and Clement. 2Its provisions are as follows: “Moreover, Conscript Fathers, I forbid guardians and curators to sell either rustic or urban estates, unless parents have provided by will or by codicil that this may be done. If, however, debts exist to such an amount that they cannot be paid out of the proceeds of other property, then application can be made to the illustrious Urban Prætor, who in his discretion shall determine what lands may be alienated or encumbered, and a right of action will be reserved for the ward, if it should subsequently be established that the Prætor was imposed upon. Where the property is held in common with another, and the joint-owner applies for partition, or if a creditor who has received land by way of pledge from the father of the ward demands his rights, I hold that no new decree should be issued.” 3When the deceased had property which could have been sold during his lifetime, but did not provide by his will that this should be done, the sale of the same ought not to be made; for even if the testator desired to sell the property, he may not have thought that it should be disposed of after his death. 4Where a minor under twenty-five years of age purchases land under the condition that it shall be pledged to the vendor, until the price of the same is paid, I do not think that the pledge is valid, for whenever the ownership of property is acquired by a minor he ceases to be liable.
2 Paulus libro singulari ad orationem divi Severi. Sed hic videtur illud movere, quod cum dominio pignus quaesitum est et ab initio obligatio inhaesit. quod si a fisco emerit, nec dubitatio est, quin ius pignoris salvum sit. si igitur talis species in privato venditore inciderit, imperiali beneficio opus est, ut ex rescripto pignus confirmetur.
2 Paulus, On the Decree of the Divine Severus. But here a difficulty arises, for the reason that a pledge becomes operative at the same time with the acquisition of ownership, and the obligation becomes a part of the transaction from the very beginning. But what if the minor made the purchase from the Treasury? There is no doubt in this instance that the right to the pledge would remain unimpaired. Therefore, where an instance of this kind arises in a sale to a private vendor, application must be made to the Emperor in order that the pledge may be confirmed by a Rescript.
3 Ulpianus libro trigesimo quinto ad edictum. Sed si pecunia alterius pupilli alteri pupillo fundus sit comparatus isque pupillo vel minori traditus, an pignoris obligationem possit habere is, cuius pecunia fundus sit emptus et magis est, ut salvum sit ius pignoris secundum constitutionem imperatoris nostri et divi patris eius ei pupillo, cuius pecunia comparatus est fundus. 1Pignori tamen capi iussu magistratus vel praesidis vel alterius potestatis et distrahi fundus pupillaris potest. sed et in possessionem mitti rerum pupillarum a praetore quis potest et ius pignoris contrahitur, sive legatorum servandorum causa sive damni infecti, ut procedat, iuberi etiam possideri poterit: hae enim obligationes sive alienationes locum habent, quia non ex tutoris vel curatoris voluntate id fit, sed ex magistratuum auctoritate. 2Item quaeri potest, si fundus a tutore petitus sit pupillaris nec restituatur, an litis aestimatio oblata alienationem pariat, et magis est, ut pariat: haec enim alienatio non sponte tutorum fit. 3Idemque erit dicendum et si fundus petitus sit, qui pupilli fuit, et contra pupillum pronuntiatum tutoresque restituerunt: nam et hic valebit alienatio propter rei iudicatae auctoritatem. 4Si ius ἐμφυτευτικὸν vel ἐμβατευτικὸν habeat pupillus, videamus, an distrahi hoc a tutoribus possit. et magis est non posse, quamvis ius praedii potius sit. 5Nec usus fructus alienari potest, etsi solus fuit usus fructus pupilli. an ergo hic nec non utendo amittatur, si tutor causam praebuerit huius rei? et manifestum est restaurari debere. sed si proprietatem habeat pupillus, non potest usum fructum vel usum alienare, quamvis oratio nihil de usu fructu loquatur. simili modo dici potest nec servitutem imponi posse fundo pupilli vel adulescentis nec servitutem remitti, quod et in fundo dotali placuit. 6Si lapidicinas vel quae alia metalla pupillus habuit stypteriae vel cuius alterius materiae, vel si cretifodinas argentifodinas vel quid aliud huic simile,
3 Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXXV. But if one ward should purchase land with the money of another, and it was delivered to the ward or the minor, is he with whose money the said land was purchased entitled to the obligation or pledge? The better opinion is, that the right of pledge remains unimpaired, in accordance with the Constitution of our Emperor and his Divine Father, in favor of the ward with whose money the land was purchased. 1Land belonging to a ward can, nevertheless, be seized and sold by order of a magistrate, a Governor, or any other official having jurisdiction. Again, anyone can be placed in possession of the property of a ward by the Prætor; and the right of pledge may be contracted either for the purpose of preserving a legacy, or to provide against threatened injury, and the Prætor can order the property to be taken possession of as he shall direct. These obligations or alienations are effected through the authority of magistrates, and not with the consent of a guardian or a curator. 2The question may also be asked, where restitution of a tract of land belonging to a ward is demanded by a guardian, whether the tender of its value in court operates as an alienation. The better opinion is that it does so operate, for such an alienation does not depend upon the will of the guardian. 3The same thing must be said where land which belonged to the ward is demanded, and the guardians return it in opposition to the ward; for, in this instance, the alienation will be valid on account of the authority of the decision rendered. 4Where the ward enjoys the right of perpetual lease or of possession, let us see whether it can be disposed of by his guardians. The better opinion is that it cannot be, even though the title of the other party to the land may be better. 5Nor can an usufruct be alienated, even though the usufruct alone belongs to the ward. Hence, must it be assumed that the right is lost by non-user, if the guardian gave occasion for it? It is clear that it should be restored. Where, however, the ward owns the property, he cannot alienate either the usufruct or the use of the same, although the decree states nothing with reference to the usufruct. In like manner, it may be said that a servitude cannot be imposed on the land of a ward, or a minor, nor can one be extinguished. This rule is also established with reference to dotal lands. 6Where a ward has mines of alum, or metal, or any other substance, or chalk-pits, or silver mines, or anything else of this kind,
4 Paulus libro singulari ad orationem divi Severi. quod tamen privatis licet possidere:
4 Paulus, On the Decree of the Divine Severus. Which private individuals have a right to possess:
5 Ulpianus libro trigesimo quinto ad edictum. magis puto ex sententia orationis impediri alienationem. 1Sed et si salinas habeat pupillus, idem erit dicendum. 2Si pupillus alienum fundum bona fide emptum possideat, dicendum puto ne hunc alienare tutores posse: ea enim, quae quasi pupillaris vero distractus est, venditio valet. 3Si fundus pupillo pigneratus sit, an vendere tutores? hunc enim quasi debitoris, hoc est alienum vendunt. si tamen impetraverat pupillus vel pater eius, ut iure dominii possideant, consequens erit dicere non posse distrahi quasi praedium pupillare. idemque et si fuerit ex causa damni infecti iussus possidere. 4Si fundus legatus vel per fideicommissum fuerit relictus Seio a pupillo herede instituto, an tutores restituere hunc fundum possint sine auctoritate praetoris? et putem, si quidem rem suam legavit, cessare orationem, sin vero de re pupilli, dicendum erit locum esse orationi nec inconsulto praetore posse alienare. 5Si pupillus stipulanti spoponderit, an solvere possit sine praetoris auctoritate? et magis est, ne possit: alioquin inventa erit alienandi ratio. 6Sed si pater stipulanti fundum spoponderit successeritque pupillus in stipulatum, fortius dicetur sine praetoris auctoritate posse eum reddere. idemque et si iure hereditario alii successerit, qui erat obligatus. 7Eadem ratione et si parens fundum vendidit vel quis alius, cui pupillus successerit, potest dici pupillum cetera venditionis inconsulto praetore posse perficere. 8Fundum autem legatum repudiare pupillus sine praetoris auctoritate non potest: esse enim et hanc alienationem, cum res sit pupilli, nemo dubitat. 9Non passim tutoribus sub optentu aeris alieni permitti debuit venditio: namque non esse viam eis distractionis tributam. et ideo praetori arbitrium huius rei senatus dedit, cuius officio in primis hoc convenit excutere, an aliunde possit pecunia ad extenuandum aes alienum expediri. quaerere ergo debet, an pecuniam pupillus habeat vel in numerato vel in nominibus, quae conveniri possunt, vel in fructibus conditis vel etiam in redituum spe atque obventionum. item requirat, num aliae res sint praeter praedia, quae distrahi possint, ex quarum pretio aeri alieno satisfieri possit. si igitur deprehenderit non posse aliunde exsolvi quam ex praediorum distractione, tunc permittet distrahi, si modo urgueat creditor aut usurarum modus parendum aeri alieno suadeat. 10Idem praetor aestimare debebit, utrum vendere potius an obligare permittat nec non illud vigilanter observare, ne plus accipiatur sub obligatione praediorum faenoris, quam quod opus sit ad solvendum aes alienum: aut distrahendum arbitrabitur, ne propter modicum aes alienum magna possessio distrahatur, sed si sit alia possessio minor vel minus utilior pupillo, magis eam iubere distrahi quam maiorem et utiliorem. 11In primis igitur quotiens desideratur ab eo, ut remittat distrahi, requirere debet eum, qui se instruat de fortunis pupilli, nec nimium tutoribus vel curatoribus credere, qui nonnumquam lucri sui gratia adseverare praetori solent necesse esse distrahi possessiones vel obligari. requirat ergo necessarios pupilli vel parentes vel libertos aliquos fideles vel quem alium, qui notitiam rerum pupillarium habet, aut, si nemo inveniatur aut suspecti sint qui inveniuntur, iubere debet edi rationes itemque synopsin bonorum pupillarium, advocatumque pupillo dare, qui instruere possit praetoris religionem, an adsentire venditioni vel obligationi debeat. 12Illud quaeri potest, si praetor aditus permiserit distrahi possessionem provincialem, an valeat quod fecit. et putem valere: si modo tutela Romae agebatur et hi tutores eam quoque administrationem subierant. 13Ne tamen titulo tenus tutores aere alieno allegato pecunia abutantur quam mutuam acceperunt, oportebit praetorem curare, ut pecunia accepta creditoribus solvatur et de hoc decernere dareque viatorem, qui ei renuntiet pecuniam istam ad hoc conversam, propter quod desiderata est alienatio vel obligatio. 14Si aes alienum non interveniat, tutores tamen allegent expedire haec praedia vendere et vel alia comparare vel certe istis carere, videndum est, an praetor eis debeat permittere. et magis est, ne possit: praetori enim non liberum arbitrium datum est distrahendi res pupillares, sed ita demum, si aes alienum immineat. proinde et si permiserit aere alieno non allegato, consequenter dicemus nullam esse venditionem nullumque decretum: non enim passim distrahi iubere praetori tributum est, sed ita demum, si urgueat aes alienum. 15Manet actio pupillo, si postea poterit probari obreptum esse praetori. sed videndum est, utrum in rem an in personam dabimus ei actionem. et magis est, ut in rem detur, non tantum in personam adversus tutores sive curatores. 16Communia praedia accipere debemus, si pro indiviso communia sint: ceterum si pro diviso communia sint, cessante oratione decreto locus erit.
5 Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXXV. I think that the better opinion is, that the alienation cannot be made in accordance with the spirit of the decree. 1It must be held that the same rule will apply where the ward owns salt-pits. 2Where the ward possesses, in good faith, land which belongs to another, I think it should be held that his guardians cannot alienate it; for where anything is sold which appears to belong to a ward the sale will not be valid. 3Where a tract of land has been pledged to a ward, can his guardians sell it? I think that they can, for this is, as it were, the property of the debtor, that is to say, they sell what belongs to another. Where, however, the ward or his father acquires the right to possess the property on the ground of ownership, it must be said in consequence that it cannot be disposed of, because it is considered as land belonging to the ward. The same rule applies where the ward has been directed to take possession of property for the prevention of threatened injury. 4Where land has been devised, or left by way of trust to a ward who was appointed heir, to be transferred to Seius, can his guardians deliver the “said land without the authority of the Prætor? I think that if the testator devised his own property, the decree will not apply; but if the bequest has reference to the property of the ward, it should be held to come within the terms of the decree, and that it cannot be alienated without the consent of the Prætor. 5If a ward should enter into a stipulation, can he pay the money borrowed without the authority of the Prætor. The better opinion is that he cannot do so; otherwise a pretext for alienating the property of the ward would be obtained. 6But if a father should promise land by a stipulation, and the ward should succeed to him in the assumption of his obligation, it may be said more positively that he can give up the land without the authority of the Prætor. The same rule also applies where the ward, by hereditary right, succeeds another who obligated himself. 7On the same principle, if a father, or anyone else whom the ward succeeded, should have agreed to sell a tract of land, it may be said that the ward can conclude all the other terms of the sale without applying to the Prætor. 8A ward cannot reject the devise of a tract of land without the authority of the Prætor; for no one doubts that this is a case of alienation, as the property belongs to the ward. 9Guardians should not be granted the right to sell property of the ward indiscriminately, under the pretext of the payment of debts; for this method of disposing of such property ought not to be allowed. Hence the Senate left the determination of this matter to the Prætor, whose duty, in the first place, was to examine it and ascertain whether money for the purpose of discharging the debt could not be obtained elsewhere. Therefore, he should inquire whether the ward has any resources, either in cash, or in notes, upon which suit may be brought, or an interest in crops which have been stored, or has the expectation of receiving any income or other property. He must also ascertain whether there is anything else except the land that can be sold, and from the proceeds of which the claim may be satisfied. Then, if he should find that the debt cannot be discharged except by the sale of the land, he must permit this to be done; provided the creditor insists upon payment, or the rate of interest under which the debt was contracted offers an inducement for its settlement. 10The Prætor should also decide whether it will be more advantageous for him to allow the land to be sold, or to be encumbered. He must likewise exercise great care to prevent a larger sum from being borrowed by the encumbrance of the land than he may think necessary for the payment of the debt; or if the land is sold, that a considerable portion of it is not disposed of in order to discharge a moderate obligation. Where, however, the ward is the owner of a tract of less value, or one which is less useful to him, it is preferable for the Prætor to order this one to be sold, rather than the larger and more useful one. 11In the first place, then, whenever the Prætor is applied to by a party for permission to dispose of land, he should be required to inform himself concerning the estate of the ward, and not trust too much to the statements of guardians or curators, who, sometimes, for the sake of their own advantage, are accustomed to assure the Prætor that it is necessary to sell or encumber the land of a ward. He must, therefore, make inquiry of the near relatives of the ward or his parents, or of any of his faithful freedmen, or of anyone else who is familiar with the property of the ward, and where no one of this kind can be found, or where those who have been found are liable to suspicion, he must order accounts to be rendered, and also a memorandum of the property of the ward to be filed, and appoint an advocate for the latter who can advise the Prætor as to whether he should consent to the sale or encumbrance of the property. 12It may be asked, where the Prætor, having been applied to, permits property situated in the province to be sold, whether this act is valid. I think that it is valid, provided the guardianship is administered at Rome, and the guardians have charge of the administration of the property. 13However, to prevent the improper use of money which guardians have borrowed on account of an alleged debt of the ward, it is necessary for the Prætor to see that the borrowed money is paid to the creditors, and with reference to this to render a decree, and appoint a court officer, who shall report to him that the money has been employed for the purpose for which the alienation or encumbrance was asked. 14Where there is no debt to be paid, but the guardians allege that it is expedient for certain lands to be sold, or others to be purchased, or for others to be got rid of, it should be considered whether the Prætor ought to allow this to be done. The better opinion is, that he cannot do this, for full authority is not granted to a Prætor to dispose of property belonging to a ward, but only in case where a debt must be paid. Hence, where no debt is involved, if he should permit the land to be sold, we consequently hold that there is no sale, and that the decree is void, for permission is not granted to the Prætor to dispose of the property of a ward indiscriminately, but only where the demand for payment of debts is urgent. 15A ward retains his right of action if he can afterwards prove that the Prætor has been deceived. It should, however, be considered whether we should grant him a real or a personal action. The better opinion is that a real action should be granted, as well as a personal one against his guardians or curators. 16By lands held in common, we should understand such as are jointly held and undivided. Where, however, they are held in common, but the shares are separated, there is ground for a judicial decision, as the decree does not apply.
6 Idem libro secundo de omnibus tribunalibus. Sed si forte alius proprietatem fundi habeat, alius usum fructum, magis est, ut cesset haec pars orationis, quae de divisione loquitur: nulla enim communio est.
6 The Same, Concerning All Tribunals, Book II. Where one person enjoys the ownership of land, and another the usufruct of the same, the better opinion is that that portion of the decree which relates to the division of property does not apply, for there is no real community of interest.
7 Idem libro trigesimo quinto ad edictum. Si pupillorum sint communia praedia qui diversos tutores habent, videamus, an alienatio locum habere possit. et cum provocatio necessaria sit, puto alienationem impediri: neuter enim poterit provocare, sed ambo provocationem exspectare. item si eosdem tutores habeant, multo magis quis impeditam alienationem dicet. 1Si pupillus dedit pignori ex permissu praetoris, nonnulla erit dubitatio, an alienatio possit impediri. sed dicendum est posse creditorem ius suum exsequi: tutius tamen fecerit, si prius praetorem adierit. 2Si pater vel parens tutor sit alicui ex liberis, an praetor adeundus sit, si obligare velit? et magis est ut debeat: pronior tamen esse debet praetor ad consentiendum patri. 3Si praetor tutoribus permiserit vendere, illi obligaverint vel contra, an valeat quod actum est? et mea fert opinio eum, qui aliud fecit, quam quod a praetore decretum est, nihil egisse. 4Quid ergo si praetor ita decreverit ‘vendere obligareve permitto’, an possit liberum arbitrium habere, qui faciat? et magis est ut possit, dummodo sciamus praetorem non recte partibus suis functum: debuit enim ipse statuere et eligere, utrum magis obligare an vendere permittat. 5Si obligavit rem tutor sine decreto, quamvis obligatio non valeat, est tamen exceptioni doli locus, sed tunc, cum tutor acceptam mutuam pecuniam ei solverit, qui sub pignore erat creditor. 6Item videndum est, an et obligare ei rem possit: et dicendum est, si eandem sortem acceperit nec gravioribus usuris, valere obligationem, ut ius prioris creditoris ad sequentem transeat.
7 The Same, On the Edict, Book XXXV. Where lands are owned in common by wards who have different guardians, let us see whether the right of alienation belongs to each. And, as an application for permission to do this is necessary, I think that alienation will be prevented, as neither of the parties can ask for it, and each must wait for the application of the other. Again, if they have the same guardians, there is still greater reason for asserting that the alienation cannot take place. 1Where a ward gives land by way of pledge with the permission of the Prætor, there is no doubt that the alienation of said land can be prevented. It must be said, however, that the creditor can exercise his right, but he will be safer if he first makes application to the Prætor. 2Where a father or a relative is the guardian of a child, must the Prætor be applied to, if he or she wishes to encumber the property? The better opinion is that this ought to be done; however, the Prætor should be more inclined to consent to the demands of the father than to those of anyone else. 3Where the Prætor permits guardians to sell land, and they encumber it, or vice versa, will such an action be valid? My opinion is that where a party does something different from what has been authorized by the Prætor, the act is void. 4But what if the Prætor should decree as follows: “I permit the property to be sold or encumbered”? Will the guardian have a right to do what he pleases? The better opinion is that he will, provided we bear in mind that the Prætor has not properly performed his duty, for he should determine and select whether it is better for him to allow his property to be encumbered, or sold. 5Where a guardian encumbers property without a decree, although the obligation is not valid, there will, nevertheless, be ground for an exception based on fraud, if the guardian should pay the money loaned to him to a creditor who holds the land in pledge. 6It should also be considered whether the guardian can encumber the property to him. It must be said that if he receives the same principal, and the rate of interest is not higher, the obligation will be valid, and the rights of the first creditor pass to the second one.
8 Idem libro secundo de omnibus tribunalibus. Qui neque tutores sunt ipso iure neque curatores, sed pro tutore negotia gerunt vel pro curatore, eos non posse distrahere res pupillorum vel adulescentium nulla dubitatio est. 1Sed si curator sit furiosi vel cuius alterius non adulescentis, videndum est, utrum iure veteri valebit venditio an hanc orationem admittemus. et puto, quia de pupillis princeps loquitur et coniuncti tutoribus curatores accipiunt, pertinere: et de ceteris puto ex sententia orationis idem esse dicendum. 2An obligari communia possint, quaeritur, sed non puto sine decreto obliganda: nam quod excepit oratio, ad hoc tantum pertinet, ut perematur communio, non ut augeatur difficultas communionis.
8 The Same, On All Tribunals, Book II. There is no doubt that persons who are not legal guardians or curators, but transact business while acting as such, cannot in this capacity dispose of the property of wards or minors. 1It should be considered whether a sale will be valid by the ancient law under these circumstances, or whether this decree is applicable to the case of a curator of an insane person, or of anyone else who is not a minor. Because the Emperor refers to wards, and the duties of curators are understood to be connected with those of guardians, I think that the same rule must be held to apply to all of them, in accordance with the intent of the decree. 2The question arises whether common property, in which the ward has an interest, can be encumbered. And I do not think that this can be done without a judicial decision; for what is excepted in the decree merely has reference to the extinguishment of the common ownership, and not to the increase of its difficulties.
9 Idem libro quinto opinionum. Quamvis antecessor praesidis decrevisset ea praedia venumdari, quae tutor pupilli, subiecto nomine alterius emptoris, ipse sibi comparabat, tamen, si fraudem et dolum contra senatus consulti auctoritatem et fidem tutori commissam deprehendisset successor eius, aestimabit, quatenus tam callidum commentum etiam in exemplum coercere debeat.
9 The Same, Opinions, Book V. Although a former Governor may have authorized the sale of land belonging to a ward, and his guardian should then purchase it for himself, through the agency of another buyer; still, if the successor of the said Governor should ascertain that fraud and bad faith had been committed by the guardian in violation of the Decree of the Senate, he must determine as to what extent he shall punish such a fraudulent act, by way of example.
10 Idem libro sexto opinionum. Illicite post senatus consultum pupilli vel adulescentis praedio venumdato, si eo nomine apud iudicem tutelae vel utilis actionis aestimatio facta est eaque soluta, vindicatio praedii ex aequitate inhibetur.
10 The Same, Opinions, Book VI. Where the land of a ward or a minor has been sold illegally and in violation of the Decree of the Senate, and on this account an assessment of damages is made in an action on guardianship, or in an equitable action, and the amount assessed has been paid, the recovery of the land is forbidden by the principles of equity.
11 Idem libro tertio de officio proconsulis. Si praedia minoris viginti quinque annis distrahi desiderentur, causa cognita praeses provinciae debet id permittere. idem servari oportet et si furiosi vel prodigi vel cuiuscumque alterius praedia curatores velint distrahere.
11 The Same, On the Duties of Proconsul, Book III. If an application should be made for the sale of land belonging to a minor of twenty-five years of age, after proper investigation, the Governor of the province should permit this to be done. The same rule should be observed with reference to the property of an insane person, or a spendthrift, or of anyone else whose land his curators desire to alienate.
12 Marcianus libro singulari ad formulam hypothecariam. Non fit contra senatus consultum, si cuius tutor creditori patris pupilli exsolvit, ut eius loco succedat.
12 Marcianus, On the Hypothecary Formula. The Decree of the Senate is not violated where the guardian of a ward pays the creditor of the father of the latter, in order that he may be subrogated to him.
13 Paulus libro singulari ad orationem divi Severi. Si fundus sit sterilis vel saxosus vel pestilens, videndum est, an alienare eum non possit. et imperator Antoninus et divus pater eius in haec verba rescripserunt: ‘Quod allegastis infructuosum esse fundum, quem vendere vultis, movere nos non potest, cum utique pro fructuum modo pretium inventurus sit’. 1Quamquam autem neque distrahere neque obligare tutor pupillare praedium possit, attamen Papinianus libro quinto responsorum ait tutorem pupilli sine decreto praetoris non iure distrahere: si tamen, inquit, errore lapsus vendiderit et pretium acceptum creditoribus paternis pueri solverit, quandoque domino praedium cum fructibus vindicanti doli non inutiliter opponitur, exceptio pretium ac medii temporis usuras, quae creditoribus debentur, non offerenti, si ex ceteris eius facultatibus aes alienum solvi non poterit. ego autem notavi: etsi solvi potuerit, si tamen illae res salvae erunt, ex quarum pretio aeri alieno satisfieri potuit, dicendum est adhuc doli exceptionem obstare, si lucrum captet pupillus ex damno alieno.
13 Paulus, On the Decree of the Divine Severus. Where a tract of land belonging to a ward is either sterile, stony, or pestilential, it should be considered whether or not the guardian can alienate it. The Emperor Antoninus and his Divine Father stated the following in a Rescript with reference to this subject: “The fact that you allege that the land which you desire to sell is unfruitful has no weight with us, since a price can only be obtained for the same in proportion to the crops which it will yield.” 1Although a guardian can neither sell nor encumber land belonging to his ward, still Papinianus states in the Fifth Book of Opinions that a guardian cannot legally dispose of the land of the ward without a decree of the Prætor. He says, however, that where the guardian, through ignorance, sells the property, and pays the price received for the same to the creditors of the father of the minor, and the latter subsequently brings suit for recovery of the land, with the profits, from the owner; an exception on the ground of fraud can properly be pleaded, if the minor does not tender the price, and the interest for the intermediate time, which was due to the creditor, if the debt could not have been paid out of the property belonging to the ward. On this point I stated that even if the ward could have paid the debt out of other property, and the latter has been saved, it must be said that an exception on the ground of fraud can be interposed, if the ward was attempting to profit by the loss of another.
14 Paulus libro nono responsorum. Paulus respondit, etsi testamentum patris postea irritum esse apparuit, tamen tutores pupilli sive curatores filii nihil contra orationem divorum principum fecisse videri, si secundum voluntatem defuncti testamento scriptam praedium rusticum pupillare vendiderunt.
14 The Same, Opinions, Book IX. Paulus gave it as his opinion that even though the will of a father should subsequently be held to be void, still, the guardians or curators of his son were considered to have committed no act against the Decree of the Divine Emperors, where in accordance with the desire of the deceased expressed in his will, land belonging to the ward which was situated in the country.