The Same, Digest, Book XXVII. Where the estate of a father was burdened with debts, and the property appeared to be in such a condition that a female ward ought to refuse to accept the succession; one of the guardians made an agreement with several creditors that they would be satisfied with a certain amount of what was due them, which they received. The curators of the girl, after her arrival at puberty, made the same arrangement with certain creditors, who also received the money. The question arose whether, if one of the guardians happened to be a creditor or the father of the ward, and paid himself the entire amount due him with interest out of the ward’s property, he could be compelled by the curators of the minor to contribute in the same proportion as the other creditors had done. The answer was, that a guardian who had induced others to diminish their claims, should be satisfied with the same percentage of his.

The Same, Digest, Book XXVI. A ward, having had judgment rendered against him on account of a contract made with his father, after having been defended by his guardian, received a curator, between whom and the creditor the following transaction took place in the presence of the Steward of the Emperor: Priscus, the Imperial Steward, said: “Let the judgment be executed”; Novellius, the curator, said: “I order the ward to reject the estate”; Priscus, the Steward of the Emperor, said: “You are answered, you know what you have to do”. The question arose whether, in consequence of this proceeding, the minor should be considered to have rejected the estate of his father. The answer was that, in accordance with the facts stated, he should be held to have rejected it.

Scævola, Digest, Book XXVI. A certain woman promised Sempronius in the name of her granddaughter, whom she had by Seiua, her daughter, a sum of money by way of dowry, and paid him a certain amount as interest for household expenses. She then died, Seia being her heir, together with others, against whom Sempronius brought an action, and the different heirs were held liable for their shares of the estate, among whom was Seia, who, with the rest gave security to Sempronius that they would pay the sum for which each one of them had had judgment rendered against him or her, with the same interest which had been paid by the testatrix for the support of the family. Afterwards, the other heirs, with the exception of Seia, rejected the estate through the indulgence of the Emperor, and it was entirely vested in Seia. I ask whether a prætorian action should be granted against Seia, who was now the sole heir, and as such administered all the affairs of the estate, to recover the amount of the shares of those who, through the indulgence of the Emperor, had been able to reject the estate. The answer is that actions involving the shares of those who decline to accept an estate are usually granted against the party who accepts the same, and prefers to discharge the liabilities of the entire estate.

The Same, Digest, Book XXVII. A son in the capacity of heir administered the estate of his father, lent money forming part of it to Sempronius, which he received in instalments, and afterwards, being a minor, rejected the estate. The question arose whether the curator of the father’s estate would be entitled to an equitable action against Sempronius. The answer was that there was nothing in the case stated to indicate that he who had paid what he had borrowed should not be released.