Digestorum libri
Ex libro III
Dig. 3,3,75Iulianus libro tertio digestorum. Qui absentem emptorem eundemque possessorem fundi defendebat et iudicium nomine eius accipiebat, postulabat a venditore fundi, ut ab eo defenderetur: venditor desiderabat caveri sibi ratam rem emptorem habiturum: puto eum venditori de rato satisdare debere, quia si fundum agenti restituerit, nihil prohibet dominum rem petere et cogi venditorem rursus defendere.
Julianus, Digest, Book III. A party who defended an absent purchaser of land, who was also in possession, and who took charge of the case in his name, requested the vendor to undertake the defence, and the vendor demanded that the agent give security that the purchaser would ratify his acts. I am of the opinion that he ought to give security to the vendor for ratification; because if the latter should restore the land to the plaintiff, nothing would prevent the principal from bringing suit for the same, and the vendor would be compelled to defend the action a second time.
Dig. 3,5,29Iulianus libro tertio digestorum. Ex facto quaerebatur: quendam ad siliginem emendam curatorem decreto ordinis constitutum: eidem alium subcuratorem constitutum siliginem miscendo corrupisse atque ita pretium siliginis, quae in publicum empta erat, curatori adflictum esse: quaque actione curator cum subcuratore experiri possit et consequi id, ut ei salvum esset, quod causa eius damnum cepisset. Valerius Severus respondit adversus contutorem negotiorum gestorum actionem tutori dandam: idem respondit, ut magistratui adversus magistratum eadem actio detur, ita tamen, si non sit conscius fraudis. secundum quae etiam in subcuratore idem dicendum est.
Ad Dig. 3,5,29Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 443, Note 16.Julianus, Digest, Book III. An inquiry was made with respect to the following fact. A certain man was appointed by the resolution of a municipality to purchase wheat, and another person who was appointed to act under him as a subordinate curator spoiled the wheat, by mixing other grain with it. The price of the wheat which was bought for the municipality was charged to the curator; what kind of an action could the curator bring against the subcurator, so that he might be reimbursed for the loss which he had sustained on his account? Valerius Severus answered that a guardian has a right of action against his fellow-guardian, on the ground of business transacted and, he also stated that the same right of action is granted one magistrate against the other; provided, however, that he was not aware of the fraud. In accordance with these opinions it must be said that the same rule applies to a subcurator.