Ad edictum praetoris libri
Ex libro XXXV
Dig. 1,3,22Ulpianus libro trigensimo quinto ad edictum. Cum lex in praeteritum quid indulget, in futurum vetat.
Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXXV. When the law pardons anything which is past it forbids it for the future.
Dig. 2,7,6Idem libro trigensimo quinto ad edictum. Is qui debitorem vi exemit, si solverit, reum non liberat, quia poenam suam solvit.
The Same, On the Edict, Book XXXV. If he who has released a debtor by force makes payment, he does not exempt the latter from liability, because he pays the penalty of his own act.
Dig. 3,5,16Ulpianus libro trigensimo quinto ad edictum. Eum actum, quem quis in servitute egit, manumissus non cogitur reddere. plane si quid conexum fuit, ut separari ratio eius quod in servitute gestum est ab eo quod in libertate gessit non possit: constat venire in iudicium vel mandati vel negotiorum gestorum et quod in servitute gestum est. denique si tempore servitutis aream emerit et in ea insulam aedificaverit eaque corruerit, deinde manumissus fundum locaverit: sola locatio fundorum in iudicio negotiorum gestorum deducetur, quia ex superioris temporis administratione nihil amplius in iudicio deduci potest quam id, sine quo ratio libertatis tempore administratorum negotiorum expediri non potest.
Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXXV. Where a party performed an act while in slavery, he is not compelled to render an account of it after being manumitted. When, however, such a connection between the transactions exists that the account of what was done in slavery cannot be separated from the acts performed in freedom; it is settled that what was done in slavery can be brought into court in an action on mandate, or on business transacted. For if while he was in slavery, the party purchased land, and built a house upon it, and the house fell down, and then, after he was manumitted, he should rent the ground, the lease of the land would only be included in the suit based on business transacted, for the reason that nothing more arising from the transactions of previous date could be included; unless the account of the business done during the time that the party was free cannot be made up without it.
Dig. 4,4,49Ulpianus libro trigensimo quinto ad edictum. Si res pupillaris vel adulescentis distracta fuerit, quam lex distrahi non prohibet, venditio quidem valet, verumtamen si grande damnum pupilli vel adulescentis versatur, etiam si collusio non intercessit, distractio per in integrum restitutionem revocatur.
Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXXV. Where property belonging to a minor or a ward which the law does not forbid to be sold, is alienated, the sale is valid. If, however, great loss results to the ward or the minor, even if there is no collusion, the sale may be rescinded by complete restitution.
Dig. 23,1,9Ulpianus libro trigesimo quinto ad edictum. Quaesitum est apud Iulianum, an sponsalia sint, ante duodecimum annum si fuerint nuptiae collatae. et semper Labeonis sententiam probavi existimantis, si quidem praecesserint sponsalia, durare ea, quamvis in domo loco nuptae esse coeperit: si vero non praecesserint, hoc ipso quod in domum deducta est non videri sponsalia facta. quam sententiam Papinianus quoque probat.
Ad Dig. 23,1,9Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 82, Note 14.Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXXV. Inquiry is made by Julianus whether a marriage contracted before the twelfth year takes the place of a betrothal. I have always approved the opinion of Labeo, who held that if a betrothal had preceded a marriage, it would still continue to exist, even after the girl had begun to live with her husband; but if it had not been contracted previously, and the girl had been brought to the house of her husband, the betrothal could not be considered to have been made. Papinianus also concurs in this opinion.
Dig. 26,2,3Idem libro trigesimo quinto ad edictum. Testamento datos tutores accipere debemus etiam eos, qui codicillis testamento confirmatis scripti sunt. 1Sed eos demum testamento datos accipere nos oportet, qui iure dati sunt.
The Same, On the Edict, Book XXXV. We should consider persons who are mentioned in a codicil confirmed by a will to be testamentary guardians. 1Those, however, who are appointed by law, should not be considered testamentary guardians.
Dig. 26,2,17Idem libro trigesimo quinto ad edictum. Testamento datos tutores non esse cogendos satisdare rem salvam fore certo certius est: sed nihilo minus cum quis offert satisdationem, ut solus administret, audiendus est, ut edicto cavetur. sed recte praetor etiam ceteris detulit hanc condicionem, si et ipsi velint satisdare: nam et si ipsi parati sunt satisdare, non debent excludi alterius oblatione, sed impleta videlicet ab omnibus satisdatione omnes gerent, ut qui contentus est magis satis accipere quam gerere, securus esset. 1Non omnimodo autem is qui satisdet praeferendus est: quid enim si suspecta persona sit vel turpis, cui tutela committi nec cum satisdatione debeat? vel quid si iam multa flagitia in tutela admisit? nonne magis repelli et reici a tutela, quam solus administrare debeat? nec satis non dantes temere repelluntur, quia plerumque bene probati et idonei atque honesti tutores, etiamsi satis non dent, non debent reici: quin immo nec iubendi sunt satisdare. 2Duplex igitur causae cognitio est, una ex persona eius qui optulerit satisdationem, quis et qualis est, alia contutorum, quales sunt, num forte eius existimationis vel eius honestatis sunt, ut non debeant hanc contumeliam satisdationis subire.
The Same, On the Edict, Book XXXV. It is perfectly certain that testamentary guardians should not be compelled to give security for the preservation of the property of their wards. Still, when one of several offers to furnish security that he will administer the office alone, he should be heard, as is provided by the Edict. Moreover, the Prætor very properly inquires of the others whether they also are willing to give security, for if they are ready to do so, they should not be excluded by the offer of the first one; but if security is furnished by all, all can administer the trust, so that any of them who prefers to receive security rather than administer it will be rendered safe. 1By no means, however, is a guardian who offers to give security always to be preferred. For what if he was a suspicious person, or one who is infamous to whom the guardianship should not be entrusted, even if he gave security? Or, if he had already been guilty of many crimes in the administration of the guardianship, should he not rather be dismissed and expelled from his office, than be allowed to administer it alone? Those who do not give security should not rashly be rejected, because, generally speaking, persons who are of good repute, solvent, and honest, should not be excluded as guardians, even if they do not furnish security, nor, indeed, should they be ordered to furnish it. 2Therefore the examination instituted by the Prætor is twofold in its nature; on the one hand, it must be ascertained who, and what kind of a person he is who offers to give security; and on the other, the character and qualifications of his fellow guardian should be investigated. For it is necessary to learn what their standing and honesty are, so that they may not be subjected to the insult of being compelled to give security.
Dig. 26,2,19Ulpianus libro trigesimo quinto ad edictum. Si nemo tutorum provocet ad satisdationem, sed exsistat quidam qui tutor non est desideraretque, ut aut satisdent tutores, aut, si non dent, parato sibi satisdare committant tutelam, non est audiendus: neque enim aut extero committenda tutela est, aut testamento dati tutores contra ius satisdationi subiciendi sunt. 1Hoc edictum de satisdatione ad tutores testamentarios pertinet: sed et si ex inquisitione dati sint tutores, Marcellus ait et ad hos pertinere hoc edictum et id oratione etiam divorum fratrum significari. ideoque et illi clausulae sunt subiecti, ut, si cui maior pars tutorum decernat, is gerat quem maior pars eligat, quamvis verba edicti ad testamentarios pertineant. 2Testamento datus postumo tutor nondum est tutor, nisi postumus edatur: datur tamen adversus eum substituto pupilli negotiorum gestorum actio. sed si partus editus fuerit, deinde hic tutor, priusquam quicquam gereret, remotus a tutela fuerit, et hic eadem actione tenebitur. si quid plane gessit post editum partum, de eo quoque, quod ante gessit, tutelae iudicio tenebitur et omnis administratio in hac actione veniet.
Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXXV. If none of the guardians volunteer to give security, but a certain person who is not a guardian appears, and requests that the guardians furnish it, or, if they do not do so, that the guardianship should be given to him, he being ready to provide security; he should not be heard. For guardianships ought not to be entrusted to a stranger, and testamentary guardians should not be compelled to give security contrary to law. 1This Edict with reference to the furnishing of security applies to testamentary guardians. Where, however, guardians are appointed after an examination, Marcellus says that this Edict is also applicable to them, and this is also indicated by an Address of the Divine Brothers. They therefore come under the same rule, hence if the majority of the guardians so decide, he shall administer the guardianship whom the majority may select, although the terms of the Edict specifically apply to testamentary guardians. 2Where a guardian is appointed by will for a posthumous child, he cannot administer the office until the posthumous child is born. An action on the ground of voluntary agency will, however, be granted to the substituted ward as against the guardian. But where the child is born, and the guardian is removed from office before he discharges any of its duties, he will be liable to this same action. If, however, he transacts any business after the child is born, he will be liable to an action on guardianship with reference also to any matters which he has previously attended to, and his entire administration will be included in this action.
Dig. 26,4,5Ulpianus libro trigesimo quinto ad edictum. Legitimos tutores nemo dat, sed lex duodecim tabularum fecit tutores. 1Sed etiam hos cogi satisdare certum est, in tantum ut etiam patronum et patroni filium ceterosque liberos eius cogi rem salvam fore satisdare plerisque videatur. sed hoc causa cognita praetorem statuere debere melius est, utrum debeat satisdare patronus liberique eius an non, ut, si persona honesta sit, remittatur ei satisdatio et maxime, si substantia modica sit: si autem patroni persona vulgaris vel minus honesta sit, ibi dicendum est satisdationem locum habere: ut aut modus tutelae aut persona aut causa admittat satisdationem. 2In legitimis et in his, qui a magistratibus dantur, quaesitum est, an uni decerni tutela possit. et ait Labeo et uni recte tutelam decerni: posse enim aliquos vel absentes vel furiosos esse: quae sententia utilitatis gratia admittenda est, ut uni decernatur administratio. 3An ergo et provocare se invicem secundum superiorem clausulam possint? et magis est, ut, si omnes satis non dederint vel si finita est satisdatio (nonnumquam enim satisdatio ab eis non petitur, aut satis desinit esse cautum, aut magistratus municipales ab his quos dederint aut non potuerunt aut noluerunt satis exigere), posse dici etiam in his, quo casu cautum non est, admittendam provocationem. 4An ergo et in patronis idem sit dicendum, maxime ubi cessat satisdatio? et puto in patronis non oportere admitti provocationem nisi ex magna causa, ne quis spem successionis deminuat: nam si patrono tutela non fuerit commissa, poterit per compatronum damno adfici, qui solus rem pupilli male administrat. 5Si legitimus tutor capite minutus sit, dicendum est desinere eum esse tutorem et locum esse iudicio tutelae finita tutela.
Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXXV. No one appoints legal guardians, for the Law of the Twelve Tables constitutes them such. 1While, however, it is certain that they should be compelled to give security, many authorities hold that even a patron and his son, as well as his other descendants, can be forced to give bond for the preservation of the property of their wards. It is better to leave it to the judgment of the Prætor, after proper investigation, whether the patron and his children should furnish security or not; so that if the party in question is honest, the security may be remitted, and especially if the estate is of small value. Where, however, the patron is of inferior rank, or of doubtful integrity, it must be held in this case that there is ground to exact security, if either the amount of the responsibility, or the rank of the person, or any other good reason should require it to be given. 2The question arises in the case of legal guardians, and in that of those appointed by magistrates, whether the guardianship can be granted to one of them alone. Labeo says that guardianship can be properly granted to one of them, for it may happen that the others are either absent, or insane. This opinion should be accepted on account of its utility, and the administration of the guardianship granted to one of the parties. 3Can these guardians then institute proceedings against one another, in accordance with the rule above stated? The better opinion is, that if all of them did not give security, or if the time for giving it has expired (for sometimes security is not required of them, or it has not been sufficient or the municipal magistrates by whom they were appointed either could not exact it, or were unwilling to do so), it may be said with respect to them, that proceedings can be instituted where security has not been furnished. 4Can the same be said with reference to patrons, especially where security is not given? I think that, in the case of patrons, proceedings cannot be instituted, unless where there is good cause for it, in order that no one may lessen the expectation of succession. For if guardianship should not be granted to one patron, he will still be liable for any loss caused by his co-patron who alone improperly administers the affairs of the ward. 5Where a legal guardian forfeits his civil rights, it must be said that he no longer has a right to act, and that the guardianship having been terminated, there is ground for the appointment of a guardian by the court.
Dig. 26,5,2Idem libro trigesimo quinto ad edictum. Cum quidam tutores dati appellassent, quidam autem non adessent, divus Pius rescripsit dandum temporarium tutorem, qui tutela fungatur.
The Same, On the Edict, Book XXXV. Where certain guardians are appointed, and some of them are not present, the Divine Pius stated in a Rescript that a temporary guardian should be appointed to perform the duties of the office.
Dig. 26,7,1Ulpianus libro trigesimo quinto ad edictum. Gerere atque administrare tutelam extra ordinem tutor cogi solet. 1Ex quo scit se tutorem datum si cesset tutor, suo periculo cessat: id enim a divo Marco constitutum est, ut, qui scit se tutorem datum nec excusationem si quam habet allegat intra tempora praestituta, suo periculo cesset. 2Sufficit tutoribus ad plenam defensionem, sive ipsi iudicium suscipiant sive pupillus ipsis auctoribus, nec cogendi sunt tutores cavere, ut defensores solent. licentia igitur erit, utrum malint ipsi suscipere iudicium an pupillum exhibere, ut ipsis auctoribus iudicium suscipiatur: ita tamen, ut pro his, qui fari non possunt vel absint, ipsi tutores iudicium suscipiant, pro his autem, qui supra septimum annum aetatis sunt et praesto fuerint, auctoritatem praestent. 3In causis autem adultorum licentia erit agentibus vel ipsum adultum praesentem in iudicium vocare, ut consensu curatoris conveniatur, vel contra curatorem agere, ut ipse litem suscipiat. in absentibus autem adultis omnimodo contra curatorem agendum. 4Non denegari autem neque tutoribus neque curatoribus etiam debitores pupillorum vel adultorum ex persona sua prospectu officii in iudicium vocare vel eis hoc facientibus suum accommodare consensum.
Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXXV. A guardian can be compelled by extraordinary proceedings to carry on and administer the guardianship. 1From this the guardian may ascertain that, if he delays to exercise his functions after he has been appointed, he does so at his own risk. For it was decided by the Divine Marcus that where a party knows that he has been appointed a guardian, and does not, within the time prescribed by law, offer a reasonable excuse, if he has one, he will be responsible for his failure to act. 2It is sufficient for a guardian to completely defend his ward, whether he undertakes to do this himself, or under the instructions of the latter. Guardians should not be compelled to give security in order to conduct the defence of their wards. They are, therefore, permitted to institute proceedings themselves, whether they prefer to do so on their own responsibility, or to produce their wards in court; but they can only proceed themselves in cases where their wards are infants, or are absent; but where they have passed their seventh year, and are present, they can be authorized to act by their guardians. 3In the case of minors, those who bring actions against them can either summon the minor himself to court, for the purpose of suing him with the consent of his curator; or they can proceed against the curator himself to the end that he may conduct the case. Where, however, the minor is absent, proceedings must, in every instance, be instituted against his curator. 4In the discharge of their duty, however, the right to bring personal actions against the debtors of wards or of minors should not be refused to either guardians or curators, nor should they be denied the right to give their consent to the former to bring such actions.
Dig. 26,7,3Idem libro trigesimo quinto ad edictum. Si plures curatores dati sunt, Pomponius libro sexagesimo octavo ad edictum scripsit ratum haberi debere etiam quod per unum gestum est: nam et in furiosi curatoribus, ne utilitates furiosi impediantur, praetor uni eorum curationem decernet ratumque habebit, quod per eum sine dolo malo gestum est. 1Si parens vel pater qui in potestate habet destinaverit testamento, quis tutorum tutelam gerat, illum debere gerere praetor putavit, meritoque parentis statur voluntati, qui utique recte filio prospexit. tantundem praetor facit et de his, quos parens destinavit testamento, ipse autem confirmavit, ut, si parens declaravit, quem velit tutelam administrare, ille solus administret. 2Ceteri igitur tutores non administrabunt, sed erunt hi, quos vulgo honorarios appellamus. nec quisquam putet ad hos periculum nullum redundare: constat enim hos quoque, excussis prius facultatibus eius qui gesserit, conveniri oportere: dati sunt enim quasi observatores actus eius et custodes, imputabiturque eis quandoque, cur, si male eum conversari videbant, suspectum eum non fecerunt. adsidue igitur et rationem ab eo exigere eos oportet et sollicite curare, qualiter conversetur, et si pecunia sit, quae deponi possit, curare, ut deponatur ad praediorum comparationem: blandiuntur enim sibi, qui putant honorarios tutores omnino non teneri: tenentur enim secundum ea quae supra ostendimus. 3Quamvis autem ei potissimum se tutelam commissurum praetor dicat, cui testator delegavit, attamen nonnumquam ab hoc recedet, ut puta si pater minus penso consilio hoc fecit, forte minor viginti quinque annis, vel eo tempore fecit, quo iste tutor bonae vitae vel frugi videbatur, deinde postea idem coepit male conversari ignorante testatore, vel si contemplatione facultatium eius res ei commissa est, quibus postea exutus est. 4Nam et si unum pater dederit tutorem, nonnumquam ei adiunguntur curatores: nam imperator noster cum patre rescripsit, cum duos quis libertos suos tutores dedisset, unum rerum Italicarum, alium rerum Africanarum, curatores eis adiungendos, nec patris secuti sunt voluntatem. 5Quod in tutoribus scriptum est, et in curatoribus erit observandum, quos pater testamento destinavit a praetore confirmandos. 6Apparet igitur praetori curae fuisse, ne tutela per plures administretur, quippe etsi pater non destinaverit quis gerere debeat, attamen id agit, ut per unum administretur: sane enim facilius unus tutor et actiones exercet et excipit. 7Ne per multos tutela spargatur, si non erit a testatore electus tutor aut gerere nolet, tum is gerat, cui maior pars tutorum tutelam decreverit: praetor igitur iubebit eos convocari aut, si non coibunt aut coacti non decernent, causa cognita ipse statuet, quis tutelam geret. 8Plane si non consentiant tutores praetori, sed velint omnes gerere, quia fidem non habeant electo nec patiuntur succedanei esse alieni periculi, dicendum est praetorem permittere eis omnibus gerere. 9Item si dividi inter se tutelam velint tutores, audiendi sunt, ut distribuatur inter eos administratio
The Same, On the Edict, Book XXXV. Where several curators have been appointed, Pomponius states in the Sixty-eighth Book on the Edict that even what has been done by any one of them should be ratified. For in the case of the curators of an insane person, the Prætor can grant the administration of the curatorship to one of them, to avoid the loss of any advantage to the person who is insane, and he will ratify any transaction of his which is not fraudulent. 1Where a grandfather, or a father of the person under his control, designates by will which of the guardians shall administer the guardianship, the Prætor held that the latter should do so. And it is reasonable that the wishes of a parent should be considered, who have merely consulted the best interests of his son. The Prætor follows the same rule with reference to those whom a parent has designated in his will, and he himself confirms them in their office; so that if a parent should mention the person whom he wishes to administer the guardianship, he alone shall administer it. 2Therefore, the other guardians will not administer the guardianship, but they will be what we commonly call “honorary guardians”. But let no one think that no responsibility attaches to them, for it is established that suit can be brought against them also after the property of the administering guardian has been exhausted; for they have been appointed to act as the observers and supervisors of his acts, and they will be liable if they do not denounce him as suspicious, when, at any time, they perceive that he is conducting himself improperly. Therefore, they must assiduously exact an accounting from him, and carefully pay attention to the manner in which he conducts himself, and if there is money to be deposited, they must see that this is done, for the purpose of purchasing land. Those persons deceive themselves, who think that honorary guardians are not in any respect responsible, for they are liable in accordance with what we have above stated. 3Although the Prætor may state that he will certainly confer the guardianship upon the party designated by the testator, still, he sometimes avoids doing so, as, for instance, where the father has acted without proper consideration; or where he was a minor under twenty-five years of age; or where, at the time he made the appointment, the guardian appeared to be a man of good and thrifty habits, but was afterwards guilty of bad conduct, of which the testator was ignorant; or where the trust was conferred upon a party on account of his prosperous circumstances, and he was afterwards deprived of his property. 4Then, where the father only appointed one guardian, sometimes curators are associated with him. For our Emperor, together with his father, stated in a Rescript that, where anyone appoints as guardians his two freedmen, one for the administration of property in Italy, and the other for the administration of property in Africa, curators should be associated with them; the wishes of the father were not complied with. 5What has been stated with reference to guardians should also be observed in the case of curators whom the father appointed by will, and who should be confirmed by the Prætor. 6Therefore it is apparent that the Prætor should be careful to avoid having the guardianship administered by several persons; for although the father may not have designated any certain individual to administer it, still, the Prætor must provide that this be done by one person alone. For, indeed, it is more easy for a single guardian both to bring actions and defend them, and that the administration of the guardianship be not distributed among several individuals. 7Where a guardian has not been selected by the testator, or where he is unwilling to act, then he shall administer the trust who shall be appointed by the majority of the guardians. The Prætor must therefore order them to assemble, and if they do not do so, or, having assembled, do not come to any conclusion; after proper investigation, he himself shall determine who shall administer the guardianship. 8It is clear that if the guardians do not accept the decision of the Prætor, but all of them desire to administer the guardianship, because they have no confidence in the person who has been selected, and are not willing that a stranger should be substituted at their risk; it must be held that the Prætor can permit all of them to administer the trust. 9Moreover, if the guardians desire to divide the guardianship among themselves, they shall be heard, in order that the administration of the same may be distributed among them.
Dig. 26,7,5Idem libro trigesimo quinto ad edictum. Ita autem depositioni pecuniarum locus est, si ea summa corradi, id est colligi possit, ut comparari ager possit: si enim tam exiguam esse tutelam facile probatur, ut ex nummo refecto praedium puero comparari non possit, depositio cessat. quae ergo tutelae quantitas depositionem inducat, videamus. et cum causa depositionis exprimatur, ut praedia pupillis comparentur, manifestum est, ut ad minimas summas non videatur pertinere: quibus modus praefiniri generaliter non potest, cum facilius causa cognita per singulos possit examinari. nec tamen auferenda facultas est etiam minores summas interdum deponi postulare, si suspecti tutores esse videantur. 1Gessisse autem videtur tutor, qui quid omnino pupillare attigit etiamsi modicum, cessantque partes eorum, qui solent cessantes cogere administrare. 2Quod si posteaquam gessit, tunc se gestu abstinuit, etiam suspecti postulatio succedit. 3Quod si quis tutelam mandaverit gerendam gestaque fuerit ab eo cui mandatum est, locus erit tutelae actioni: videtur enim gessisse qui per alium gessit. quod si non accessit is cui mandatum est, utili actioni convenitur. 4Debitor patris, qui tutelam administravit filii, tutelae iudicio tenebitur etiam ob id quod patri debuit. 5Si tutor pupillum suum puberem factum non admonuerit, ut sibi curatores peteret (sacris enim constitutionibus hoc facere iubetur qui tutelam administravit), an tutelae iudicio teneatur? et magis puto sufficere tutelae iudicium, quasi conexum sit hoc tutelae officio, quamvis post pubertatem admittatur. 6Post completum vicesimum quintum annum aetatis si nondum rationes redditae sunt nec ad causam instrumenta pertinentia, fidei ac verecundiae curatorum convenit, ut consilio suo coeptam litem perficiant. si igitur cessent in his quae constituta sunt faciendis, magis puto sufficere negotiorum gestorum iudicium etiam si iam actum est, si tamen huius rei ratio reddita non est. 7Iulianus libro vicesimo primo digestorum huiusmodi speciem proponit: quidam decedens filiis suis dederat tutores et adiecerat: ‘eosque aneclogistos esse volo’. et ait Iulianus tutores, nisi bonam fidem in administratione praestiterint, damnari debere, quamvis testamento comprehensum sit, ut aneclogisti essent: nec eo nomine ex causa fideicommissi quicquam consequi debebunt, ut ait Iulianus, et est vera ista sententia: nemo enim ius publicum remittere potest huiusmodi cautionibus nec mutare formam antiquitus constitutam. damnum vero, quodcumque ex tutela quis senserit, et legari et per fideicommissum ei relinqui potest. 8Papinianus libro quinto responsorum ita scribit: pater tutelam filiorum consilio matris geri mandavit et eo nomine tutores liberavit. non idcirco minus officium tutorum integrum erit, sed viris bonis conveniet salubre consilium matris admittere, tametsi neque liberatio tutoris neque voluntas patris aut intercessio matris tutoris officium infringat. 9Usque adeo autem licet tutoribus patris praeceptum neglegere, ut, si pater caverit, ne quid rei suae distraheretur vel ne mancipia distrahantur vel ne vestis vel ne domus vel ne aliae res periculo subiectae, liceat eis contemnere hanc patris voluntatem. 10Ex quo innotuit tutori se tutorem esse, scire debet periculum tutelae ad eum pertinere. innotescere autem qualiterqualiter sufficit, non utique testato eum conveniri: nam etsi citra testationem, scilicet undecumque cognovit, nulla dubitatio est, quin debeat periculum ad ipsum respicere.
The Same, On the Edict, Book XXXV. There is only ground for the deposit of money, (if it can be collected), where it is available for the purchase of land; for if the guardianship can be readily proved to be of so little pecuniary importance that land cannot be purchased for the ward with the money collected, the deposit need not be made. Therefore, let us consider what should be the value of the property subject to guardianship to justify a deposit. And, when the reason for the deposit is stated to be to purchase land for the wards, it is evident that this should not be held to have reference to insignificant sums of money. The amount cannot be stated in general terms, since it is more easy, where proper cause is shown, for an investigation to be made in individual instances. For the power of asking sometimes for the deposit of even small amounts should not be taken away, if the guardians appear to be liable to suspicion. 1A guardian is held to have exercised his functions where he has acted in any manner which at all concerns his ward, even though it should be unimportant; and, in this instance, the interference of those who are accustomed to compel guardians to administer their trusts is not required. 2Where, after a guardian has once acted, he ceases to discharge his duties, he can be proceeded against as being suspicious. 3When anyone directs the guardianship to be administered in his behalf, and this is done by the party who has been directed to do so, there will be ground for an action on guardianship; for he himself is considered to have administered it who administers it by another. Where he to whom the direction was given does not act, the guardian can be sued by means of a prætorian action. 4Where the debtor of a father administers the guardianship of the son, he will be liable to an action on guardianship, even on account of what he owed the father. 5If a guardian should not notify his ward, who had arrived at puberty, to apply for curators for himself (as he who has administered a guardianship is ordered to do by the Sacred Constitutions), will he be liable to an action on guardianship? I think the better opinion is that the action on guardianship will be sufficient, as the necessity to give notice is a part of the duty attaching to the guardianship, even though it may be given after puberty. 6If, after the minor has reached his twenty-fifth year, accounts have not been rendered, nor the documents relative to an action already begun have been produced, it concerns the good faith and probity of the curators to proceed with the action instituted by their advice. Therefore, if they fail to attend to these things which are required of them, I think that the better opinion is, that a suit based on voluntary agency will be sufficient, even though the time of the curatorship has expired; provided no account of this matter has been rendered. 7Julianus proposes the following in the Twenty-first Book of the Digest. A certain man, at his death, appointed guardians for his children, and added: “And I desire that they be not required to render an account.” Julianus says that these guardians should be held liable, unless they had shown good faith in the administration of their trust, although it was stated in the will that they should not be accountable; nor, as Julianus says, should anyone be prosecuted on this ground because of the trust. And this opinion is correct, for no one can by means of provisions of this description release another from the application of the public law, or change the form established in ancient times. Anyone, however, can bequeath to another, or leave him by means of a trust, an indemnification for some wrong which he has suffered on account of guardianship. 8Papinianus stated the following case in the Fifth Book of Opinions. A father directed the guardianship of his children to be administered by the advice of their mother, and, with this end in view, released the guardians. The duty of the guardians will not, for this reason, in any way be lessened, but it is proper for good citizens to adopt the beneficial counsel of the mother, although neither the release of the guardians, nor the wishes of the father, nor the intervention of the mother, will, in any way, diminish their responsibility. 9Guardians are permitted to disregard the directions of the father to a certain extent; as, where the latter provided that none of his property should be sold, or that none of his slaves or his clothing, or his houses, or any of his effects, which were perishable, should be disposed of; they can take no account of this wish of the father. 10The guardian is hereby notified that the responsibility of the trust will attach to him from the time that he knows that he is a guardian. It is sufficient if he has obtained the information in any way whatsoever, and it is not necessary for him to be notified in the presence of witnesses; for, if he has learned the fact from any source whatever outside of the will, there is no doubt that the responsibility will attach to him.
Dig. 26,7,7Idem libro trigesimo quinto ad edictum. Tutor, qui repertorium non fecit, quod vulgo inventarium appellatur, dolo fecisse videtur, nisi forte aliqua necessaria et iustissima causa allegari possit, cur id factum non sit. si quis igitur dolo inventarium non fecerit, in ea condicione est, ut teneatur in id quod pupilli interest, quod ex iureiurando in litem aestimatur. nihil itaque gerere ante inventarium factum eum oportet, nisi id quod dilationem nec modicam exspectare possit. 1Si tutor cessaverit in distractione earum rerum quae tempore depereunt, suum periculum facit: debuit enim confestim officio suo fungi. quid si contutores exspectabat vel differentes vel etiam volentes se excusare, an ei ignoscatur? et non facile ignoscetur: debuit enim partibus suis fungi non quidem praecipiti festinatione, sed nec moratoria cunctatione. 2Competet adversus tutores tutelae actio, si male contraxerint, hoc est si praedia comparaverint non idonea per sordes aut gratiam. quid ergo si neque sordide neque gratiose, sed non bonam condicionem elegerint? recte quis dixerit solam latam neclegentiam eos praestare in hac parte debere. 3Si post depositionem pecuniae comparare praedia tutores neglexerunt, incipient in usuras conveniri: quamquam enim a praetore cogi eos oportet ad comparandum, tamen, si cessent, etiam usuris plectendi sunt tarditatis gratia, nisi si per eos factum non est quo minus compararent. 4Pecuniae, quam in usus suos converterunt tutores, legitimas usuras praestant, sed hoc ita demum, si evidenter doceantur pecuniam in usus suos convertisse: ceterum non utique qui non faeneravit vel non deposuit, in suos usus vertit, et ita divus Severus decrevit. doceri igitur debet in usus suos pecuniam vertisse. 5Vertisse in suos usus non accipimus eum, qui debitor patris pupilli fuit, deinde ipse sibi non solvit: hic enim eas usuras praestabit, quas patri promiserat. 6Si tutor pecuniam pupillarem suo nomine faeneravit, ita demum cogetur usuras quas percepit praestare, si suscipiat pupillus ceterorum nominum periculum. 7Si deponi oporteat pecunias ad praediorum comparationem, si quidem factum est, usurae non current: sin vero factum non est, si quidem nec praeceptum est, ut deponantur, pupillares praestabuntur, si praeceptum est et neglectum, de modo usurarum videndum est. et solent praetores comminari, ut, si non fiat depositio vel quanto tardius fiat, legitimae usurae praestentur: si igitur comminatio intercessit, iudex qui quandoque cognoscet decretum praetoris sequetur. 8Idem solent facere praetores etiam circa eos tutores, qui negant habere ad alendos pupillos penes se aliquid, ut quidquid constiterit penes eos esse, eius gravissima usura pendatur: et hoc persequi oportere iudicem palam est cum et alia poenae adiectione. 9Residuarum autem summarum pupillares usuras pendi oportet. 10Quae autem sunt pupillares usurae, videndum est. et apparet hanc esse formam usurarum, ut eius quidem pecuniae, quam quis in usus suos convertit, legitimam usuram praestet. sed et si negavit apud se esse pecuniam et praetor pronuntiavit contra eum, legitimas solvere debebit, vel si moram depositioni fecit et praetor irrogavit ei legitimas. sed et si, dum negat aliquam quantitatem penes se esse, pupillis ad onera sua expedienda imposuit necessitatem mutuam pecuniam legitimis usuris accipiendi, tenebitur in legitimis. item si a debitoribus legitimas exegit. ex ceteris causis secundum morem provinciae praestabit usuras aut quincunces aut trientes aut si quae aliae leviores in provincia frequentantur. 11Usurae a tutoribus non statim exiguntur, sed interiecto tempore ad exigendum et ad collocandum duum mensum, idque in iudicio tutelae servari solet: quod spatium seu laxamentum temporis tribui non oportet his, qui nummos impuberum vel adulescentium in suos usus converterunt. 12Si usuras exactas tutor vel curator usibus suis retinuerint, earum usuras agnoscere eos oportet: sane enim parvi refert, utrum sortem pupillarem an usuras in usus suos converterint. 13Pecuniae, quae in arca fuit, etiam heredes curatoris tamdiu usuras praestabunt, quamdiu non interpellaverint, ut loco defuncti curator constituatur. 14Si tutor pro contutore condemnetur, an etiam in usuras condemnandus sit, quaeritur. et placet, ut multis rescriptis continetur et Papinianus libro duodecimo quaestionum ait, etiam in usuras eum condemnandum, si suspectum facere supersedit, et quidem eas demum usuras cogendum praestare, quas etiam suae administrationis cogitur. 15Sciendum est tutorem et post officium finitum usuras debere in diem, quo tutelam restituit.
The Same, On the Edict, Book XXXV. The guardian who does not make out a schedule of the property, commonly called an inventory, is considered to have acted fraudulently, unless some necessary and just cause can be alleged for his not doing so. Therefore, if anyone fraudulently fails to make an inventory, he is in a position to be liable to indemnify the ward for his entire interest in the matter, which can be ascertained by an oath taken in court. Hence the guardian should not transact any business before the inventory has been made, unless there is something which cannot admit of even slight delay. 1Where a guardian is guilty of delay in the sale of perishable property, he does this at his own risk, for he should at once perform the duties of his office. But what if he says that he was waiting for his fellow-guardians, who have either failed to appear, or wished to excuse themselves; should he be excused? He will not be readily excused, for he should perform his duties, not indeed precipitately, but without any unnecessary delay. 2Ad Dig. 26,7,7,2Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 438, Note 6.An action on guardianship will lie against guardians, if they have made an injurious contract; for instance, if, through corruption or favor, they have purchased property which was not in good condition. But what if they had not acted dishonestly, or shown undue favor, but merely did not select property which was in good condition? One could very properly say, in this instance, that they ought only to be responsible for gross negligence. 3If, after the deposit of the money, guardians should neglect to purchase real estate, they begin to be liable for interest. For, although they must be compelled by the Prætor to make the purchase; still, if they fail to do so, they should be forced to pay interest on account of the delay, unless they are not responsible for the failure to purchase the property. 4Guardians must pay legal interest on money belonging to their wards which they convert to their own use, but only in case it is clearly established that they have employed it for their own purposes. But where a guardian did not lend the money at interest, or did not deposit it, he is not held to have converted it to his own use. The Divine Severus promulgated a decree to this effect, hence it must be proved that the guardian converted the money to his own use. 5We do not consider that a guardian has converted money to his own use who, being the debtor of the father of his ward, did not afterwards make payment to him; for he will be liable in this case for the same interest which he promised to pay to the father. 6Ad Dig. 26,7,7,6Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 439, Note 7.Where a guardian lends the money of his ward at interest in his own name, he can only be compelled to pay the interest which he himself collected, if the ward is willing to assume the risk of other loans. 7Where it was necessary to deposit money for the purchase of land, and this took place, interest will not run. Where, however, this was not done, and no direction was given to make the deposit, then only the interest due on money belonging to the ward must be paid, but if such direction was given, and the ward neglects to follow it, it should be considered what rate of interest will be payable. The Prætors are accustomed to warn guardians that if the deposit is not made, or if it is made after the time prescribed, lawful interest can be collected. Therefore, if this warning has been given, the judge having jurisdiction of the case, at any time, must follow the decree of the Prætor. 8The Prætors are accustomed to give the same warning with reference to those guardians who deny that they have anything in their hands for the support of their wards; so that, if it should be established that they did have anything, higher interest may be paid; and it is clear that the judge must pursue this course in addition to the infliction of another penalty. 9The guardian must pay interest on all sums of money remaining in his hands. 10It should be understood what the interest is which is designated “pupillar”. It appears that this rate of interest is the legal one which the guardian must pay on money which he has converted to his own use; but where he denies that there is any money in his hands, and the Prætor renders a decision against him, he must pay the legal interest; or where he has been guilty of delay in depositing the money and the Prætor has rendered a decision against him for legal interest. But where he denies that any money of the ward is in his hands, and he imposes the necessity of borrowing money at legal interest upon the ward for the purpose of meeting his expenses, the guardian will be liable for legal interest. The same rule applies where he collects legal interest from the debtors of the ward. He will also be liable for interest for other reasons, according to the custom of the province; that is, for either five per cent, or four per cent, or for any lower rate, if this is the practice in the province. 11Interest is not exacted from guardians immediately, but its collection or investment should be required after a certain time, that is to say, two months. It is customary to observe this rule in an action on guardianship. This delay or indulgence should not be granted to those who convert the money of wards or minors to their own use. 12Where a guardian or a curator retains for his own use interest which he has collected, he should be liable for the said interest, for it certainly makes very little difference whether he misappropriates either the principal or the interest of his ward. 13The heirs of a curator will be liable for the interest of money deposited in a chest, until they make application for the appointment of another curator in the place of the deceased. 14Where a guardian has judgment rendered against him on account of the acts of his fellow-guardian, the question arises whether he shall also be required to pay interest. It is established, as is stated in many rescripts, and as Papinianus holds in the Twelfth Book of Questions, that he must be also required to pay interest, if he has failed to denounce his fellow-guardian as suspicious. And, indeed, he should be compelled to pay the interest to which he is liable on account of his administration. 15It should be noted that a guardian owes interest on money remaining in his hands after the termination of his office, until the day on which he relinquished the guardianship.
Dig. 26,10,1Ulpianus libro trigesimo quinto ad edictum. Haec clausula et frequens et pernecessaria est: cottidie enim suspecti tutores postulantur. 1Primum igitur tractemus, unde descendat suspecti crimen et apud quos postulari quis possit suspectus tutor vel curator, deinde quis et a quo et ex quibus causis removetur, deque poena suspecti. 2Sciendum est suspecti crimen e lege duodecim tabularum descendere. 3Damus autem ius removendi suspectos tutores Romae praetoribus, in provinciis praesidibus earum. 4An autem apud legatum proconsulis suspectus postulari possit, dubium fuit: sed imperator Antoninus cum divo Severo Braduae Maurico proconsuli Africae rescripsit posse, quia mandata iurisdictione officium ad eum totum iuris dicundi transit. ergo et si praetor mandet iurisdictionem, simili modo dicendum est suspectum posse apud eum postulari cui mandata est: cum enim sit in provincia hoc rescriptum, consequens erit dicere et eum, cui a praetore mandata est iurisdictio, posse de suspecto cognoscere. 5Ostendimus, qui possunt de suspecto cognoscere: nunc videamus, qui suspecti fieri possunt. et quidem omnes tutores possunt, sive testamentarii sint, sive non sint, sed alterius generis tutores. quare et si legitimus sit tutor, accusari poterit. quid si patronus? adhuc idem erit dicendum, modo ut meminerimus patrono parcendum. 6Consequens est, ut videamus, qui possunt suspectos postulare: et sciendum est quasi publicam esse hanc actionem, hoc est omnibus patere. 7Quin immo et mulieres admittuntur, sed hae solae, quae pietate necessitudinis ductae ad hoc procedunt, ut puta mater. nutrix quoque et avia possunt. potest et soror, nam in sorore et rescriptum exstat divi Severi: et si qua alia mulier fuerit, cuius praetor perpensam pietatem intellexerit non sexus verecundiam egredientis, sed pietate productam non continere iniuriam pupillorum, admittet eam ad accusationem. 8Si quis de plebeis ob facta atrociora in tutela admissa fuerit apud praetorem accusatus, remittitur ad praefectum urbis graviter puniendus.
Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXXV. The subject which we are about to discuss is one of frequent occurrence and extremely important, for guardians are every day charged with being suspicious. 1Therefore, let us examine, in the first place, how this charge of being suspicious originates; before whom a guardian or a curator can be accused of being suspicious; and finally, who can be removed, and by whom, and for what reasons; and what is the punishment of a suspected guardian. 2It should be remembered that the accusation of suspicion is derived from the Law of the Twelve Tables. 3We give the right of removing suspected guardians to the Prætors, at Rome, and in the provinces, to the Governors of the same. 4There was formerly some doubt as to whether a suspected guardian could be accused before the Deputy of the Proconsul. The Emperor Antoninus, along with the Divine Severus, stated in a Rescript to Braduas Mauricus, Proconsul of Africa, that this could be done, because when the jurisdiction of the Proconsul was delegated, the entire duty of dispensing justice passed to him. Therefore, if the Prætor delegates his jurisdiction, it must be said that a suspected guardian can likewise be accused before him to whom the authority was transferred; for, while this rescript only has reference to provinces, he also to whom jurisdiction has been delegated by the Prætor can take cognizance of the case of a suspected guardian. 5We have shown who can take cognizance of an accusation of suspicion; now let us see what guardians can be suspected. And, in fact, all guardians can be denounced as suspicious, whether they are testamentary, or not, or of some other kind. Hence a legal guardian can be accused, but what if he is a patron? The same rule will still apply, provided we remember that favor should be shown to a patron. 6The next thing in order is to see who can accuse a patron as being suspicious. And it should be remembered that this is a public action, that is to say, it is open to all. 7Moreover, even women are permitted to bring such an accusation, but only those can do so who are necessarily induced to proceed through affection, as, for instance, a mother, a nurse, and a grandmother. A sister, also, can denounce a guardian as suspicious (for a Rescript of the Divine Severus with reference to a sister is extant). And, indeed, the Prætor will permit any other woman to bring such an accusation, whose sincere affection he knows to exist, who does not transgress the modesty of her sex, and who has such a regard for the ward that she cannot bear to have injury inflicted upon him. 8Where anyone of plebeian rank is accused before the Prætor of any atrocious acts committed during his guardianship, he shall be sent to the Prefect of the City to be severely punished.
Dig. 26,10,3Idem libro trigesimo quinto ad edictum. Tutor quoque contutorem potest suspectum facere, sive duret adhuc tutor, sive iam desierit ipse, contutor autem maneat tutor: et ita divus Severus rescripsit. plus divus Pius Caecilio Paetino rescripsit posse tutorem suspectum remotum contutores suos suspectos facere. 1Liberti quoque pupillorum grate facient, si tutores vel curatores eorum male gerentes rem patronorum vel liberorum patronorum suspectos fecerint: sed si patronum suum ut suspectum in tutela facere velint, melius est libertos ab accusatione repelli, ne in ipsa cognitione gravius aliquid emergat, cum hoc aliis omnibus pateat. 2Non tantum autem adulescentis curator, sed etiam furiosi vel prodigi ut suspectus removeri potest. 3Sed et si quis curam ventris bonorumve administrat, non carebit huius criminis metu. 4Praeterea videndum, an et sine accusatione possit suspectus repelli. et magis est, ut repelli debeat, si praetori liqueat ex apertissimis rerum argumentis suspectum eum esse: quod favore pupillorum accipiendum est. 5Nunc videamus, ex quibus causis suspecti removeantur. et sciendum est aut ob dolum in tutela admissum suspectum licere postulare, si forte grassatus in tutela est aut sordide egit vel perniciose pupillo vel aliquid intercepit ex rebus pupillaribus iam tutor. quod si quid admisit, ante tamen admisit, quam tutor esset, quamvis in bonis pupilli vel in tutela, non potest suspectus tutor postulari, quia delictum tutelam praecessit. proinde si pupilli substantiam expilavit, sed antequam tutor esset, accusari debet expilatae hereditatis crimine, si minus, furti. 6Quaeri potest, si tutor fuerit pupilli idemque sit curator confirmatus adulescenti, an possit ex delictis tutelae suspectus postulari. et cum possit tutelae a concuratoribus conveniri, consequens erit dicere cessare suspecti accusationem, quia tutelae agi possit deposito officio et alio sumpto. 7Idem erit quaerendum et si proponas aliquem desisse esse tutorem et rursum coepisse (ut puta usque ad tempus vel ad condicionem erat datus, deinde iterum vel superveniente condicione testamentaria vel etiam a praetore postea datus est), an suspectus postulari possit. et quia duae tutelae sunt, si est, qui eum tutelae iudicio conveniat, aequissimum erit dicere cessare crimen suspecti. 8Si autem ipse tutor est solus, numquid, quia tutelae cessat, removendus sit ab hac administratione, quasi in hac suspectus ex eo, quod in alia male versatus sit? ergo et in eo, qui curator solus post finitam tutelam confirmatus est, idem dici potest. 9Quod si quis ita tutor datus sit: ‘quoad in Italia erit, tutor esto’ vel ‘quoad trans mare non ierit’, an possit suspectus postulari ex eo gestu, quem administravit, antequam trans mare abesset? et magis est, ut postulari possit, quasi una tutela sit habens intervalla. 10Si quis afuturus rei publicae causa desideravit in locum suum constitui alium tutorem, an reversus ex ante gesto suspectus postulari possit? et quia potest ex priore gestu utili actione conveniri, cessabit postulatio. 11Si curator ventri bonisque datus fraudulenter versatus sit, deinde tutor datus, an postulari suspectus propter fraudes in cura admissas possit, dubitari potest. et si quidem habet contutores, non poterit postulari, quia conveniri potest, si non habet, amoveri potest. 12Si tutor inimicus pupillo parentibusve eius sit et generaliter si qua iusta causa praetorem moverit, cur non debeat in ea tutela versari, reicere eum debebit. 13Severus et Antoninus rescripserunt Epicurio tutores, qui res vetitas sine decreto distraxerunt, nihil quidem egisse, verum si per fraudem id fecerunt, removeri eos oportere. 14Tutor, qui ad alimenta pupillo praestanda copiam sui non faciat, suspectus est poteritque removeri. 15Sed si non latitet, sed praesens nihil posse decerni contendit quasi inopibus, si datis pupillo advocatis in mendacio revincatur, ad praefectum urbis remittendus est: neque enim interest id agere quemquam, ut corrupta fide inquisitionis tutor constituatur, an bona fide constitutum velut praedonem bonis alienis incumbere: hic ergo non quasi suspectus removebitur, sed remittetur puniendus ea poena, qua solent adfici, qui tutelam corruptis ministeriis praetoris redemerunt. 16Qui pecuniam ad praediorum emptionem conferre neque pecuniam deponere pervicaciter perstant, quoad emptionis occasio inveniatur, vinculis publicis iubentur contineri, et insuper pro suspectis habentur. sed sciendum est non omnes hac severitate debere tractari, sed utique humiliores: ceterum eos, qui sunt in aliqua dignitate positi, non opinor vinculis publicis contineri oportere. 17Is tutor, qui inconsideranter pupillum vel dolo abstinuit hereditate, potest suspectus postulari. 18Qui ob segnitiam vel rusticitatem inertiam simplicitatem vel ineptiam remotus sit, in hac causa est, ut integra existimatione tutela vel cura abeat. sed et si quis ob fraudem non removebit aliquem, sed ei adiunxerit, non erit famosus, quia non est abire tutela iussus.
The Same, On the Edict, Book XXXV. A guardian can also accuse his fellow-guardian of being suspicious, either during his term of office, or after he has relinquished it, and while his fellow-guardian still continues the administration of the same. This the Divine Severus stated in a Rescript. The Divine Pius went still further in a Rescript addressed to Cæcilius Petinus, and held that a guardian who had been removed for being suspicious, could bring the same charge against his fellow-guardians. 1The freedmen of wards will act in a grateful manner if they denounce as suspicious the guardians or curators of the said wards, where they improperly conduct the affairs of their patrons, or of the children of the latter. But if they wish to accuse their own patron of being suspicious in the management of the guardianship, it is a better plan to reject their accusation, for fear that something more serious may be divulged during the inquiry; since the right to bring such a charge is open to all persons. 2Not only the curator of a minor, but also one of an insane person or a spendthrift, can be removed on the ground of suspicion. 3Moreover, anyone who has supervision of the interests of an unborn child, or of property without an owner, is not free from the danger of being called to account by this proceeding. 4Again, let us see whether a suspected guardian can be discharged without any accusation. The better opinion is that he should be discharged, if it should appear to the Prætor, from conclusive evidence of the facts, that he is suspicious. This should be understood as being for the benefit of wards. 5Now let us consider for what reasons suspected guardians may be removed. And it should be noted that it is permissible to accuse a guardian of being suspicious, if, on account of having committed fraud during his guardianship, he neglected his duties, or acted basely, or in any manner injuriously to his ward; or, while administering the trust, he misappropriated any of the property of the former. If, however, he has done anything of this kind before he assumed the office, even though it had reference to the property of the ward or the management of the guardianship, he cannot be accused of being suspicious, because the offence took place before his appointment. Hence, if he should have stolen any of the property of the ward before he became his guardian, he should be accused of the crime of robbing the estate, otherwise of theft. 6It may be asked if anyone who was the guardian of a ward, and was afterwards appointed his curator, can be accused of being suspicious, on account of offences committed during the guardianship. And, as an action on guardianship can be brought against him by his colleagues, it follows that it must be held that an accusation of suspicion cannot be brought, for the reason that an action on guardianship will lie after that office is relinquished and the duties of the other assumed. 7The same question may arise where it is stated that one having ceased to be guardian resumes the office; as, for instance, where he was appointed for a certain time, or under some condition, and he is appointed a second time, either on the fulfillment of some testamentary condition, or by the Prætor; for can he then be denounced as suspicious? And since there are two guardianships, if there is anyone who can bring a tutelary action against him, it would be perfectly proper to hold that an accusation for suspicion will not lie. 8If, however, there is but one guardian, as the investigation of his administration cannot be made, should he be removed from the management of the trust, as being suspicious, because he was guilty of improper conduct during his former guardianship. Hence the same rule can be said to apply in the case where a single curator was appointed after the termination of the guardianship. 9If a guardian should be appointed to hold his office as long as he remains in Italy, or as long as he does not go beyond sea, can he be accused of being suspicious on account of some act which he performed before he went beyond sea? The better opinion is that he can be accused, since the guardianship remains the same where it has intervals. 10Where anyone, who is about to be absent on business for the State, requests that another guardian be appointed in his stead, can he, after his return, be accused of being suspicious, because of some transaction which took place before his departure? Since he can be sued in a prætorian action on account of his previous administration, the accusation cannot be brought. 11Where a party who was appointed the curator of an unborn child, or of unoccupied property, was guilty of fraudulent conduct, and afterwards becomes the guardian of said child, is there any doubt that he can be accused of being suspicious on account of the fraud which he committed during his curatorship? If, indeed, he has any fellow-guardians, he cannot be accused, for the reason that an action can be brought against him, but if he has none, he can be removed from office. 12Where a guardian is an enemy of the ward or his relatives, and, generally speaking, if there is any good reason to induce the Prætor not to permit him to administer the guardianship, he should reject him. 13Severus and Antoninus stated in a Rescript to Epicurius that: “If guardians should sell property which it is forbidden to dispose of without a decree, the sale will be void; but if they fraudulently alienate the said property, they must be removed.” 14A guardian who does not demonstrate his ability to support his ward is suspicious, and can be removed. 15If, however, he does not conceal himself, but, being present, contends that no decree can be rendered against him, because the wards are poor; and if, after advocates have been appointed for the ward, the guardian is convicted of falsehood, he should be sent before the Prefect of the City; nor does it make any difference if someone does this in order that he himself may be appointed guardian by means of a fraudulent examination, or if, having been appointed in good faith, he intends to plunder the property of another. Therefore, he should not be removed on the ground of suspicion, but should be sent to the magistrate to undergo the penalty which is ordinarily imposed upon those who purchase a guardianship, through having corrupted the officers of the Prætor. 16Guardians who have not made an inventory, or who obstinately refuse to employ the money of the ward in the purchase of land, or deposit it until an opportunity for its investment may be found, are ordered to be imprisoned, and, in addition, should be regarded as being suspicious. It must be remembered, however, that all should not be treated with this severity, but only those of inferior rank; for I do not think that persons of high position should be confined in prison on this account. 17A guardian who, without proper consideration, or through fraud, induces his ward to reject an estate, can be accused as suspicious. 18Where a guardian is removed on account of laziness, idleness, stupidity, or incompetence, he relinquishes the guardianship or curatorship without any imputation against his integrity. When, however, he is not removed from office on account of fraud, but only that a curator may be joined with him, he will not be in bad repute, for the reason that he was not ordered to surrender the guardianship.
Dig. 27,1,19Idem libro trigesimo quinto ad edictum. Illud usitatissimum est, ut his, qui in Italia domicilium habeant, administratio rerum provincialium remittatur.
The Same, On the Edict, Book XXXV. It is customary for those guardians who have their residence in Italy to be excused from the administration of provincial matters.
Dig. 27,3,7Idem libro trigesimo quinto ad edictum. Si pupillus heres exstiterit ei, cuius tutelam tutor suus gesserat, ex hereditaria causa cum tutore suo habebit actionem. 1Si tutor in hostium potestatem pervenerit, quia finita tutela intellegitur, fideiussores, qui pro eo rem salvam fore spoponderint, et si quis existat defensor eius, qui paratus est suscipere iudicium tutelae, vel si quis sit curator bonis eius constitutus, recte convenientur:
The Same, On the Edict, Book XXXV. Where one ward becomes the heir of another whose trust his own guardian has administered, he will be entitled to an action against his guardian on the ground of inheritance. 1Where a guardian falls into the hands of the enemy, for the reason that the guardianship is understood to be terminated, an action can legally be brought against his sureties who have rendered themselves liable for the preservation of the property, and against anyone who appears as his defender, and is ready to conduct the case, whoever may be appointed the curator of his estate;
Dig. 27,3,11Ulpianus libro trigesimo quinto ad edictum. Si filius familias tutelam administraverit, deinde fuerit emancipatus, remanere eum tutorem Iulianus ait et cum pupillus adoleverit, agendum cum eo eius quidem temporis, quod est ante emancipationem, in quantum facere potest, eius vero, quod est post emancipationem, in solidum, cum patre vero dumtaxat de peculio: manere enim adversus eum etiam post pubertatem de peculio actionem: neque enim ante annus cedit, intra quem de peculio actio datur, quam tutela fuerit finita.
Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXXV. Where a son under parental control administers a guardianship, and then is emancipated; Julianus says that he still remains guardlian, and when his ward grows up, an action can be brought against him for whatever he was able to pay during the time before he was emancipated, and after his emancipation for the entire amount; but his father can only be sued to the extent of the peculium. For the action de peculio will still lie against him after he has attained puberty; as the year from the emancipation within which an action de peculio is granted will not begin to run before the guardianship is terminated.
Dig. 27,3,13Ulpianus libro trigesimo quinto ad edictum. Si tutor post pubertatem pupilli negotia administraverit, in iudicium tutelae veniet id tantum, sine quo administratio tutelae expediri non potest: si vero post pubertatem pupilli is qui tutor eius fuerat fundos eius vendiderit, mancipia et praedia comparaverit, neque venditionis huius neque emptionis ratio iudicio tutelae continebitur. et est verum ea quae conexa sunt venire in tutelae actionem: sed et illud est verum, si coeperit negotia administrare post tutelam finitam, devolvi iudicium tutelae in negotiorum gestorum actionem: oportuit enim eum a semet ipso tutelam exigere. sed et si quis, cum tutelam administrasset, idem curator adulescenti fuerit datus, dicendum est negotiorum gestorum eum conveniri posse.
Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXXV. Where a guardian administers the affairs of his ward after puberty, he will be liable to an action on guardianship only for the amount without which his administration could not be conducted. Where, however, the guardian of a ward after puberty sells his property, or purchases slaves and land; an account of said sale or purchase will not be included in the action on guardianship; and it is true that only those matters which are connected with the guardianship are embraced in a proceeding of this kind. It is also true that if the guardian continues to administer the affairs of the trust after the latter has been terminated, the action on guardianship becomes merged in that of voluntary agency; for it becomes necessary for the guardian to exact from himself what is due by reason of the guardianship. Where, however, anyone after administering the guardianship is appointed curator of a minor, it must be said that he can be sued on the ground of voluntary agency.
Dig. 27,6,11Ulpianus libro trigesimo quinto ad edictum. Falsus tutor, qui in contrahendo auctor minori duodecim vel quattuordecim annis fuerit, tenebitur in factum actione propter dolum malum. 1Cuiuscumque condicionis fuerit vel sui iuris vel alieni, qui dolo malo auctoritatem accommodavit, tenebitur hoc edicto. 2Sed et si quis filiae familias auctor factus sit ad contrahendum, tenetur. idemque iuris est, si ancillae quis tutore auctore credidisset: nam omnibus istis modis propter tutorem decipitur is qui contraxit, quia aliter cum impubere contracturus non fuit, quam si tutoris auctoritas intercessisset. 3Iulianus libro vicesimo primo digestorum tractat, in patrem debeat dari haec actio, qui filiam minorem duodecim annis nuptum dedit. et magis probat patri ignoscendum esse, qui filiam suam maturius in familiam sponsi perducere voluit: affectu enim propensiore magis quam dolo malo id videri fecisse. 4Quod si intra duodecim annos haec decesserit, cum haberet dotem, putat Iulianus, si dolo malo conversatus sit is ad quem dos pertinet, posse maritum doli mali exceptione condicentem summovere in casibus, in quibus dotem vel in totum vel in partem, si constabat matrimonium, fuerat lucraturus.
Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXXV. A false guardian who grants authority to a minor of twelve or fourteen years of age to make a contract shall be liable to an action in factum on the ground of fraud, no matter what his condition may be, whether he is his own master, or under the control of another. 1He who fraudulently grants authority to a minor will be liable under this Edict. 2Moreover, anyone who authorizes a daughter under paternal control to enter into a contract is liable. The same rule of law applies where anyone acting as guardian authorizes a female slave to borrow money; for in all these instances the contracting party is deceived by the agency of the guardian, for he would not have contracted with the minor without the intervention of the authority of the guardian. 3Julianus in the Twenty-first Book of the Digest discusses the point whether this action should be granted against a father who gave his daughter in marriage, while she was under twelve years of age. The weight of authority is that a father is to be excused who desired to introduce his daughter too soon into the family of her husband, for in doing so he is held to have acted rather from an excess of affection, than through malice. 4Julianus thinks, however, that if the daughter should die before reaching the age of twelve years, after having received her dowry, and he who was entitled to it had acted in bad faith, the husband can be barred by an exception on the ground of fraud when he sues for the dowry, in cases where he would have been benefited to the extent of all, or a part of it, if the marriage had been valid.
Dig. 27,7,3Idem libro trigesimo quinto ad edictum. Etiam fideiussorem et heredes fideiussoris ad rationem eandem usurarum revocandos esse constat, ad quam et tutor revocatur.
The Same, On the Edict, Book XXXV. It has been established that both the surety and his heirs shall be compelled to pay the same amount of interest as is required of the guardian himself.
Dig. 27,9,1Ulpianus 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.
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. 4Ad Dig. 27,9,1,4Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 212, Note 12.Where 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.
Dig. 27,9,3Ulpianus 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,
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,
Dig. 27,9,5Ulpianus 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.
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. 2Ad Dig. 27,9,5,2Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. II, § 441, Note 1.Where 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.
Dig. 27,9,7Idem 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.
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.
Dig. 46,6,3Idem libro trigensimo quinto ad edictum. (aut dare aliquem praetor debet, cui caveatur):
The Same, On the Edict, Book XXXV. Or the Prætor can appoint someone to whom security can be given.
Dig. 50,17,49Ulpianus libro trigensimo quinto ad edictum. Alterius circumventio alii non praebet actionem.
Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXXV. The cheating of one person does not afford ground to another for an action when he was not affected by it.