Paulus, On the Rescript of the Divine Severus and Commodus. It must be remembered that it is not one of the functions of a curator to see that his ward is married, or not; because his duties only relate to the transaction of business. This Severus and Antoninus stated in a Rescript in the following words: “It is the duty of a curator to manage the affairs of his ward, but the ward can marry, or not, as she pleases.”

Ad Dig. 27,9,2Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 212, Note 12.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.

Paulus, On the Decree of the Divine Severus. Which private individuals have a right to possess:

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.