The Same, Digest, Book XI. A certain man transacted his business through the agency of Pamphilus and Diphilus, his former slaves, and afterwards his freedmen, and by his will appointed them guardians of his son, providing that the business should be carried on in the same way that it had been done during his lifetime; and the said guardians administered the trust, not only during the minority of the son of their patron, but also after he had arrived at puberty. Diphilus rendered his account together with a statement of the profits of the business; Pamphilus, however, thought that it was not necessary to present an account of the profits, but merely to calculate the amount of interest ordinarily recovered in an action on guardianship. The question arose whether Pamphilus should have rendered his account in the same way as Diphilus, in order to comply with the intention of the testator. The answer was that he should have done so. Claudius Tryphoninus says that he should have done this in order not to obtain any pecuniary advantage from the guardianship. 1One of two guardians having died before his ward had arrived at puberty, the other, having brought an action against his heir in the name of the ward, recovered with interest all that had come into the hands of the deceased guardian from the guardianship. The question arose whether, in an action on guardianship which was brought by the ward after arriving at puberty, interest should be paid merely upon that portion of the money which had come into the hands of the deceased guardian by means of the guardianship, from the beginning; or whether interest on the principal as well as on the interest which had accumulated in the hands of the survivor, after the death of the former, should also be paid, and transferred with the principal. The answer was that if the guardian had used the money for his own benefit, interest on the entire amount should be paid; but if the money remained in the accounts to the credit of the ward, that only should be paid which he collected, or could have collected in good faith, and having been able to lend it at interest, neglected to do so; because if the guardian had received the principal and interest from any other debtor, all would, or should, constitute principal in his hands. 2In a case where the will appeared to have been broken, the testamentary guardians ceased to act in the administration of the trust, and a guardian for the ward was appointed by the Governor. The guardians appointed by will were, however, ordered to administer the guardianship conjointly with the one who was selected by the Governor to act in this capacity. The question arose whether the same testamentary guardians would be liable during the time which preceded the appointment of the other guardian, from the day when the will was opened, or from the date when they were ordered to take part in the administration. The answer was that they were in no way liable for acts performed during the time preceding the said appointment. 3A father having appointed his son, who was a minor, his heir, bequeathed two thousand aurei to his disinherited daughter, and appointed the same guardians for both of them. The question arose whether the guardians of the female ward would be liable in an action on guardianship for interest on the amount from the day on which the said two thousand aurei could have been separated from the other assets of the estate if they neglected to invest it. The answer was that they would be liable. 4The question arose whether the interest on money belonging to a ward which is due from guardians should be reckoned as principal when transferred to a curator, and whether the curator would be liable for interest on the entire amount. The answer was that all the money which comes into the hands of curators is subject to the same rule because all of it becomes principal.