---

1. Paulus, On the Edict, Book XXXVIII.

Guardianship is (as Servius defines the term), authority and power over a free person, granted for the purpose of protecting him who, on account of his age, is unable to protect himself; and this authority is conferred or admitted by the Civil Law.

(1) Guardians are those who possess this authority and power, and they derive their name from the office itself. Therefore they are styled guardians, being as it were protectors and defenders, just as those are styled guardians of a temple, who are charged with its care.

(2) A person who is dumb cannot be appointed a guardian, as he cannot exert his authority.

(3) Many legal writers, among them Pomponius (in the Sixty-ninth Book on the Edict), hold that a deaf person cannot be appointed a guardian, because a guardian should not only be able to speak, but also to hear.

2. Pomponius, On Sabinus, Book III.

A minor should not be required to ask that a guardian be appointed for him, or to go in search of him.

3. Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXXVII.

Where a male or female ward has a guardian, and becomes insane, he or she will still remain under guardianship while in this condition. This is the opinion of Quintus Mucius, and was approved by Julianus; and we adopt the rule that curatorship shall cease where the age requires guardianship. Therefore, if wards have guardians, they are not, by reason of their insanity, placed under curatorship; and if they have none, and insanity should attack them, they can, nevertheless, have guardians, because the Law of the Twelve Tables is understood not to apply to wards of either sex.

(1) For the reason, however, that we do not permit agnates to be the curators of minors, I have thought that even though a minor under the age of twenty-five may be insane, a curator should be appointed for him; not because he is insane, but for the reason that he is a minor, just as if the impediment of age existed. We make this distinction in the case of a person whose age subjects him to curatorship or guardianship, and it is not necessary to appoint a guardian for him on account of his demented condition. This the Emperor Antoninus Augustus stated in a Rescript, since provision should be made for age rather than insanity, during a certain time.

(2) Where a ward of either sex desires to institute proceedings against his or her lawful guardian, or if the latter desires to do so along with him or her, and a demand is made for a curator, shall he be appointed on the application of the ward, or on that of his or her adversary? It should be remembered that a curator can be appointed whether a ward sues or is sued, but this cannot be done unless he for whom the curator must be appointed requests it. Hence Cassius states in the Sixth Book that no one can be appointed a curator under such circumstances, unless he is present, and the party requesting his appointment is also in court. Therefore, a curator cannot be appointed for an infant. Cassius says that if a minor does not wish to ask for a curator, in order to prevent suit from being brought against him, he should be compelled to make application for one by the Praetor.

(3) Pomponius states in the Sixteenth Book, that a curator of this kind can be appointed at any place and at any time.

(4) If a minor petitions for such a curator, and does not state for what purpose he wishes him, shall he be appointed for all the controversies in which the minor may be involved? Celsus says that Servius has decided that the curator should be considered to be appointed for the transaction of all business.

4. Paulus, On Sabinus, Book VIII.

Where it is stated that the curator is appointed without distinction, he is held to have been designated for the management of all litigation, and this has reference to cases where an action is brought against a guardian for the partition of an estate, or the division of property held in common, or for the establishment of boundaries; and if the appointment thus is made in general terms, a curator is considered to have authority to act not only in cases where the ward is plaintiff, but, on the other hand, where suit is brought against him.

(1) Several curators can be asked for in the place of several guardians, or one in the place of several, or one curator in the place of one guardian, either for the management of a single lawsuit or for the conduct of several.

5. Pomponius, On Sabinus, Book XVII.

Where a curator of this kind has once been asked for, he will remain in office until the suit is disposed of, and another curator cannot be asked for in the same proceeding.

(1) And if, for example, the appointment of Titius is asked for, as against Seius, this same Titius can be appointed to conduct the case against another guardian, so that in different cases one curator will take the place of two. This may happen, indeed, with reference to the same guardian, if the same curator is appointed for the conduct of different cases at different times.

6. Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXXVIII.

It is true that a guardian can be appointed for minors who are dumb, and have not arrived at puberty. But may it not be doubted whether they can be authorized by their guardian? If the guardian can authorize a ward who is silent, he can also authorize one who is dumb. It is, however, perfectly true (as Julianus states in the Twenty-first Book of the Digest), that the guardian can authorize his ward to act even if he is silent.

(1) It is settled that a guardian cannot be appointed conditionally by the Governor of a province, and if one should be appointed, his appointment will be of no effect. This is also the opinion of Pomponius. But if a Governor makes the appointment in the following terms: "I appoint such-and-such a man guardian, if he gives security"; this appointment does not contain a condition, but a warning that the guardlianship will not be conferred upon him unless he furnishes security; that is to say, he will not be allowed to transact the business of his office without giving a bond to insure the preservation of the property.

(2) The appointment of a guardian is not an Imperial privilege, nor one attaching to magisterial jurisdiction, but only belongs to him upon whom the right has been conferred by the law, or by a Decree of the Senate, or by the Emperor himself.

(3) A guardian can be appointed for a minor who is deaf.

(4) It is clear that a guardian cannot be appointed for a minor whose father is in the hands of the enemy. If, however, one should be appointed, it may be asked whether or not the appointment may not remain in suspense. I do not think that such an appointment is valid, for, after the return of the father, the minor will again come under his control, just as if his father had never been captured by the enemy. Still, a curator should be appointed for the management of the property to prevent it from being lost in the meantime.

7. Ulpianus, Disputations, Book II.

Where a son under paternal control is appointed guardian by the Praetor, and his father assents to the appointment, he should be held liable for the entire amount, but if he does not assent, he will be liable only for the amount of the peculium. He will be considered to have approved of the appointment if he himself transacts the business of the guardianship, or consents that his son shall do so; or if he, in any way whatever, concerns himself with the office. Hence, where a man wrote to his son to administer the guardianship carefully, and said, "For you know that we are responsible"; I held that he should be considered to have approved of the appointment. It is clear that if he only advises his son, he should not be held to have given his approbation.

8. The Same, Opinions, Book I.

A patron, who is also the guardian of his freedman, should carry out his contracts, and if he in any way defrauds the creditors of the ward who is his freedman, the law permits his appointment to be revoked.

9. Marcianus, Institutes, Book III.

An extraordinary punishment is inflicted upon those who are proved to have obtained a guardianship by the payment of money; or have given their services for a pecuniary consideration in order to secure the appointment of an insolvent guardian; or, when making the inventory, have purposely diminished the amount of the property of the ward; or have alienated it evidently with fraudulent intent.

10. Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book II.

A man who is not a resident of the town can be appointed a guardian, provided the ward for whom he is appointed is a citizen of the place.

11. Paulus, On Vitellius, Book III.

If an insane person should be appointed a guardian, the appointment must be understood to have been made under the condition that he becomes of sound mind.

12. The Same, Opinions, Book X.

The question arose whether parties who are appointed guardians in the place of another, who is absent in the service of the government, would continue in their office if the former should die; or whether application for the appointment of others should be made? Paulus answers that where they are appointed in the place of one who is absent, and the latter does not return, they will continue to hold their office until the ward arrives at the age of puberty.

13. Pomponius, Enchiridion, Book II.

It is sometimes customary for a curator to be appointed for a ward who has a guardian, either on account of the ill health of the latter, or because of his old age; but he is understood to be rather a business manager than a genuine curator.

(1) The Praetor is accustomed to permit guardians to appoint an assistant in the administration of the guardianship, where they cannot satisfactorily administer it themselves, but this assistant is appointed at the guardian's own risk.

14. Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXX.

Where minors are arrogated or deported, they cease to have guardians.

(1) The guardianship also terminates where a ward is reduced to slavery.

(2) Guardians cease to hold office for several other reasons, for example, where either the ward or the guardian is captured by the enemy.

(3) When a guardian is appointed for a certain time, at the expiration of that time he ceases to hold his office.

(4) Moreover, a guardian ceases to hold his office where he is removed on account of being suspected.

(5) Where a guardian is appointed under a certain condition, it also happens that when the condition is fulfilled, he ceases to be a guardian.

15. The Same, On Sabinus, Book XXXVIII.

Where a guardian is not captured by the enemy, but is sent in the capacity of ambassador, whether he is received or deserts, for the reason that he does not become a slave, he still remains a guardian, but, in the meantime, another guardian will be appointed by the Governor.

16. Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book XII.

Guardianship is generally an office whose duties are exercised by men.

(1) It must be understood that guardianship does not pass to another by hereditary right. The legal guardianships of parents, however, descend to children of the male sex, who are of age, but others are not transmitted.

17. Paulus, On Sabinus, Book VIII.

Several decrees of the Senate have been enacted providing that other guardians should be appointed in the place of those who are insane, dumb, and deaf.

18. Neratius, Rules, Book III.

Women cannot be appointed guardians, because this is an office which belongs to men unless they obtain the guardianship of their children through an express application to the Emperor.
 

---

Tit. 2. Concerning testamentary guardianship.

---

 
1. Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book XI.

Parents are permitted by the Law of the Twelve Tables to appoint by will guardians for their children of either the female or the male sex, provided they are under their control.

(1) We should also remember that parents are allowed to appoint testamentary guardians for their posthumous children, grandchildren, or any other descendants, if, where such children were born during the lifetime of the testator they would have been under his control, and would not have broken the will.

(2) It should also not be forgotten that, where anyone has a son, and also a grandson by the said son, under his control, and he appoints a guardian for his grandson, he must be held to have properly appointed him, if the grandson, after his death, does not again come under the control of his father, which would be the case if his son should cease to be under his control during the lifetime of the testator.

2. Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book II.

It was stated in a Rescript by the Divine Brothers, that a soldier cannot appoint a guardian for his grandchildren, if they were liable to again come under the control of their father.

3. 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.

(1) Those, however, who are appointed by law, should not be considered testamentary guardians.

4. Modestinus, Differences, Book VII.

A father can appoint a guardian for his son whether he has appointed him his heir, or disinherited him. A mother, however, cannot do this, unless she has constituted her son her heir, as a guardian is held to have been appointed rather with reference to property than to the person. It is necessary for the party appointed by the will of the mother to be confirmed only after examination, since, where he is appointed by the father — even though this has been done with the omission of some legal formalities — he will still be confirmed without any examination, unless the reason for his appointment appears to have been changed; for instance, where from a friend he has become an enemy, or where having previously been rich, he has become poor.

5. Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XV.

Where anyone appoints a guardian for his daughters or his sons, he is held also to have appointed him for a posthumous daughter, because the term "posthumous" is included in the term daughter.

6. The Same, On Sabinus, Book XXXIX.

But suppose there are grandchildren, must it be held that a guardian is appointed for them under the name of "children"? The better opinion is that the guardian is also appointed for them, provided the testator made use of the word "children". If, however, he used the word "sons", they will not be included, for the term son is one thing, and the term grandson another. It is clear that if he appointed a guardian for his posthumous children, the offspring of the latter, as well as the other children, will be included.

7. Paulus, On Sabinus, Book III.

Guardians do not derive their authority from the heir, but directly from the testator, and they are vested with it as soon as an heir appears; or the heir himself can be appointed guardian, and a guardian can legally be appointed after the death of the heir.

8. Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXIV.

Where a guardian is appointed, the appointment can be revoked either by another will, or by a codicil.

(1) If a guardian is appointed under certain conditions, and the condition fails to take place, the appointment is void.

(2) Moreover, a guardian can be appointed from a certain time, and up to a certain date, as well as under a condition, and until the fulfillment of the condition.

(3) In the appointment of a guardian, must it be considered whether the condition is most easy of fulfillment, or latest; as, for instance, in the case of a legacy, where Titius is appointed guardian, when he is able to act, or where he is appointed, if a ship should come from Asia? Julianus very properly states in the Twentieth Book of the Digest, that the latest condition which is mentioned should be considered.

9. Pomponius, On Quintus Mucius, Book III.

Where no one enters upon the estate, nothing stated in the will is valid. If, however, one out of several heirs enters upon it, the appointment of a guardian will be valid, and it will not be necessary to wait for all the heirs to accept the estate.

10. Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXXVI.

If an estate is not yet entered upon, and the appointment of a guardian is expected under the will disposing of it, the better opinion is that another guardian can be appointed, just as if there was none, nor any expectation of one.

(1) In testamentary guardianship, the last will of the testator is observed, and if he has appointed several guardians, we accept the last one mentioned.

(2) Where a man had a son, and a grandson by him, and appointed a guardian for the grandson, there may be a question whether an appointment under such circumstances will not be valid; for example, if one supposes that the son died during the lifetime of his father, and for this reason the grandson will become the heir to his grandfather during the lifetime of the latter. It must be positively held that such a guardianship is confirmed by the Lex Junia Velleia. Pomponius stated in the Sixteenth Book on Sabinus that the appointment of such a guardian is valid. For as the will is valid, the appointment of the guardian made therein will consequently also be valid; that is to say, where the grandson is either appointed heir, or expressly disinherited.

(3) Where an insane person is appointed a guardian by will, Proculus thinks that the appointment is properly made, if it is stated that he shall act when he ceases to be insane. If, however, he is appointed unconditionally, Proculus denies that the appointment is valid. What Pomponius says is more correct, that is, that the appointment was held to have been properly made, and that the guardian can act when he recovers his reason.

(4) A slave belonging to another can be appointed a guardian, where it is stated that he shall act if he becomes free. And even if the slave should be appointed without any condition, the acquisition of his freedom is held to be a condition upon which his appointment depends. Where, however, a slave belonging to another is appointed, anyone, however, can maintain that, by doing so, the testator has bequeathed him his freedom by means of a trust. For what difference does it make whether he appoints his own slave, or that of another, since, in the interest of the ward, and in consideration of the public welfare, the freedom of him who is appointed guardian is assumed? Therefore, it can be maintained that freedom through a trust has been conferred upon the slave, unless it is perfectly clear that this was not the intention of the testator.

11. The Same, On Sabinus, Book XXXVII.

If anyone appoints a guardian under a condition or from a certain date, another guardian should be appointed in the meantime, even though the ward may already have a legal guardian; for it must be remembered that legal guardianship is not operative so long as the appointment of a testamentary guardian is expected.

(1) Where the office of guardian devolves upon one appointed by will, and the testamentary guardian is afterwards excused from serving; we can say in this instance that another should be appointed in the place of the one who was excused, and that the office does not revert to the legal guardian.

(2) We also say that, if the guardian should be removed, the same rule will apply; for he retires in order that another may be appointed.

(3) If, however, the testamentary guardian should die, the office will revert to the original guardian, because in this instance the Decree of the Senate does not apply.

(4) It is evident that if two or more testamentary guardians are appointed, and one of them dies or forfeits his civil rights, another can be appointed in his stead; but if neither of them survives, or retains his civil rights, the legal guardianship will be established.

12. The Same, On Sabinus, Book XXXVIII.

A guardian cannot be appointed by will for the management of certain affairs, without including the administration of property.

13. Pomponius, On Sabinus, Book XVII.

And if one should be appointed under such conditions, the entire appointment will be void:

14. Marcianus, Institutes, Book II.

For the reason that a guardian is appointed to have charge of the person, and not merely for the care of certain property, or the transaction of some business.

15. Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXXVIII.

Where, however, a guardian is appointed for property which is situated in Africa or Syria, the appointment will be valid, for this is our practice.

16. The Same, On Sabinus, Book XXXIX.

If anyone should name a guardian as follows: "I appoint So-and-So guardian of my children", the appointment will be held to have been made for the sons as well as the daughters of the testator, for daughters are included in the term children.

(1) If a man should appoint a guardian for his son, and he has several sons, will he be held to have appointed him for all of them? Pomponius is in doubt on this point; but the better opinion is that he will be held to have made the appointment for all.

(2) Where anyone appoints a guardian for his children, or merely for his sons, he will be held to have made the appointment for any whom he may have who are held captive by the enemy, if it is not clearly established that the intention of the testator was otherwise.

(3) If anyone should appoint a guardian for his children, not being aware that Titius was his child; shall he be considered to have made the appointment only for those whom he knew to be under his control, or also for him who he did not know was his son? The better opinion is that he should not be considered to have made the appointment for the latter, although he is included among the number of his sons; but, for the reason that he did not have him in mind at the time, it must be said that the appointment does not have reference to him.

(4) Hence the same rule will apply where a man was certain that his son was dead, while in fact he was living; for he is not held to have appointed a guardian for one whom he believed was dead.

(5) Where anyone appoints a guardian for his posthumous children, and the latter are born during his lifetime, will the appointment be valid? The better opinion is that it will be valid, even though the said children should be born while he is living.

17. 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 Praetor 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.

(1) By 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.

(2) Therefore the examination instituted by the Praetor 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.

18. Callistratus, On the Monitory Edict, Book III.

Where several guardians are prepared to furnish security, the most solvent of them should be given the preference; so that comparison may be made between the guardians and their sureties.

19. 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.

(1) This 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.

(2) Where 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.

20. Paulus, On the Edict, Book XXXVIII.

A man whose name or condition is uncertain cannot be appointed a guardian.

(1) We can appoint any person whomsoever a guardian by will, even if he be Praetor or Consul, because this is authorized by the Law of the Twelve Tables.

21. The Same, Abridgments, Book VIII.

Those can be appointed testamentary guardians who are competent to take under the will.

22. Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XLV.

If anyone should appoint a slave the guardian of his son, thinking that he was free, when, in fact, he was a slave; he shall neither become free, nor act as guardian under the provisions of the will.

23. Africanus, Questions, Book VIII.

The appointment of a guardian is not legally made in the following terms: "Titius shall be the guardian of such-and-such of my children, whichever he prefers". For what could we say if Titius refused to decide for which one of the children he preferred to be the guardian?

(1) A guardian can, however, be properly appointed in the following terms: "I appoint Titius to be the guardian of So-and-So, my son, if he is willing".

24. Javolenus, On Cassius, Book V.

Where there are several guardians, it is superfluous to petition the Praetor to appoint a curator for the purpose of conducting a lawsuit against one of them, because the ward can begin the action with the authority of another guardian.

25. Modestinus, Pandects, Book IV.

Where a guardian is appointed for two minors, even if he can excuse himself from the guardianship of one of them, he will still remain the guardian of the other, if the property of the minors is separate.

26. Papinianus, Opinions, Book IV.

In accordance with our laws, the guardianship of their common children cannot be left to the mother by the father's will, and if the Governor of the province, through ignorance, should decide that the will of the father shall be carried out, his successor cannot properly adopt his decision which is not permitted by our laws.

(1) A guardian is not considered to be an honorary one that the father appointed for the purpose of receiving accounts from other guardians, whom he directed to transact the business of his children.

(2) Where a son, who is disinherited, was provided with a guardian by the last will of his father, and desires to institute proceedings against the will as inofficious, the appointment of the guardian must be confirmed by the Praetor; and the result of the action will establish whether he received his authority from the will of the father, or from the decree of the Praetor.

27. Tryphoninus, Disputations, Book XIV.

The same rule applies where the defence is set up in the name of the ward that his father died intestate, or where the allegation that the will is forged is made in the name of the ward; and if a paternal uncle is living, he will become the legal guardian ab intestato, because a guardian cannot be appointed for a ward who is already provided with one. It is, however, more convenient that the guardian mentioned in the will should be appointed by the Praetor, so that the legal guardian may authorize the ward to proceed without any prejudice to the case.

(1) Where a paternal uncle, whom the ward declares ought to be his lawful guardian, accuses him of being a supposititious child, and claims that the estate lawfully belongs to him; Julianus is of the opinion that application for the appointment of another guardian should be made.

28. Papinianus, Opinions, Book IV.

Where a testamentary guardian is unwilling to undertake the duties of the office, and gives reasons for which he should be excused, he shall be deprived of any legacies which may been bequeathed to his children by the will; provided the latter have deserved these legacies not through special affection, but for the sake of their father.

(1) When a slave has been manumitted under the terms of a trust, he cannot legally be appointed a guardian by will. Hence, after his freedom has been granted him, he may be called to the guardianship in accordance with the desire of the testator.

(2) A patron cannot appoint a guardian for his freedman by will, but the Praetor can carry out his wishes if, after examination, he finds the character of the appointee to be suitable.

29. The Same, Opinions, Book XV.

According to the terms of the Libonian Decree of the Senate, a person cannot act who appointed himself the testamentary guardian of a ward. For as the intention of the father is not doubtful, since he stated it in an instrument in his own hand, I gave the opinion that he should be appointed curator, even though there may be other guardians. In this instance, the excuse to which he would be entitled by law should not be admitted, since he is held to have bound himself, nor can he be removed on the ground of suspicion.

30. Paulus, Questions, Book VI.

Two persons are named Titius, father and son; Titius is appointed guardian, but it does not appear which one the testator meant. I ask what is the law in the case? The answer was, that he should be appointed whom the testator had in his mind. If his intention is not apparent the law is not defective, but the evidence is lacking. Therefore neither of them can act as guardian.

31. Scaevola, Questions, Book IV.

If a father should appoint guardians for a daughter whom he has disinherited, and the will should be declared to be broken on account of the birth of a posthumous child, it will be best for the said guardians to be appointed for the ward, for the purpose of claiming the inheritance of the intestate.

32. Paulus, Opinions, Book IX.

I ask whether anyone can appoint as testamentary guardians citizens who do not reside in the same town as the ward. Paulus answered that he can do so.

(1) Paulus also gives it as his opinion that a man who has been appointed guardian on account of his knowledge of certain matters, can legally be sued with reference to everything pertaining to the administration of the office, just as other guardians appointed by the same will.

(2) Lucius Titius appointed his minor children his heirs, and appointed guardians for them in the following words: "Gaius Maevius and Lucius Eros shall be the guardians of my children". But he did not bequeath his freedom to Eros, who was a slave. The latter, however, was under the age of twenty-five years, and I ask whether he could claim his freedom. Paulus gave it as his opinion, that as it had been decided that a slave who was appointed a guardian by his master is considered to have deserved his freedom, he also, with respect to whom the inquiry is made, should be considered to be in the same position, and therefore should be free as soon as the estate was entered upon, and should be entitled to the guardianship when he attained lawful age.

33. Javolenus, On the Last Works of Labeo, Book VIII.

Certain guardians were appointed as follows: "I appoint Lucius Titius guardian, and if he should not be living, I then appoint Gaius Plautius". Titius lived and administered the guardianship, and afterwards died. Trebatius denies that the guardianship belongs to Plautius; Labeo holds the opposite opinion, and Proculus agrees with him; but I have adopted the opinion of Trebatius because the words of the testator have reference to the time of death.

34. Scaevola, Digest, Book X.

A testator appointed other guardians by a codicil because those whom he had appointed by will were either dead, or had offered good excuses for declining to accept the trust. Shall the surviving guardians, who were not excused, still remain in office? The answer was that there was nothing in the facts stated to prevent them from continuing in office.
 

---

Tit. 3. Concerning the confirmation of a guardian or a curator.

---

 
1. Modestinus, Excuses, Book VI.

In order that we may not leave anything having reference to the confirmation of guardians undiscussed, we will make a few observations on this subject.

(1) Certain guardians are properly appointed by will, that is to say, where this is done by those who have a right to do so and for those who must accept them, and in the manner and at the place where this should be done. A father can lawfully appoint a guardian for his children or his grandchildren who are under his control, but he must do this by will. Where, however, a person makes the appointment who cannot do so, as for instance, a mother, a patron, or a stranger, or where a guardian is appointed for anyone illegally; for example, when a father appoints a guardian for his son or daughter who is not under his control, or if he should say: "I request you to take charge of the affairs of my son", or if he should appoint a guardian or curator by a codicil which is not confirmed by a will; in these instances, the Imperial Constitutions permit anything that may be lacking to be supplied by the consular authorities, and the guardians to be confirmed in accordance with the intention of the testator.

(2) And if, indeed, the father should appoint a guardian without making any complete and thorough investigation as to his character and qualifications, he shall be confirmed without ceremony. Where, however, anyone else appoints one, inquiry shall be made whether he is fit for the place.

(3) It is also necessary to know that, while a curator cannot legally be appointed by will, still, if he is appointed, it is customary for him to be confirmed.

2. Neratius, Rules, Book III.

A woman cannot legally appoint a guardian by will, but if she should do so, he shall be confirmed by the decree of the Praetor or the Proconsul, after an examination has been made; and he shall not be required to give security to the ward for the preservation of his property.

(1) If a curator should be appointed by the will of a mother for her children, the appointment will be confirmed by a decree after an investigation has been made.

3. Julianus, Digest, Book XXI.

Where a guardian is appointed by a father in a will which is not regular, or which does not conform to the law, he must be confirmed for the purpose of administering the guardianship, just as if he had been appointed guardian under the will; that is to say, he will be excused from giving security.

4. Paulus, On the Excuses of Guardianship.

When a patron or a stranger appoints a guardian for a minor whom he has named as his heir, and the ward has no other property; it is well to hold that his wishes should be carried out, as he was acquainted with the person whom he wished to be the guardian, and he was so much attached to the minor that he made him his heir.

5. Papinianus, Questions, Book XI.

The Praetor orders magistrates to confirm guardians appointed by the will of a paternal uncle. They should also take security, nor will the wishes of a party who could not appoint a guardian excuse the negligence of the magistrate. Finally, the Praetor cannot issue his decree before the guardians, by means of an examination, shall have been declared eligible. Whence it follows that if they should not be solvent at the time the guardianship was established, an action will be granted against the magistrates for the amount which cannot be made good out of the property of the guardians.

6. The Same, Opinions, Book V.

Where a father appoints a guardian for a son who has arrived at puberty, or appoints a curator for one who has not yet done so, the Praetor should confirm him without any inquiry.

7. Hermogenianus, Epitomes of Law, Book II.

A guardian cannot legally be appointed by a father for his natural son, to whom nothing has been left, nor can he be confirmed without an investigation.

(1) Where the question is asked whether a guardian is legally appointed after an examination, the following four matters should be taken into consideration, namely: whether the party who made the appointment had a right to do so; whether he who was appointed has accepted; whether the power of appointing the other party was vested in him; and whether the decree of confirmation was rendered in court.

8. Tryphoninus, Disputations, Book XIV.

In the case of confirmation of a guardian, the Praetor should ascertain whether the intention of the father continued to exist. This is readily done where the latter illegally appointed either guardians or curators, at the time of his death; for if he appointed them several years before, and, in the meantime, a diminution of the property of the parties illegally appointed by him has taken place, or their bad character previously concealed, or unknown, has been discovered, or where hostility against the father has arisen;

9. Paulus, Concerning Judicial Inquiries.

Or where they have incurred some liability to the Treasury through a contract,

10. Tryphoninus, Disputations, Book XIV.

The Praetor shall consult the interest of the wards, and not inflexibly adhere to the terms of the will or the codicil, as he should consider the intention of the father, where he was not ignorant of those things which the Praetor himself has learned concerning the guardians. Finally, what if, after the father has illegally appointed a guardian by a will or codicil, he should say that he was unwilling for him to act as guardian? Then, indeed, the Praetor should not carry out the first wishes of the father which he subsequently abandoned.

11. Scaevola, Digest, Book XX.

A grandmother appointed a curator for her grandchildren, after having bequeathed them certain property in trust. The question arose whether the curator could be compelled to act? The answer was, that he was not a lawful curator, but, as something was given him by will, he would be liable under the trust, even if he should not undertake the curatorship, unless he refused to accept what had been given him, or was ready to surrender it.

(1) The question also arose whether such a curator was obliged to give security to the grandchildren. I answered that he was not; but, as the surrender of the trust could be demanded of him, he should furnish security for its faithful administration.
 

---

Tit. 4. Concerning legal guardians.

---

 
1. Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XIV.

By the Law of the Twelve Tables, legal guardianships are granted to agnates and blood relatives, as well as to patrons, that is to say, to those persons who can be admitted to lawful inheritance. This rule has been established most wisely, in order that those who expect the succession may protect the property to prevent it from being wasted.

(1) It sometimes occurs that the expectation of the succession belongs to one person and the guardianship to another; as, for instance, where there is a female blood-relative of the guardian, for the inheritance, in fact, belongs to a female agnate, but a male agnate is entitled to the guardianship. The same rule applies in the case of freedmen, where there is a female patron and the son of a male patron, for the latter will obtain the guardianship, and the former the estate. This is also the case where there is a daughter of the patron and a grandson of the latter.

(2) Where a brother of the ward is in the hands of the enemy, the guardianship is not granted to an agnate of the next degree; and if the patron is in the hands of the enemy, the guardianship is not granted to the son of the latter, but a temporary appointment is made by the Praetor.

(3) Sometimes, also, guardianship is established without inheritance, and sometimes inheritance without guardianship; as, for instance, in the case of a party who conceals himself after he has been asked to manumit his slave, for the Divine Pius stated, as a general rule, in a Rescript to Aurelius Bassus, that a party would not be entitled to the right of patronage, in the following words: "It is clear that the reluctance of persons who wish to avoid the grant of freedom prescribed by a trust, shall be punished by not being permitted to acquire the right of patronage over him whom they do not wish to be free." The same rule will apply where a freedman is assigned to the daughter of the patron, for the guardianship will remain with her brothers, as Marcellus states, and the lawful inheritance will belong to their sister.

2. The Same, On Sabinus, Book XXXVII.

There is no doubt that legal guardianship is lost by a change of the civil status of the ward, even if he should not have lost his citizenship.

3. The Same, On Sabinus, Book XXXVIII.

Legal guardianship, which is granted to patrons by the Law of the Twelve Tables, is not, indeed, granted expressly or specifically, but as the result of the right of succession conferred upon patrons by this same law.

(1) Therefore a man who has manumitted a slave becomes a guardian by the Law of the Twelve Tables, whether he acted voluntarily, or whether he manumitted him, having been obliged to do so by the terms of a trust.

(2) But even if he purchased a slave for the purpose of manumitting him, under this law, and by virtue of a Constitution of the Divine Marcus, addressed to Ofilius Victorinus, he should obtain his freedom, he must be held to be the guardian of said slave.

(3) It is evident that if a slave should obtain his freedom in accordance with the Rubrian Decree of the Senate, he will not have as guardian the person charged with his manumission, but, having been liberated by the will of his master, he will belong to the family of the latter. In this instance, the guardianship which does not belong to the patron will belong to the children of the latter. This rule applies to all freedmen manumitted by will.

(4) Where two or more persons manumit a slave, all become his guardians. If, however, a woman should be among those who manumitted him, it must be held that the males alone will be his guardians.

(5) Where one of several patrons dies, the guardianship remains with the survivors, even though the deceased may have left a son. If, however, a patron is taken by the enemy, his fellow-patrons remain sole guardians until he is released. In like manner, if one of them is reduced to slavery, it is evident that the others remain guardians.

(6) If, however, all of the patrons should die, the guardianship will then vest in their children.

(7) Hence, if one of two patrons leaves a son, and the other a grandson, shall the guardianship vest in the son alone, or also in the grandson, for the reason that the latter is the next of kin in the family of his father? This point should be settled in accordance with the rule governing legal inheritances, for a legal inheritance belongs to the son alone, and therefore the guardianship descends to the son alone, and after the son to the grandson.

(8) It may be asked whether the guardianship should be granted to the grandson, where the son of the patron is either removed or excused from serving. Marcellus states that he is of the opinion that the grandson cannot succeed, and therefore that he must be excluded from the guardianship, and another appointed in his stead, in order that succession may not be permitted in such cases.

(9) Succession should be permitted in legal guardianship not only where death occurs, but also where forfeiture of civil rights takes place. Wherefore, where the nearest relative loses his civil rights, he who is next in degree succeeds to the administration of the guardianship.

(10) Where a father emancipates his son or his daughter, his grandson or his granddaughter, or any other descendants under age whom he has subject to his authority, he occupies the place of their legal guardian.

4. Modestinus, Differences, Book IV.

Where a man dies leaving children who have attained their majority, they become the fiduciary guardians of their brothers or sisters.

5. Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXXV.

No one appoints legal guardians, for the Law of the Twelve Tables constitutes them such.

(1) While, 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 Praetor, 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.

(2) The 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.

(3) Can 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.

(4) Can 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.

(5) Where 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.

6. Paulus, On the Edict, Book XXXVIII.

Where a parent dies intestate, guardianship is granted to his next of kin. A person, however, is held to die intestate, not only where he did not make a will, but also where he did not appoint guardians for his children, as in this instance, he dies intestate, so far as guardianship is concerned. We hold that the same rule applies where a testamentary guardian dies while the ward is still under the age of puberty, for, in this case, his guardianship vests in the next of kin on the father's side.

7. Gaius, Institutes, Book I.

Those are agnates who are connected by relationship to persons of the male sex, just as cognates on the father's side; as, for instance, a brother begotten by the same father, the son of a brother, or a grandson sprung from the latter; and, in like manner, a paternal uncle, the son of the latter, or a grandson descended from him.

8. Paulus, On the Edict, Book XXXVIII.

If I leave a son under the age of puberty, my brother and a grandson by another son will both be guardians of my said son, if they have arrived at full age, because they are in the same degree of relationship.

9. Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book XII.

Where there are several agnates, the next of kin among them will obtain the guardianship, but where there are several in the same degree, they will all be entitled to it.

10. Hermogenianus, Epitomes of Law, Book II.

A woman who is next of kin on the father's side, cannot prevent another relative in a more remote degree from obtaining the guardianship of a child who has not arrived at puberty; and therefore a paternal uncle will be the legal guardian of the son of his brother even though the latter may have left a sister. Nor can a paternal or a maternal aunt prevent a great uncle or his nephews from becoming guardians.

(1) A person who is deaf and dumb cannot become a legal guardian, nor can he be designated by will, or in any other manner whatsoever, so as to render his appointment valid.
  

---

Tit. 5. Concerning guardians and curators who are appointed by those who have a legal right to do so, and who can be appointed expressly, and under what circumstances.

---

 
1. Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXXIX.

A Proconsul, a Governor, and the Prefect of Egypt, or one who holds the office of Proconsul of a province temporarily, either on account of the death of the Governor, or because the administration of the province has been committed to him by the latter, can appoint a guardian.

(1) In accordance with a Rescript of the Divine Marcus, the Deputy of a Proconsul can also appoint a guardian.

(2) Where, however, the Governor of a province is permitted to appoint a guardian, he can only do so for those who were born in said province, or have their domicile therein.

2. 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.

3. The Same, On the Edict, Book XXXVI.

The right to appoint guardians is conferred upon all municipal magistrates, and this is our practice; but the person appointed must be a resident of the same municipality, or of its territory and be subject to its jurisdiction.

4. The Same, On the Lex Julia et Papia, Book IX.

The Praetor cannot appoint himself a guardian, just as a judge cannot appoint himself to a judicial office, or an arbiter be created by his own decision.

5. Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book XII.

It has always been settled that a Governor can appoint a guardian, whether the latter be absent or present, for a ward who is either present or absent;

6. Ulpianus, On All Tribunals, Book VIII.

Even though the ward should be ignorant of the fact, and unwilling.

7. The Same, On All Courts, Book I.

Not only must a curator be appointed for a girl about to be married, for the bestowal of her dowry; but one must also be appointed for a minor who is already married. A curator is also appointed for the purpose of increasing the dowry, or in order that some change may be made with reference to it.

8. The Same, On All Tribunals, Book VIII.

Another person cannot appoint a guardian, even under the direction of a Governor.

(1) Where the Praetor or the Governor of a province appoints a guardian while he is insane or demented, I do not think that the appointment will be valid; for, even though he may still continue to be Praetor or Governor, and his insanity does not deprive him of his magistracy, still, the appointment made by him will be of no force or effect.

(2) A guardian can be appointed upon any day whatsoever.

(3) A guardian or a curator can be appointed by a Praetor or a Governor for a person of either sex who may have become insane, and for one who is dumb and deaf.

9. Marcianus, Institutes, Book IX.

Where proper cause is shown, a guardian may be appointed for a minor who has not arrived at puberty, for the purpose of permitting him to enter upon an estate.

10. The Same, Rules, Book V.

When a petition is filed for the appointment of a guardian for a minor who has one that is absent, the appointment, made as if he did not have any, is void. For whenever, through ignorance of the facts, such a petition is filed for the appointment of a guardian, the appointment will not be valid, especially since the promulgation of a Constitution of the Divine Brothers relative to this subject.

11. Celsus, Digest, Book XI.

A curator shall not be appointed for a male or a female minor, if his or her guardian should be present.

12. Ulpianus, On the Office of Proconsul, Book III.

The Proconsul must appoint a curator for those persons who are in such a condition that they cannot manage their own affairs.

(1) There is no doubt that a son can be appointed the curator of his father, although the contrary is stated by Celsus, and many other authorities, who hold that it is unseemly for a father to be subjected to the authority of his son; still, the Divine Pius, addressing Justius Celerius, and also the Divine Brothers, stated in Rescripts that it was better for a son who was well-behaved to be appointed the curator of his father, than that a stranger should be.

(2) The Divine Pius granted the request of a mother for the appointment of a curator for her spendthrift children in the following words: "There is nothing novel in the fact that certain persons, even though they appear to be of sound mind so far as their conversation is concerned, yet squander their property in such a way that, unless relief is granted them, they will be reduced to poverty. Therefore, someone should be chosen who may control them by his advice, for it is just that we should take care of those who, so far as relates to their property, act like persons who are insane."

13. Papinianus, Questions, Book XI.

Where freedom and an estate are granted to a slave under the age of puberty by means of a trust, and the appointed heir refuses to accept the estate, the Senate decreed that he can be forced to do so, if this is demanded in the name of the minor; just as a guardian may be appointed for a male or female minor by someone who has the right of appointment, and he will retain the guardianship until the estate is delivered, and security given by the heir for the preservation of the property. The Divine Hadrian subsequently stated in a Rescript that the same rule should be observed in the case of a slave to whom freedom had been directly bequeathed.

(1) Although security for the preservation of the property of a minor can not readily be exacted from a patron; still, the Senate desired that he should be considered as a stranger who had deprived the minor slave of his freedom, so far as it was in his power, and that he should not be deprived of the right over the freedman which he possessed because he manumitted him in compliance with the terms of the trust; but that the guardianship should not be entrusted to him without the execution of a bond. But what if he did not give security? There is no doubt that the patron would not be allowed to retain the guardianship.

(2) When a girl has completed her twelfth year, the guardian ceases to exercise his authority; still, as it is customary for guardians to be appointed for minors when they request it; if she should desire her patron to be appointed curator, his good faith having been ascertained by an inquiry, shall take the place of a bond.

14. The Same, Questions, Book XII.

A freedman cannot be compelled to become the guardian for the children of anyone but those of his patron or patroness, unless they have expectations of succeeding to the rights of the latter.

15. Paulus, On the Edict, Book II.

A curator should be appointed for the management of the entire business of the minor, instead of his guardian, where he is absent on business for the State.

16. The Same, On the Edict, Book LXXIII.

The guardian does not cease to hold his office under these circumstances. This is the law with reference to all guardians who are temporarily excused.

17. Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book IX.

Pomponius states that a guardian can be appointed for a minor who is engaged in litigation, for the purpose of establishing his civil status. This is correct, but the appointment will only be valid if the minor should be ascertained to be free.

18. The Same, On the Edict, Book LXI.

Where an, investigation is made with a view to the appointment of a guardian, this should also be done in the case of a Senator who is to become the guardian. This opinion Severus stated in a Rescript.

19. Paulus, On Plautius, Book XVI.

Where those authorities who have a right to appoint guardians are absent, the Decurions are ordered to appoint them, provided the majority agree. There is no doubt that they can appoint one of their own number.

(1) There is no question that one of two municipal magistrates can appoint his colleague a guardian.

20. Modestinus, Differences, Book VII.

A guardian cannot be appointed for an unborn child by the magistrates of the Roman people, but a curator can be; for this is provided by the Edict relating to the appointment of a curator. The rule of law does not prevent another curator from being appointed for a person who already has one.

21. The Same, Excuses, Book I.

The magistrates should be informed that they cannot appoint women the curators of minors.

(1) If a mother should appoint her children her heirs under the condition that they shall be free from the authority of their father, and they should become free and heirs for this reason, their father cannot be appointed their curator, even if he should desire it; in order to prevent what the testatrix was unwilling to take place from being done. This rule was established by the Divine Severus.

(2) Where anyone has been forbidden to be a guardian by the parents of the minor, he cannot be appointed by the magistrates, and if he should be appointed, he can be prevented from acting as guardian without prejudice to his reputation.

(3) Magistrates cannot appoint as guardians or curators persons who are on an embassy; because during the time that they are so employed, the responsibility of guardianship does not attach to them.

(4) If a chief magistrate at Rome appoints as guardian a man of a province who is employed in the business of an embassy, he shall be discharged.

(5) It is necessary for a magistrate, among other things, to inquire into the morals of the parties to be appointed guardians, for neither their means nor their rank are sufficient to establish their integrity, or take the place of benevolent intentions and affable manners.

(6) The magistrate should be especially careful not to appoint those who thrust themselves forward for that purpose, or who offer bribes; for it has been established that such persons are liable to punishment.

22. The Same, Excuses, Book V.

Those who are not of Consular or Senatorial dignity can be appointed guardians for persons of that rank; just as persons of Consular or Senatorial dignity can be appointed for those who are not of that rank.

23. The Same, Pandects, Book IV.

Several guardians may be appointed at the same time.

24. Paulus, Opinions, Book IX.

The Divine Marcus and Verus to Cornelius Proculus: "Whenever suitable persons to be appointed guardians cannot be found in the city of which the minors are natives, it shall be the duty of the magistrates to make inquiry in the neighboring towns for persons of excellent reputation, and send their names to the Governor of the province, but they cannot themselves claim the right to appoint them."

25. The Same, Opinions, Book XII.

Where a curator is appointed for a minor for any reason whatsoever, he will continue to exercise his curatorship until the minor arrives at the age of puberty. After that time, the minor should request that another curator be appointed for him.

26. Scaevola, Opinions, Book II.

By a decree of the Praetor, a guardian was appointed for Seia, who had passed the age of twelve years, after an investigation had been made, just as in the case of a minor. I ask whether he should be excused? I answered that, according to the facts stated, an excuse was not necessary, and that he could not be held liable for not assuming the guardianship.

27. Hermogenianus, Epitomes of Law, Book II.

The Praetor can appoint a guardian for the transaction of business at Rome, where the minor has property in the province, as well as at Rome; and the Governor of the province can appoint one for the administration of his affairs in the province.

(1) Freedmen should be appointed guardians for other freedmen, but even if a freeborn man should be appointed, he will continue to be guardian, unless he can give a good reason for being excused.

28. Paulus, Decrees, Book II.

Romanius Appulus took an appeal from a judge, alleging that his colleague should not have been appointed with him in the guardianship, for the reason that the latter had been appointed by him while he was acting magistrate, on his own responsibility, to avoid his being subjected to a double liability, growing out of a single guardianship. The Emperor decreed that the same party could be surety for a guardian, and, nevertheless, be appointed a guardian. Therefore, he was retained in the guardianship.

29. The Same, Concerning Judicial Inquiries.

If persons who are appointed guardians or curators are at a distance; the Divine Marcus stated in a Rescript that they should be notified by the magistrates of their appointment, within thirty days.
 

---

Tit. 6. Concerning those who may demand guardians or curators, and where this can be done.

---

 
1. Modestinus, Differences, Book VII.

The petition of a mother for the appointment of a guardian for her children, but not for the appointment of a curator for them, shall be considered; unless where the appointment of a curator is requested for a child under the age of puberty.

2. The Same, Excuses, Book I.

Where minors have no one who can legally act for them as defenders, and they require guardians on account of their age, they can request that their next of kin, or those who are connected with them by affinity, or members of the family of their male or female relatives, be appointed their guardians, and the friends of their parents and the teachers of the children themselves can ask that this be done.

(1) Therefore, strangers can voluntarily ask for the appointment of guardians, but there are certain persons who are required to apply for this to be done; as, for instance, the mother and freedmen, for the former would suffer loss, and the latter be liable to punishment, if they should not request the appointment of those who can act as defenders under the law. For the mother would be excluded from the lawful succession of her son because, having neglected to have a guardian appointed for him, she would be considered unworthy to legally inherit his estate. And not only would this be the case if she did not request the appointment at all, or if, merely to satisfy the requirements of the law, she should ask the appointment of one who is liable to be discharged, and afterwards he should be discharged or removed; and she did not then ask for the appointment of another, or intentionally sought the appointment of persons of bad character. Moreover, freedmen who on this account are accused before the Governor can be punished, if it should appear that, either through negligence or malice, they did not request the appointment of a guardian.

(2) What has just been stated with reference to a mother is set forth in an Epistle of the Divine Severus, the terms of which are as follows: "The Divine Severus to Cuspius Rufinus. I desire all persons to know that I pay special attention to the relief of wards, as this is a matter which relates to the public welfare. And, therefore, where a mother does not apply for the appointment of suitable guardians for her children, or where those who have been previously appointed have been excused or rejected, and she does not immediately ask for the appointment of others; she shall not be entitled to claim the property of any of her children who may die intestate."

(3) Where anyone, for instance, a creditor or a legatee, or any other person, finds it necessary to institute proceedings against a minor, he himself cannot ask that a guardian be appointed for said minor; but he can make the request of those who can apply for such an appointment, and if they neglect to do so, he can then appear before the Governor and state the facts to him, so that the legal requirements having been observed, he can proceed against the aforesaid minor.

(4) So much with reference to guardians. Minors can themselves apply for the appointment of curators, if they are present; but if any of them should be absent, he can make the application by means of an attorney.

(5) The question arises whether another party can apply for the appointment of a curator for a minor. The distinguished Ulpianus states that another cannot make such an application, but that the minor himself must make it. And it is stated by Paulus in the Ninth Book of Opinions, that the appointment of a curator cannot legally be requested by a guardian, where a female ward is ignorant of the fact, or does not direct this to be done; and that he who makes such an application shall very properly be compelled to be responsible for the business transacted by the illegally appointed curator. In another part of the same book, he gives it as his opinion that, if the Emperor, on the application of a mother, should appoint a guardian for her daughter, she must assume the responsibility for his administration of the curatorship.

(6) Those who are discharged from guardianship, on account of any excuse whatsoever, are not required to apply for another guardian for their wards; as is stated in the Constitution of Severus and Antoninus.

3. Paulus, Opinions, Book X.

I gave it as my opinion that the magistrate himself can be appointed by a resolution of the Decurions.

4. Tryphoninus, Disputations, Book XIII.

It must be held that a woman comes within the scope of the constitution, when she does not ask that guardians legally appointed for minor children by a will or codicil of their father, shall be confirmed by a magisterial decree.

(1) Where, however, several suitable guardians have been appointed, and one of them either dies or is excused, and the mother does not apply for the appointment of another in his stead, because the number of those remaining is sufficient for the administration of the guardianship; this, indeed, comes within the scope of the constitution, but she will be excused where the spirit of the same is considered.

(2) Where a guardian is accused on account of being suspected, and a decree has been rendered that other guardians shall be associated with him, the mother should make the application for this to be done, and if she does not do so, she will be liable under the said constitution.

(3) Such a mother shall be excluded from claiming any of the property of her children who may die intestate. Where, however, her husband charged his son with a trust, and his mother does not ask for the appointment of a guardian, the condition being if he should die without children or if he should die intestate; she does not forfeit the right to claim under the trust, because this is derived from the act of another party.

(4) Where, however, a mother does not allege that a guardian is suspicious, she does not incur liability to punishment according to either the letter or the spirit of the constitution, because to arrive at such a conclusion and opinion is the province of a masculine mind; and a mother can even ignore the offences of a guardian, for it is sufficient for her to have applied for the appointment of one who, after investigation by the Praetor, seemed to be suitable, and therefore her judgment is not sufficient to enable her to select a guardian, but an inquiry must be undertaken even if she should have appointed a guardian for her children by will for the administration of her entire estate.
 

---

Tit. 7. Concerning the administration and responsibility of guardians and curators, whether they have transacted the business of their trusts or not, and concerning actions and suits which can be brought against one or all of them.

---

 
1. Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXXV.

A guardian can be compelled by extraordinary proceedings to carry on and administer the guardianship.

(1) From 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.

(2) It 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.

(3) In 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.

(4) In 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.

2. The Same, On the Edict, Book IX.

If the guardian should gain the suit, or should lose it, the action to enforce the judgment should be granted in favor of, or against the ward; and this is especially the case where the guardian did not appear voluntarily in court, or where he could not authorize his ward to act, either on account of the absence of the latter, or because of his youth; and this rule the Divine Pius stated in a Rescript. It is also set forth in many rescripts that an action to enforce the judgment should always be granted against the ward, where the guardian has lost the case, unless the ward rejected the estate of his father; for then it has been repeatedly laid down in rescripts that this cannot be done, either against the guardian or the ward, and that the property of the guardian cannot be taken in execution.

(1) Marcellus goes still farther in the Twentieth Book of the Digest, and says that if the guardian gives security, and the ward subsequently rejects the estate, relief must also be granted his sureties. Where, however, the ward does not reject the estate, relief must be granted the sureties to the same extent as to the guardian himself, especially if he has given security on account of the absence or infancy of his ward.

3. 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 Praetor 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.

(1) Where a grandfather, or a father of the person under his control, designates by will which of the guardians shall administer the guardianship, the Praetor 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 Praetor 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.

(2) Therefore, 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.

(3) Although the Praetor 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.

(4) Then, 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.

(5) What 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 Praetor.

(6) Therefore it is apparent that the Praetor 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 Praetor 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.

(7) Where 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 Praetor 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.

(8) It is clear that if the guardians do not accept the decision of the Praetor, 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 Praetor can permit all of them to administer the trust.

(9) Moreover, 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.

4. The Same, On the Edict, Book IX.

This can be done either in shares, or by districts. Where it is divided in this manner, any one of them can be barred by an exception having reference to the share, or the district in which he does not administer the guardianship.

5. 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.

(1) A 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.

(2) Where, after a guardian has once acted, he ceases to discharge his duties, he can be proceeded against as being suspicious.

(3) When 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 praetorian action.

(4) Where 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.

(5) If 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.

(6) If, 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.

(7) Julianus 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.

(8) Papinianus 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.

(9) Guardians 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.

(10) The 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.

6. The Same, On the Edict, Book XXXVI.

The ward, however, must prove that the guardian was aware of his appointment.

7. 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.

(1) Where 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.

(2) 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.

(3) If, 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 Praetor 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.

(4) Guardians 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.

(5) We 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.

(6) 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.

(7) Where 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 Praetors 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 Praetor.

(8) The Praetors 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.

(9) The guardian must pay interest on all sums of money remaining in his hands.

(10) It 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 Praetor 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 Praetor 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.

(11) Interest 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.

(12) Where 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.

(13) The 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.

(14) Where 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.

(15) It 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.

8. The Same, On the Edict, Book XXIII.

Where the ward, whose guardianship is being administered, brings an action on guardianship, it must be said that he should sometimes wait for a certain date for the payment of money loaned; for instance, if he lent money in the name of the ward, and the day for collecting the same has not yet arrived. It is evident that this only has reference to money which the guardian could, and should have lent, but if he should not have lent it the ward will not be required to wait.

9. The Same, On the Edict, Book XXXVI.

Whenever a guardian lends money belonging to a ward at interest, a stipulation should be entered into in the following manner: the ward, or one of his slaves, should stipulate for the payment of the money. Where, however, the ward is not of an age to be able to stipulate, and has no slave, then the guardian under whose control he is should make the stipulation. In this instance, Julianus very properly states than an equitable action should be granted to the ward. If, however, the latter should be absent, there is no doubt that the guardian can stipulate in his name.

(1) Where the head of a family gives to his son, as guardian, a person for whom he has become security, it is the duty of the guardian to pay the debt to his creditor when the day of payment arrives; therefore, if he fails to do so, and his ward, having passed his minority, should pay the debt on account of the security given by his father, he can proceed against his guardian, not only by an action of mandate, but also by one on guardianship; for the guardian is responsible for non-payment of the debt. If, however, the guardian only became indebted after the expiration of a certain time, it is held by some authorities that this does not come within the scope of an action on guardianship, provided the day of payment did not arrive until after the termination of the trust. But if the day arrives during the existence of the guardianship, they hold that undoubtedly it will be embraced in the action. I am of the opinion that both these decisions are correct, where the guardian is in a fair way to become insolvent, but if he should be solvent, it will not come within the scope of the action of guardianship. Nor should anyone think that this will be of no effect; for if it should be said that it is included in the action, and there is ground for the claim to be preferred, the sureties will be liable if an undertaking has been given for the preservation of the property.

(2) Moreover, if the guardian should be liable to a suit which will be barred by lapse of time, it must be said that there is ground for the claim being included in the action on guardianship, in order that the action may become perpetual.

(3) And, generally speaking, with reference to what a guardian is liable for to his ward as against a third party, he is also liable as against himself, where he owes the debt, and perhaps even more so; for he cannot make others pay against whom he has no right of action, but he can do this where he himself is concerned.

(4) Where a guardian owes money to the father of his ward at a higher rate of interest than the pupillar rate; it must be considered whether he is liable to him for anything. And, indeed, if he has paid the principal, he is not liable for anything, for he was able to pay and not burden himself with interest; but if he did not make payment of the principal, he can be compelled to pay the interest which he should exact from himself.

(5) Just as the guardian should pay what he owes, so also he can collect from the ward what is due to him, if he is the creditor of the father of the former; for he can pay himself, provided there was any money in his hands with which to do so; and if the interest due to him should be at a higher rate, the ward will be discharged from liability for it, because the guardian could have paid himself, just as he could, and should have paid others.

(6) It is not necessary, in case he is sued, for him to pay after judgment is rendered; and therefore if the case of the ward is not well founded, he should notify him of the fact. Hence the Emperor Antoninus and his father prohibited guardians from rendering a ward liable for expenses, if they set up a useless defence, where suit was brought by a creditor; for guardians are not forbidden to acknowledge a bona fide claim.

(7) Not only can a guardian pay himself, but he can also make a record of money loaned to himself, as Marcellus states in the Eighth Book of the Digest; and he can render himself liable for money borrowed from his ward, by stating in his register that it was lent to himself.

(8) It is established that where a guardian is appointed with reference to the increase of an estate (as, for instance, on account of a subsequent accession to the estate of his mother, or with reference to any other augmentation), it is not customary for him to administer the property belonging to the former guardianship. If, however, he has failed to denounce the first guardian as suspicious, or to require security from him, he shall be punished.

(9) On the other hand, however, where a guardian or a curator is merely appointed for a minor, he will be responsible for any increase of the property which may afterwards take place, although it is customary for a curator to be appointed to have charge of the increase; which is not done for the reason that the said increase has no connection with the care of what has already been acquired, for so far as this is concerned, the general interest of the ward should also be taken into consideration. Therefore, where a new curator is appointed, the responsibility is shared with the guardian, or if one is not appointed, the former appointee is necessarily held liable for the proper administration of the trust.

10. The Same, On the Edict, Book XLIX.

Generally speaking, a ward is not held to have been properly protected when there is not done in his name what any good head of a household would do. Therefore, if a guardian neglects to make payment of a debt, or does not discharge his duty in the defence of a legal action, or in a stipulation, he is not considered to have properly protected his ward.

11. The Same, On the Edict, Book XXXIII.

The Divine Pius stated in a Rescript with reference to a ward whose guardian was judicially decided to be a slave, that the owner of the latter was not entitled to the privilege of deducting what was due to him from property which the slave had purchased with the money of the ward. This rule also should be observed in the case of a curator.

12. Paulus, On the Edict, Book XXXVIII.

Where several guardians administer a guardianship, an action in the name of a ward cannot be granted to any of them against his fellow-guardians.

(1) According to the Rescripts of Trajan and Hadrian, the transaction of all business by a guardian in good faith should be ratified. Therefore, a ward cannot bring an action to recover property which has been legally sold by his guardian, for it should not be to the advantage of a ward if the administration of the property should not be approved, for under such circumstances no one would purchase anything. Nor does it make any difference whether the guardian is solvent or not, for if the transaction was a bona fide one, it should be approved; but if it was fraudulent, the transfer will not be valid.

(2) It would be too much to grant permission to a guardian to pay expenses out of the property of his ward, on the ground of preserving the reputation of the latter, where he could not honorably pay such expenses out of his own property.

(3) As a guardian is appointed not only to care for the property of his ward, but also to exercise supervision of his morals, he should, in the first place, pay his instructors not the smallest salaries that he can, but in proportion to the value of the estate, and the rank of the ward; and he should furnish support for his slaves and freedmen, and sometimes for those of strangers, if this will be to the advantage of the ward. He can send the customary presents to his parents and relatives, but he cannot give a dowry to a sister who is the issue of another father, even though she otherwise would not be able to marry; for while this may be done honorably, it nevertheless is a display of liberality which should depend upon the will of the ward.

(4) Where a guardian was unable to lend money belonging to his ward, because there was no one to whom he could lend it, the ward must bear the loss of the interest.

13. Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book XII.

A guardian should apportion the number of slaves who are to be in attendance upon his ward, in accordance with the rank and means of the latter.

(1) A guardian should not be heard when he alleges that he has not invested the money of the ward because he could not find a suitable place to do so, if it is proved that he has invested his own money profitably during that time.

(2) In the payment of legacies and the discharge of trusts, the guardian should be careful not to pay anyone to whom nothing is due. Nor should he give marriage gifts to the mother or sister of his ward. It is another thing, however, for the guardian to furnish the mother or sister of his ward with the necessaries of life, where they are unable to support themselves, for this should be ratified; as there is much difference where money is spent for this purpose, and where expense is incurred for presents or legacies.

14. Paulus, Abridgments, Book VIII.

One guardian is responsible for the acts of another if he could and should have denounced him as suspicious, and sometimes if he could have compelled him to give security; but if one who is solvent should suddenly lose his property, no blame can attach to his colleague.

15. The Same, Opinions, Book II.

Where a person who is appointed a guardian does not bring suit against those whom he ascertains to be the debtors of his wards, and on this account their solvency is affected; or if he does not invest the money belonging to his ward within six months after his appointment, he himself may be sued for the money due, as well as for the interest on that which he did not invest.

16. The Same, On Sabinus, Book VI.

When, in an action on guardianship, the question arises what loans made by the guardian for the ward should be acknowledged; Marcellus thinks that if the guardian lent money belonging to his ward, and stipulated in his name, the claims which are considered to be good will belong to the ward, and those which are bad and improperly contracted will belong to the guardian. It is, however, held to be the better opinion for the guardian to leave the choice to the minor, in order that the latter may either accept or reject all which was done by the guardian with reference to the claims, so that it will be the same as if the guardian had transacted the business for himself. This rule also applies where the guardian lent money in the name of his ward.

17. Pomponius, On Sabinus, Book XVII.

Where a guardian is ordered to administer the guardianship by someone who has authority to do so, and he fails to comply with the order, he should indemnify his ward from that date, and not from the time when he was appointed guardian.

18. Ulpianus, Digest, Book XXI.

Where a guardian has transacted the business of his ward, even though he may not have authorized him to act in any matter, there is no doubt that he will be liable to an action on guardianship; for what can prevent such a disposition being made of the estate of the ward, that it will not be necessary for any business to be transacted in which the authority of the guardian should be interposed?

(1) Where there are two guardians, and an action is brought against one of them, the other will not be released from liability.

19. Ulpianus, Opinions, Book I.

A curator is not compelled to render an account of his acts to his associate, but where he does not share the administration with him, or does not discharge his trust in good faith, he can be denounced as suspicious.

20. The Same, Concerning the Office of Proconsul.

A guardian, or a curator whose appeal has been pronounced to be unreasonable, or where it has not been accepted, will be liable from the time when he should have undertaken the administration of his office.

21. Marcellus, Opinions.

Lucius Titius appointed Gaius Seius, who was under paternal control, the guardian of his son by will. Gaius Seius administered the guardianship with the knowledge and consent of the father. I ask whether, after the death of Gaius Seius, an action on guardianship will lie against his father, and if this be true, for what amount. Marcellus answered that, according to the facts stated, the father will be liable to an action de peculio, as well as to one for property employed for his benefit; and that, in this instance, it does not appear that the knowledge and consent of the father will have the effect of rendering him liable for the entire amount, unless a fellow-guardian or some other party desiring to render him suspected, should appear and assume the risk.

22. Paulus, On the Edict, Book III.

A guardian can renew an obligation for the benefit of his ward, and can bring a case into court, but donations made by him do not prejudice the ward.

23. Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book IX.

It is generally conceded that a guardian need not give security that the ward will ratify his act, for the reason that he himself has a right to bring the matter into court. But what if it should be doubted whether he was a guardian, or would continue to be such, or whether the business had been entrusted to him? It is just that his adversary should not be deceived. The same rule applies in the case of a curator, as Julianus has stated.

24. Paulus, On the Edict, Book IX.

It is customary for an agent to be appointed at the risk of the guardian, by a decree of the Praetor, whenever the business of the guardianship is widely distributed, or where the rank, the age, or the health of the guardian demands it. Where, however, the ward is not yet able to speak for himself, and appoint an attorney, or where he is absent, then an agent must necessarily be appointed.

(1) Where the guardianship has been entrusted at the same time to the administration of two guardians, either by a parent, fellow-guardians, or magistrates, it should be understood that one of them will be allowed to act, because two cannot do so at the same time.

25. Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XIII.

When a minor, with the aid of his curators, files a claim against his guardians, for a smaller amount than he was entitled to, and, for this reason he then sues his curators, and judgment is rendered against them for the amount of the interest which he had in not having the guardians condemned through the negligence of the curators; cannot restitution be obtained from the said guardians? Papinianus says, in the Second Book of Opinions, that restitution can still be made. Hence, if the curators have not yet paid the judgment, and they take an appeal, they can be met by an exception on the ground of fraud, to compel them to assign their rights of action against the guardians. But what should be done if the curators have already paid the judgment? This will be an advantage to the guardians, since, in this instance, the minor will lose nothing, as he will appear to be more solicitous for gain than for the reparation of his injury; unless, indeed, he is ready to assign his rights of action to his curators.

26. Paulus, On the Edict, Book XXIV.

Proceedings can be instituted against a curator, and one occupying the place of a guardian, even during the continuance of his administration.

27. The Same, On Plautius, Book VII.

A guardian who is administering his trust should be considered as occupying the place of an owner, with reference to whatever concerns the interests of his ward.

28. Marcellus, Digest, Book VIII.

A guardian, who is summoned to court, gives security in the usual form. If, in the meantime, the boy arrives at puberty, he cannot be compelled to conduct the case.

(1) A guardian who has relinquished the administration of the affairs of his ward, after the latter has reached the age of puberty, is not liable for interest on money in his hands which he has already tendered. However, it seems more just to me that he should not be compelled to pay interest if he was not responsible for failure to surrender the guardianship, when it was demanded of him. (Ulpianus says that it is not sufficient for him to have tendered the money, unless he deposited it, sealed up, in some safe place.)

29. The Same, Digest, Book VIII.

This is especially true in the case of the heir of a guardian, for it would be extremely unjust that anyone who has passed the age of twenty, or who is older, should take it into his head to claim what is due to him under the guardianship, and also to demand interest.

30. The Same, Digest, Book XXI.

The principal duty of a guardian is not to leave his ward without protection.

31. Modestinus, Excuses, Book I.

"The Divine Severus and Antoninus, Emperors, to Sergius Julianus: The rule under which individual guardians are sometimes liable in full, to the extent that each one has administered the guardianship, only applies before the age of puberty is reached, and is not available if the administration continues after that time."

32. The Same, Opinions, Book VI.

A guardian died without leaving an heir. I ask when a curator was appointed for his ward, and no inventory, nor any other document has been produced by the surety, whether the said surety can be sued on the stipulation, for the amount of the interest of the ward? Modestinus answered that the surety may be sued for the same amount for which an action can be brought against the guardian.

(1) Modestinus was of the opinion that the guardian would in no way be responsible where he was not guilty of negligence, if the ward should suffer any injury because receipts for taxes paid were not found.

(2) Modestinus held that a guardian should render an account to his ward for any income which he could have collected in good faith from land belonging to her.

(3) He also stated that if a guardian collected less from a slave placed in charge of land, than he should have collected in good faith, he could, for this reason, retain as much of the peculium of said slave as he was liable for to the female ward, and that this would be an advantage to the said guardian; provided he had not entrusted the management of the property to a wasteful slave.

(4) A minor, with the consent of his curator, sold a tract of land to Titius, and afterwards, having ascertained that he had been cheated, obtained complete restitution, and was ordered to be placed in possession of the property. I ask, since he did not profit by the said sale, and it was not proved that any advantage had been obtained by him with reference to his property, whether the price should not be returned to the purchaser? Modestinus answered that as the price of the land sold by the curator did not add to his pecuniary resources, and nothing had been decided with reference to it at the time when restitution was ordered by the court, the purchaser would present his claim in vain.

(5) He also gave it as his opinion that the minor should not be obliged to account for any expenses incurred by the purchaser for the sake of ornament; but if the improvements could be detached from the building in such a way that it could be left in its former condition (that is, as it was before the sale), the purchaser must be allowed to remove them.

(6) Lucius Titius was the co-heir and curator of his sister, and as he was a resident of a district in which it was customary for the owners of land, and not the lessees, to sustain the burdens of taxation, as well as temporary contributions, he, having followed this practice and custom, which had always been observed, paid the taxes for the common and undivided estate. I ask whether, when his accounts were rendered by the curator, objection could be taken to them that he did not incur said expenses legally, so far as the share of his sister was concerned. Modestinus answered that the curator had a right to render an account to the minor for what was complained of, because she herself would have been compelled to make the said payment if she had been managing her own affairs.

(7) Two guardians, after having made a sale of property belonging to their ward, divided the money among themselves; and, after this division, one of them was sent into exile during the existence of the guardianship. The question arose whether, if the exile appointed an agent, his fellow-guardian could make a demand on him for his share of the money belonging to the ward. Modestinus answered that: "If the question was whether, in case a guardian is exiled, his fellow-guardian can bring an action on guardianship; I am of the opinion that he can do so."

33. Callistratus, Concerning Investigations, Book IV.

The same diligence is required of the guardians and the curators of minors with reference to the administration of their affairs, as the head of the family should conscientiously exercise in the transaction of his own business.

(1) The duties of a guardian terminate with the appointment of a curator; and therefore all matters which have been begun are entrusted for completion to the curator. This the Divine Marcus, together with his son Commodus, stated in a Rescript.

(2) The heirs of wards have the same right to choose against what guardians they may prefer to proceed, just as those whose guardianship is being administered can do.

(3) It is stated in the Imperial Constitutions that an account shall be rendered of any expenses incurred in good faith during the administration of the guardianship, but, not such as the guardians have incurred for themselves; unless a certain compensation was fixed by the party who appointed them.

34. Julius Aquilia, Opinions.

The slave of wards should be interrogated for the information of the court, and the promotion of the interest of the wards.

35. Papinianus, Questions, Book II.

A guardian or a curator is compelled to accept from a former guardian or curator, any credits which he may not think to be good, but he is not obliged to assume the risk of their collection.

36. The Same, Questions, Book III.

Guardianship is divided among guardians. Equity which has introduced the mere right of compensation does not cease to be applicable on account of the office and personality of the guardian who brings an action; for the division of the guardianship is not a matter of law, but one of jurisdiction, and establishes the measure of administration, but it applies only to guardians themselves, and should not be an obstacle to parties who desire to institute proceedings against a ward.

37. The Same, Questions, Book XI.

Sabinus and Cassius hold that a guardian, who is administering the guardianship, becomes liable for his individual acts at different times, just as in various instances he is liable.

(1) In accordance with this opinion, where a slave is appointed to sell the property, or to collect the debts of his master, and after becoming free, he continues in the same employment; a suit based on voluntary agency can legally be brought against him on account of past transactions; even though he could not be held liable during the time he was in slavery (at least with respect to such matters as were connected with those that he transacted after obtaining his freedom), for it is held in the case of a ward, that he can bring an action on guardianship on account of any business which has been done after he arrived at puberty, where the recent acts are connected with the former ones, and that they cannot be divided so as to be placed in separate accounts.

(2) Hence the question arises which is usually discussed with reference to a son under paternal control for whom a guardian has been appointed by will, and he having been emancipated after the termination of the guardianship, the guardian continues to administer his office. It follows, from the opinion of Sabinus and Cassius, that the said son can be sued for the entire amount which relates to the business transacted after his emancipation; but so far as what took place before this time is concerned, whether he was not deprived of his peculium, or whether he was deprived of it, he will only be liable for the amount which he is able to pay. If the ward should prefer to bring an action de peculio against his father, based on the former administration (for the available year will be computed from the time when the guardianship began), in order that the father may not be taken advantage of by the computation of the entire period, only the time during which the son under paternal control administered the guardianship will be included.

38. The Same, Questions, Book XII.

Where there are several guardians, who did not administer the guardianship, and all of them are solvent; will the ward have the right to select which one he will sue, because no administration of the trust has taken place; or should all the guardians share the responsibility in common, as being debtors for the same sum of money? The latter opinion is the more reasonable one.

(1) If some of the said guardians are not solvent, the others will undoubtedly be liable; nor is this unjust, since, through his contumacy, each one of them becomes responsible for the entire loss sustained by the ward.

(2) Wherefore, the question arose whether the ward is obliged to assign all his rights of action to the guardian, whom alone he has sued, or, at least, a part of them? But, as the contumacy of each one should be punished, with what propriety can this be demanded?

39. The Same, Opinions, Book V.

Guardians who, after the determination of the guardianship, continue, through mistake, to retain the management of its affairs, will not be compelled to be responsible for any claims which were good after the ward arrived at puberty, as they cannot bring an action to collect them.

(1) A curator appointed by will by a father, through mistake, busied himself with the affairs of a minor. Afterwards, other guardians having been appointed by the Praetor, the former will not incur any liability, if he did not transact any business after their appointment.

(2) A testamentary guardian, illegally appointed, transacted the affairs of the minor in compliance with the wishes of his father. The mistake having been discovered, the best course to be pursued will be to have another guardian appointed by the Praetor, to avoid the condemnation of the former on the ground of fraud or negligence, if he should abandon the administration which he had already begun. The same rule does not apply where anyone voluntarily undertakes the management of another's business, because it is entirely proper for the interests of the owner to be attended to by the exertions of a friend in any single transaction.

(3) An heir was appointed without a substitute, and before he entered upon the estate, which he was obliged to deliver to a minor, died. As the estate was situated in Italy, and the appointed heir died in a province, the guardians charged with the administration of property within the province should, in my opinion, be condemned on the ground of negligence, if, being aware of the terms of the will, they failed to look after the interests of the minor; for if the trust had been discharged in the province, the rights of the heir would have been protected, and the management of the estate would have devolved upon those who had undertaken the administration of the guardianship in Italy.

(4) The right of action against a guardian must not be denied a creditor who made a contract with the guardian himself, where the latter caused his ward to reject the estate; even though the guardian may have used the money for the benefit of the minor.

(5) The curators of a minor gave security to one another with reference to their common liability, and delivered reciprocal pledges for that purpose. If they should be solvent at the time when they are discharged from office, the security given will have no further effect, and it will be evident that the pledges will be released.

(6) A party who was appointed guardian appealed against his own appointment. His heir, having subsequently defeated the latter, will be responsible for any losses previously sustained, for the reason that it is held to be a slight degree of negligence to, in violation of law, refuse to accept the office of guardian, after anyone has been directed to assume it.

(7) Guardians who have the care of property situated in a province, and are transacting business connected with the appeal of minors in a city, should apply for the appointment of curators for the property of the said minors in Italy, as this is their duty. If they do not do so, before they return to the province, the court should render judgment against them on account of their fraud or negligence in this respect.

(8) A paternal uncle was appointed the testamentary guardian of his brother's son, while he resided in Italy, and he assumed responsibility for the administration of the property in Italy, as well as of that in the province, and he then transferred the money obtained from sales of property at Rome into the province, and placed it to the credit of the ward. If another guardian should be substituted for him at Rome, he cannot be compelled to undertake the administration of this money, which does not belong to the assets of his guardianship.

(9) Where curators or guardians, improperly appointed by will, who have not been confirmed by a decree of the Praetor, transact business; they will be compelled to assume responsibility for one another for any losses which may take place, since they voluntarily assumed the office without the support of the law; and any one of them who is solvent should apply to the Praetor for a decree appointing curators or guardians.

(10) Where guardians who are solvent die, their heirs will not be liable for one another on account of anything which did not take place during the existence of the guardianship.

(11) It is established that an equitable action can be granted against a guardian who refuses to discharge the duties of his office, after others, who have discharged them have been sued. Still, if the loss sustained on account of the guardianship is not attributable to those who transacted the business, but occurred through the negligence of all; then the responsibility will equally attach to all, without considering any order of substitution.

(12) Certain guardians, after their ward had arrived at puberty, because of their familiarity with the facts of the case prosecuted an appeal which had been begun by order of the Consuls. If they should not be able to obtain the execution of the judgment, they will not be liable for negligence.

(13) Where a ward is unable to enjoy the benefit of restitution, his claim based on the alleged negligence of his guardian can be released by agreement; and this is not held to be a gift, but a business transaction.

(14) Where the loss of certain claims bearing a high rate of interest, and which were obtained by a father, is imputed to the negligence of guardians, a female ward will be compelled to assign her rights of action to them; but she can retain, without any compensation, all interest which may have been collected during the term of the guardianship.

(15) Where a minor, having sued his guardians, was unable to collect from them all that was due to him, he will be entitled to a right of action for the entire amount against the curators who, through negligence, did not transfer the guardianship to themselves; nor will the right be held to have been extinguished by the judgment on guardianship, for the reason that the ward has a cause of action against those holding another office.

(16) A guardian who refuses to bring suit in the name of his ward against the heir of a former guardian, who was solvent, will be held responsible for any loss; just as where one neglects to denounce as suspicious his fellow-guardian who has become insolvent.

(17) Execution of a judgment on the guardianship should, therefore, not be postponed for the reason that the same guardian is administering, at the same time, the guardianship of the brother and co-heir of the ward.

(18) The amount of the peculium of a slave who is acting as an agent, and whom a minor manumitted and retained, or could have retained after he had begun the administration of his affairs, must be accounted for by the curator when his statement is filed in court.

40. The Same, Opinions, Book VI.

A centurion appointed a curator for his son who was a minor, but his appointment was not confirmed by a decree of the Praetor. If the curator did not transact any business, he cannot be held responsible for either contumacy or negligence; for the privilege of soldiers does not extend to wrongs committed against another, and ignorance with reference to others is not pardonable where the last wills are concerned, except in the case of the property of soldiers. The guardianship of children is, in fact, governed by the right of paternal control, and not by the advantage attaching to military service.

41. The Same, Opinions, Book VIII.

Where a ward, who has more than one guardian, forbids one of them, who is insolvent, to render an account; this does not act as a release of the others with reference to what he, fraudulently, may have collected, or contracted for during the guardianship, and his fellow-guardians who neglected to denounce him as suspicious can legally be sued on the ground of negligence; for a testamentary guardian is not liable for negligence from which he was released by the will.

42. The Same, Definitions, Book I.

A judge decided that one guardian out of several was liable for the entire amount. He who was the subject of the decree can act as attorney with reference to his own affairs, but he will not be entitled to the privilege of a ward, since this is not conferred even upon the heir of a ward, and relief is given, not to the case, but to the person of the ward, who is deserving of a special favor.

43. Paulus, Questions, Book VII.

A guardian is released from liability where a claim becomes uncollected after the death of the ward.

(1) A man who was the curator of his brother's daughter promised to give forty aurei by way of dowry to her husband. I ask whether he would be entitled to relief, if afterwards debts of the ward should be discovered, and the promised dowry found to be in excess of the amount of her estate; as it was set forth in the document that So-and-So, uncle and curator, promised a certain amount to the stipulator? The difficulty results from the fact that the curator did not expect to give the dowry out of his own property, but made the promise at a time when he believed the means of the ward to be sufficient for it to be dispensed with. Moreover, it can be considered whether, if the curator made the promise while aware that her property was not sufficient, he should be held to have donated the amount; or, as he acted fraudulently, whether he is entitled to relief. I answered that I do not think that, since the curator, going outside of his duty, voluntarily rendered himself liable, relief should be granted him by the Praetor, any more than if he had promised to pay money to the creditor of the girl. But if the party who is the subject of the discussion promised the dowry, not with the intention of making a gift of it, but merely as a matter of business, he could hold the woman liable; and it might be said that she would be bound during the continuance of the marriage, while she has the dowry, as is the case in the contribution of property; and she would certainly be liable after divorce, whether the dowry had been paid, or whether the claim for it still existed; because, in this instance, the result would be his release from liability for the same. But if the woman is unable to reimburse her curator for what he promised to give, by way of dowry, in excess of the assets of her estate, the curator can be released from liability for the amount in excess, by means of an exception; and the woman should give a bond to her husband for this amount, so that if she becomes wealthier during marriage, she can pay the remainder of the dowry to her husband.

44. The Same, Questions, Book XIII.

Those who accept claims which have been approved by former curators or guardians, assume liability for their payment.

(1) Where a ward receives the account of his guardian after he arrives at puberty, and, having sued him for a balance, accepts interest, he does not lose his right to any property of his guardian which may have been sold, for the Praetor should preserve this right for him.

45. The Same, Questions, Book XIV.

Where a ward, after arriving at puberty, discharged one of his guardians, he will be guilty of a dishonorable act if he attempts to call the other to account for the acts of the former whom he discharged. We say that the same rule applies in the case of two magistrates who are colleagues, and the government brings suit against one of them. I have reference, in this instance, to a case where two magistrates are jointly liable, as the principle is not always applicable, for if both of them are solvent, there is no ground for a choice in instituting proceedings. A party who is released by lapse of time is not like one who has nothing, because he has the means of opposing the party bringing suit on the claim.

46. The Same, Opinions, Book IX.

Lucius Titius, the curator of Gaius Seius, during the time of his curatorship, leased the Cornelian Estate to Sempronius, who failed to pay the rent. The minor, having attained his majority, appointed the former lessee, Sempronius, his agent. I ask if because he acted as agent the minor is considered to have assumed the entire debt, and therefore released his curator. Paulus answered that, for the reason that the party, after having attained his majority, desired to have his former tenant act as his agent, he should not be considered to have released him from liability for the balance due on his rent.

(1) The State, by order to the Governor, took possession of the property of Sempronius, who, on account of a promise, had become a debtor of his native city and the magistrates of the latter appointed three curators, who are called by the Greeks epimelytai, and who afterwards on their own responsibility, and without the consent of the municipality, divided among themselves the administration of the property of Sempronius. One of them became insolvent, and the others who were solvent, relinquished the administration of the trust at the same time. Afterwards, the heir of Sempronius, who was a minor, and who had rejected the estate, obtained from the Emperor the restitution of his father's property. I ask whether the minor should be indemnified out of the property of the curators who were solvent, since individual responsibility for the curatorship had been imposed upon them by the magistrates. Paulus answered that if it should be decided that an action might be granted the ward against the curators, he must sue the magistrates for the share of the curator who was not solvent, as the administration of guardians is one thing, and that of those who have charge of the business of the government is another.

(2) A guardian who has lent the money of his ward, even though he does so in his own name, is not held to have acted in opposition to the constitutions which forbid the money of a ward to be converted to the use of a guardian.

(3) The question arose whether a guardian should be compelled to pay interest on the money of his ward, which he had used after the termination of his guardianship until the day judgment was rendered against him. Paulus answered that after his administration was at an end, the interest should be computed in the same way as in a judgment on guardianship.

(4) Paulus also gave it as his opinion that where a surety was given by a guardian for the preservation of the property of his ward, he would not be liable for any acts performed by the guardian after the ward arrived at puberty, which were not due to necessity, but to choice.

(5) A guardian having been sued in an action on guardianship, produced his account, and judgment being rendered against him, he made payment in accordance with its terms; and afterwards, when the ward desired to collect money due from certain debtors of his father, whose names did not appear in the book of accounts, receipts of the guardian were produced by the said debtors. The question arose whether an action would lie in his favor against the guardian, or against the debtors. Paulus answered that if the debtors had paid the guardian during the time he was administering the trust, they would be released from liability to the ward by operation of law; but if an action was brought against the guardian, the ward could also bring one on guardianship against him, and avail himself of a reply on the ground of fraud, in opposition to an exception based upon a previous decision of the case.

(6) Where two testamentary guardians were appointed for a ward, and one of them died, upon the application of the mother of the ward another was appointed in his stead by the magistrates, under the direction of the Governor of the province, and from the latter guardian the magistrate exacted security for the preservation of the estate. The testamentary guardian denounced the other, subsequently appointed, as being suspicious. The question then arose as to what extent he could be held liable. Paulus answered that the testamentary guardian should be sued for the share of the property which he had administered; and that, with reference to the share of his fellow-guardian, proceedings should first be instituted against those who had become his sureties, and afterwards against the magistrates who appointed him. Then, if the ward was unable to obtain all to which he was entitled, an investigation should be made of the conduct of the other guardian, for the purpose of ascertaining whether he should be declared suspicious, especially as he was said to have accused the second guardian of acting suspiciously. Under other circumstances, however, where magistrates appoint several guardians, a ward has no recourse against them, before the property of all the guardians has been exhausted. In the case stated, where one guardian has been appointed by the magistrates, it is not held to be advisable that the testamentary guardian who accused the other of being suspicious should be sued before his colleague; hence each should be considered as having been appointed guardian for the administration of half the estate.

(7) Guardians are permitted to collect money due from the debtors of their wards, in order that they may be legally discharged; but they cannot present them with their claims, nor make any arrangement with them for the purpose of diminishing them. Therefore, where a debtor pays a smaller sum to a guardian than is due, he can be sued by the ward for the balance.

47. Scaevola, Opinions, Book II.

A certain man appointed Titius and Maevius guardians, and added the following provision: "I wish and I request that everything be done with the advice of my brother Maevius, and that anything which is done without it be void". Titius alone collected the debts from the debtors; were the latter released from liability? I answered that if the testator committed the entire administration to Maevius, payment was not legally made.

(1) "Marina and Januaria shall fix an amount which will be sufficient for the daily expenses of my son." I ask whether the guardians should be satisfied with the judgment of these two women. I answered that the amount of the expense should be established by the judgment of some good citizen.

(2) Guardians appointed for the administration of an estate in Italy found at Rome certain obligations of debtors resident in the province, for the payment of the money at Rome, or anywhere else that it might be demanded. As the debtors were not in Italy, nor any of their lands situated therein, I ask whether the collection of these claims was a part of the duty of the guardians of the estate in Italy. I answered that if the contract had been made in the province they were not concerned in it; but that it was part of their duty not to permit those entrusted with the administration of the estate in the province to remain in ignorance of the existence of said claims.

(3) Where a testamentary guardian, appointed by a mother, considering himself to be a genuine guardian, sold both the maternal and the paternal estates of the ward and died insolvent, the question arose whether the ward could bring an action for the recovery of the property. I answered that if the property still belonged to the ward, it could be recovered by him.

(4) The prefect of a legion inserted the following provision into his will: "I wish it to be left to the discretion of the guardians of my son to determine whether only one per cent interest per annum shall be paid on the money belonging to my estate, in order to prevent it from being dissipated". I ask, if it should be ascertained that the money was lent at interest by the said guardians, whether they would only be liable in an action on guardianship for the interest at one per cent, or for the rate for which they had stipulated. I answered that if they chose to pay the amount of interest in accordance with the will of the deceased, and had not lent the money at interest in the name of the ward, they would merely be liable for the amount mentioned by the testator.

(5) Lucius Titius borrowed money from a guardian, and gave him in pledge property to which he was entitled by inheritance, and three years afterwards, the ward, whose guardianship was being administered, having arrived at puberty, the estate of the deceased was confiscated, because his heir did not avenge his death. The question arose whether the ward could refuse to consider the above-mentioned claim. I answered that, according to the facts stated, liability for the said claim did not attach to the guardian.

(6) One of two brothers, associated in the partnership of property and business, having died, left his son his heir; and the uncle of the latter, who was his guardian, after having sold all the merchandise belonging to the firm, purchased it himself, and conducted the business in his own name. The question arose whether he would be obliged to make good to the ward his share of the profits of the business, or merely the interest on the money. I answered that, in accordance with the facts stated, he must pay the ward interest, and would not be obliged to give him a share of the profits.

(7) The guardian of an estate in Italy, having been sued by a provincial creditor, paid him in the place where the ward had property. The question arose whether he could include this in an action on guardianship. I answered that there was nothing in the facts stated to prevent him from doing so.

48. Hermogenianus, Epitomes of Law, Book I.

There is a great difference between the curator of property without an owner, and of an unborn child, and the curator of an insane person, a spendthrift, or a ward, since with reference to the latter it is evident that there is an actual administration; but to the first two merely the custody and sale of property which is liable to be deteriorated is entrusted.

49. Paulus, Opinions, Book II.

Where a guardian is not in a condition to make reparation for injury by his obstinacy in not placing the money of his ward at interest, or because of his failure to purchase land, he shall be punished with unusual severity.

50. Hermogenianus, Epitomes of Law, Book II.

Where the property of a ward is lost through an attack of robbers, or where a banker, to whom money was entrusted by the guardian at a time when he was in high repute, cannot repay all of it, the guardian will not be held liable for anything under these circumstances.

51. Venuleius, Stipulations, Book VI.

Where two or more guardians are administering a guardianship, the stipulation of the surety of each one will render him liable for the entire amount. But if the guardianship is divided among them by districts, which is generally done, and one of them attends to the business in the city, and the other to that outside of it, then the stipulation will bind, or will not bind either surety, according to the liability of either principal; for although they are all guardians, and are administering the guardianship, still, if either of them is sued with reference to property which is outside of his district, or is brought into court, the stipulation will not bind him unless the administration of the guardianship has been entirely entrusted to him. Where the administration of the entire trust has not been committed to a guardian, the effect is the same as if it had not been given to him with reference to the property which is in question.

52. Neratius, Opinions, Book I.

A curator not only should give a dowry for a minor, but should also pay the expenses incurred by the marriage.

53. Paulus, Decrees, Book II.

Aemilius Dexter neglected to require security from guardians appointed during the time of his magistracy, and some of them having been excused, Dexter himself was appointed guardian by other magistrates who succeeded him. After his appointment, an action was brought against him for the entire amount, for two reasons; first, because he had appointed guardians at the time when he was a magistrate; and second, because he did not require security from them. On the other hand, it was said that although security was not required, still, the guardians were solvent at the time when the guardianship was terminated, and that the negligence of the curators should not be a source of injury to guardians. It was held that if the guardians were solvent at the time when the guardianship came to an end, even if security was not required, the responsibility will attach to the curators, otherwise, it will attach to the guardians and magistrates; that is to say, that he will be responsible who did not denounce his colleague as suspected, or did not require security when, on the expiration of the trust the guardian was found to be insolvent.

54. Tryphoninus, Disputations, Book II.

I do not think that a guardian should be liable for a higher rate of interest, who has borrowed money belonging to his ward from his fellow-guardian and has given security, and promised a rate of interest which other debtors usually pay to wards, because he did not appropriate the money to his own use, and did not secretly or prodigally squander said money as if it was his own, and if the loan had not been made to him at this rate by his fellow-guardian, he could have obtained it elsewhere. It makes a great deal of difference where a guardian publicly and openly renders himself a debtor to his ward, just as any stranger would do; and where, under the pretext of administering the guardianship for the benefit of his ward, he secretly profits by the money of the latter.

55. The Same, Disputations, Book XLII.

Three guardians were appointed for a ward; one of them administered the guardianship, and became insolvent; the second committed it to the charge of Titius, who transacted some of the business; and the third did not, in any way, concern himself with the administration. The question arose, to what extent was each of them liable. As a common responsibility attaches to guardians in the administration of their trust, all of them would be liable for the entire amount. It is clear that if money belonging to the ward was distributed among them, each will not be liable for a larger sum than he received.

(1) Where, however, the guardians themselves have stolen the property of the ward, let us consider whether each one of them will be liable for the entire amount, in the action for double damages established by the Law of the Twelve Tables. And, even though one of them may have paid double the value of the property, still the others will also be liable; for where there are several thieves who have stolen the same article, the others are not released from the penalty for the reason that it has been exacted from one of them. Guardians, however, on account of their having been entrusted with the administration, are rather held to have acted perfidiously than to have taken the property without the consent of the owner. Finally, no one can say that one guardian is liable for double damages in an action of this kind, and, as it were, by means of a species of action for recovery also be compelled either to surrender the property itself, or to pay its value.

(2) Therefore, a guardian is not only considered to have administered the guardianship, where he directed another to do so for him; but also where he took security from his fellow-guardian for the preservation of the estate, and then entrusted to him the administration of the entire guardianship. Nor can he defend himself by means of the constitution which directs that the party who administered the trust shall be sued first.

(3) Moreover, where no one has attended to a part of the business of the administration, he who has administered other affairs pertaining to it will not be liable for what has been neglected, but responsibility for all will attach to the guardians in common. Responsibility for other things which he did not attend to cannot, however, be required of one alone, unless they are of such a character that, after having been begun, they should have been finished by him, or where they have been so connected with those of which he had charge that they should not have been separated from them.

(4) But when it is said that guardians are responsible where a fellow-guardian becomes insolvent, or was not solvent at the time of his appointment, let us see how this should be understood; that is to say, whether it will be sufficient if the resources of their fellow-guardian were not diminished to any extent from the time of his appointment, but the amount of his paternal estate remained the same? Or, even though nothing happened subsequently which would manifestly cause a diminution of the estate, should a guardian, nevertheless, investigate the property of his fellow-guardian? This, however, should receive another construction dependent upon the standing of the person, and the time which had elapsed since the execution of the will; for where the party is a notorious spendthrift, or one whose property has been sold, he should not be permitted by his fellow-guardian to administer the trust, even though, having taken the Praetor unawares, the latter appointed him by a decree, and his father had ignored any accident which may have happened to him after the execution of the will, or intended to change his will, but did not do so.

56. Scaevola, Digest, Book IV.

A guardian sold property and animals belonging to his ward, but retained and kept in his possession some of the animals, for the reason that the purchasers did not pay for them; and he entered the price as paid in the accounts of the guardian. Other animals were produced by these, and the guardian having died, his heir administered the same guardianship, and kept the animals in his possession for several years. The question arose whether the minor, whose guardianship was the subject of administration, could legally claim the said animals after he was fourteen years old? The answer was that, according to the facts stated, the ward could not claim them.

57. The Same, Digest, Book X.

The written obligations of certain debtors having been destroyed by fire, can the guardians sue the said debtors for the payment of the money on account of the obligations having been mentioned in the inventory; or can they compel them to renew them, even where they have done this under similar circumstances with other debtors, but have neglected to do so with reference to those of the ward, and if they have injured the latter in any way, on account of this failure to act, can proceedings be taken against them in an action on guardianship? The answer was that, if it should be proved that the guardians have failed to act through fraud or negligence, they will be responsible to the ward on this account.

(1) A ward, with the authority of his guardians, purchased a tract of land from a party who had been banished, and whose property had been confiscated by a decree of the Governor, and he having obtained permission of the Emperor to appeal, the judge declined to entertain the appeal, and it having been pronounced ill-founded he was deprived of the land. The question arose, could the ward recover the price of the land from his guardians in an action on guardianship. The answer was that if they knowingly made the purchase from one who was in such a condition as to be liable to the former decree, they could be held responsible in an action on guardianship.

58. The Same, Digest, Book XI.

A certain man transacted his business through the agency of Pamphilus and Diphilus, his former slaves, and afterwards his freedmen, and by his will appointed them guardians of his son, providing that the business should be carried on in the same way that it had been done during his lifetime; and the said guardians administered the trust, not only during the minority of the son of their patron, but also after he had arrived at puberty. Diphilus rendered his account together with a statement of the profits of the business; Pamphilus, however, thought that it was not necessary to present an account of the profits, but merely to calculate the amount of interest ordinarily recovered in an action on guardianship. The question arose whether Pamphilus should have rendered his account in the same way as Diphilus, in order to comply with the intention of the testator. The answer was that he should have done so. Claudius Tryphoninus says that he should have done this in order not to obtain any pecuniary advantage from the guardianship.

(1) One of two guardians having died before his ward had arrived at puberty, the other, having brought an action against his heir in the name of the ward, recovered with interest all that had come into the hands of the deceased guardian from the guardianship. The question arose whether, in an action on guardianship which was brought by the ward after arriving at puberty, interest should be paid merely upon that portion of the money which had come into the hands of the deceased guardian by means of the guardianship, from the beginning; or whether interest on the principal as well as on the interest which had accumulated in the hands of the survivor, after the death of the former, should also be paid, and transferred with the principal. The answer was that if the guardian had used the money for his own benefit, interest on the entire amount should be paid; but if the money remained in the accounts to the credit of the ward, that only should be paid which he collected, or could have collected in good faith, and having been able to lend it at interest, neglected to do so; because if the guardian had received the principal and interest from any other debtor, all would, or should, constitute principal in his hands.

(2) In a case where the will appeared to have been broken, the testamentary guardians ceased to act in the administration of the trust, and a guardian for the ward was appointed by the Governor. The guardians appointed by will were, however, ordered to administer the guardianship conjointly with the one who was selected by the Governor to act in this capacity. The question arose whether the same testamentary guardians would be liable during the time which preceded the appointment of the other guardian, from the day when the will was opened, or from the date when they were ordered to take part in the administration. The answer was that they were in no way liable for acts performed during the time preceding the said appointment.

(3) A father having appointed his son, who was a minor, his heir, bequeathed two thousand aurei to his disinherited daughter, and appointed the same guardians for both of them. The question arose whether the guardians of the female ward would be liable in an action on guardianship for interest on the amount from the day on which the said two thousand aurei could have been separated from the other assets of the estate if they neglected to invest it. The answer was that they would be liable.

(4) The question arose whether the interest on money belonging to a ward which is due from guardians should be reckoned as principal when transferred to a curator, and whether the curator would be liable for interest on the entire amount. The answer was that all the money which comes into the hands of curators is subject to the same rule because all of it becomes principal.

59. The Same, Digest, Book XXVII.

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

60. Pomponius, Epistles, Book VIII.

Where the heir of a guardian has concluded a transaction which was commenced by the latter, he will be liable to an action on guardianship on this account.

61. The Same, Epistles, Book XX.

It is stated by Aristo that, where a ward loses possession of any part of an estate through the fault of his guardian, there is no doubt that he will be liable for the amount in an action on the estate, if security has been given to the ward. Moreover, security is held to have been given, even if the guardian is solvent, so that the ward can recover from him the amount for which judgment is rendered against him in an action. Where, however, the guardian is not solvent, it should be considered whether the damage will be sustained by the ward or by the claimant of the estate; hence it must be held to be just as if the property was lost by accident, and just as if the ward himself who is free from blame had diminished, destroyed, or lost any property belonging to the estate. The inquiry can also be made with reference to a possessor who is insane, where any of the property is lost on account of his insanity. What is your opinion on this point? Pomponius says, "I think that the opinion of Aristo is correct. But why are you in doubt as to who should suffer the loss, if the guardian should prove insolvent; for as it can very properly be said that the ward can only be compelled to transfer the rights of action which he has against the guardian to the vendor of the property, so also the heir or the possessor of the estate, if through no fault of his (for instance, if he should be forcibly ejected from land belonging to the estate, or a slave forming part of it should be wounded by anyone without the fault of the possessor), he would only be obliged to assign the rights of action to which he was entitled on this ground. It must be said that the same rule will apply where any loss takes place through the negligence or fraud of the guardian of an insane person, just as in the case where a guardian or a curator entered into a stipulation, or sold property belonging to an estate. I also think that it should be admitted that anything which happens through the insanity of anyone, should remain unpunished; just as if it had been caused by some accident, and without the act of the party sued."
 

---

Tit. 8. Concerning the authority and consent of guardians and curators.

---

 
1. Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book I.

Although it is a rule of the Civil Law that a guardian cannot be appointed for the transaction of his own business, still, a guardian can use his authority to induce his ward to accept an estate which is indebted to him; even though, by doing so, the ward will become his debtor. For the first reason for the exertion of his authority, in this instance, is that his ward may become the heir, consequently will become indebted to him. He cannot, however, by the exercise of his authority, compel his ward to enter into a stipulation with him. Where anyone employs his authority to induce his ward to make a stipulation with his slave, the Divine Antoninus Pius stated in a Rescript that the ward would not be legally liable, but an action would be granted against her for the amount which she profited by the transaction. If the guardian causes anything to be given by the ward to his son, such an exertion of his authority will be void, for it is evident that he acquires the property by his own act.

(1) Where a guardian is compelled forcibly and against his will to remain, any act which he performs will not be valid; for his mere corporeal presence is not sufficient, as he might be considered to have given his consent where he was silent on account of being asleep, or because he was attacked by epilepsy.

2. The Same, On Sabinus, Book XXIV.

There is no difference in the cases where the authority of a guardian is not interposed, and where it is improperly exerted.

3. Paulus, On Sabinus, Book VIII.

Where a guardian performs an act without being asked to do so, the exertion of his authority will be valid, if he says he approves what takes place, for this is to empower it to be done.

4. Pomponius, On Sabinus, Book XVII.

Although where there are several guardians, the authorization of one is sufficient; still, if it should be granted by one who has not been entrusted with the administration of the guardianship, it should not be ratified by the Praetor. Therefore, I think that the better one is the opinion of Ofilius, who held that if I make a purchase from a ward by the authority of the guardian who is not administering the trust, being aware that another was administering it, I cannot become the owner of the article sold. The same rule applies if I should make such a purchase with the authority of a guardian who has been removed from office, for such a transaction should not be ratified.

5. Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XL.

A ward cannot legally bind himself to his guardian by the authority of the latter. It is clear that, when there are several guardians, it must be held that the authority of one of them is sufficient to enable the ward to bind himself to another, whether he lends him money, or enters into a stipulation with him. Where, however, there is only one guardian, and he lends money to his ward, or enters into a stipulation with him, he will not be bound to the guardian, but he will be naturally liaable to him for the amount by which he has been pecuniarily benefited. For the Divine Pius stated in a Rescript that an action should be granted in favor of the guardian against the ward, and indeed against anyone else, for the amount by which he was enriched at his expense through the transaction.

(1) A ward who makes a purchase or a sale without the authority of his guardian will only be liable for the amount by which he profits pecuniarily.

(2) Moreover, a guardian cannot contract the obligation of either buyer or seller with his ward. Where, however, he has a fellow-guardian, the authority of the latter will undoubtedly be sufficient to empower him to make a purchase. But if the transaction is fraudulent it will be of no effect, and hence the property cannot be acquired by usucaption. If, however, the ward, having attained his majority, confirms the purchase, the contract will be valid.

(3) If a guardian should buy property of his ward through the interposition of a third party, the purchase made under such circumstances will be void, because the transaction does not appear to have been concluded in good faith. This was also stated in a Rescript by the Divine Severus and Antoninus.

(4) If, however, he should make the purchase openly, and give another name, not fraudulently, but without concealment, as persons of rank are accustomed to do who do not wish their names to appear on the records, the purchase will be valid. But where he makes the purchase craftily, it will be the same as if he had made it by the agency of another person.

(5) If the creditor of the ward should sell his property, his guardian can purchase it in good faith.

(6) If the son of a guardian, or any other person under his control, should purchase the property, it will be the same as if he himself had purchased it.

6. Pomponius, On Sabinus, Book XVII.

It has been decided that guardians upon whom the administration has not been conferred by a decree, can legally purchase property from a ward, just as strangers can do.

7. Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XL.

When we say that a guardian cannot grant authority to his ward to transact business with him; this is only true where the stipulation is acquired by him, or by persons under his control. But there is nothing to prevent his authority from being exercised in the transaction of any business by which his ward will be benefited.

(1) Where there are two creditors, and one of them stipulates for the payment of the debt by a ward, under the authority of one guardian, and the other stipulates for its payment by the ward with the authority of another guardian, it must be held that the stipulation is valid, provided the authority of one guardian is sufficient; but if it is not sufficient, it must be said that the stipulation is void.

(2) Where a father and his son, who is under his control, are both guardians, and the father stipulates with the authority of the son, the stipulation will be of no effect, and this is the case because the son cannot authorize any transaction in which his father is concerned.

8. The Same, On Sabinus, Book XLVIII.

Even where the contract with a ward is conditional, the consent of the guardian should be absolute; for his authority must be not conditionally, but absolutely interposed, in order that a conditional contract may be confirmed.

9. Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book XII.

A ward cannot be rendered liable by any contract without the authority of his guardian; he can, however, acquire property for himself by means of a stipulation, as well as by delivery, without the authority of his guardian, but he cannot bind himself by lending money, because he cannot alienate anything without the authority of his guardian.

(1) With reference to the rule that a ward cannot alienate any property without the authority of his guardian, it is evident that he cannot manumit his slaves without his consent, and even if he should manumit a slave with the authority of his guardian, he must, in accordance with the Lex Aelia Sentia, give a good reason for doing so, in the presence of the Council.

(2) Where a ward, for any reason, makes a payment without the authority of his guardian, his act is void, because he cannot transfer the ownership of anything. Where, however, the creditor, in good faith, spends the money repaid by the ward, the latter will be released.

(3) A ward cannot enter upon an estate without the consent of his guardian, even though it may be advantageous to him, and he suffers no loss by doing so.

(4) Under the Trebellian Decree of the Senate, a ward cannot receive an inheritance without the consent of his guardian.

(5) The guardian ought to be present and authorize the transaction, and his consent will be of no effect if subsequently given, or communicated by letter.

(6) Even if the party who makes a contract with a ward does not know that the authority of the guardian was granted, still, if this can be proved by written evidence, the transaction will be valid; for example, if I sell or rent anything by letter to a ward who is absent, and he gives his consent, after having been authorized by his guardian.

10. Paulus, On the Edict, Book XXIV.

A guardian who, on account of sickness, absence, or any other good reason, cannot authorize his ward to perform some act, will not be liable.

11. Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book XV.

Where a ward or an insane person is entitled to the possession of an estate for the purpose of expediting matters, it is established that the wishes of the guardian or curator must be consulted in the acceptance or the repudiation of the estate; and it is clear that if he does anything contrary to the interest of the said ward or insane person, he will be liable to an action on guardianship or curatorship.

12. Julianus, Digest, Book XXI.

If a slave owned in common by you and Titius should receive any property by delivery from your ward with your consent, Marcellus states that its ownership will vest solely in Titius; for where anything cannot be acquired by all the owners of a slave, the ancient authorities have held that it will belong in its entirety to the one by whom it can be acquired.

13. The Same, Digest, Book XXI.

Minors are bound by the authority of their guardians, even though they themselves remain silent. For when they borrow money even though they may say nothing, they will be liable, if the authority of their guardian is interposed. Hence, where money which is not due is paid to such persons, even if they should keep silent, the interposition of the authority of their guardian will be sufficient to render them liable to a personal action for its recovery.

14. The Same, Digest, Book XXXI.

It does not make much difference whether a guardian is absent when any business is transacted with his ward, or whether, if he is present, he is not aware of what is being done.

15. Marcianus, Rules, Book II.

The same guardian can grant his authority to two wards in a case where one is plaintiff and the other defendant. In case, however, he should act in this twofold capacity, will a single authorization be sufficient, under these circumstances, for both the wards? Pomponius is in doubt on this point, but it may be strongly maintained that a single authorization will suffice.

16. Paulus, On the Lex Aelia Sentia.

Even if a guardian should become blind, he can authorize the performance of acts by his ward.

17. The Same, On the Edict, Book VI.

Where a guardian is unwilling to grant authority to his ward, the Praetor should not compel him to do so; in the first place, because it would be unjust, even if it was not expedient, to force him to give his consent; and then, even if it was expedient, the ward can bring an action on guardianship on account of the loss he has sustained.

18. The Same, On Plautius, Book I.

A ward, with the consent of his guardian, can transfer his debtor to Titius. Where, however, a guardian is indebted to his ward, it must be said that he cannot be transferred, nor can an agent be appointed to act against the guardian, with the authority of the latter; otherwise, the guardian would be released from liability by his own act.

19. The Same, Opinions, Book IX.

A curator can even be appointed for anyone under the age of puberty, but a guardian is required for the settlement of all matters which involve the formalities of law.

20. Scaevola, Digest, Book X.

A division of the estate of their father was made by certain wards in the presence of their guardian, who, however, did not sign the instrument of partition. The question arose whether they must abide by it. The answer was, if the guardian authorized it, the partition must stand, even if he did not sign the instrument.

21. The Same, Digest, Book XXVI.

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

22. Labeo, Probabilities, Book V.

If anything which the ward does would tend to release his guardian from liability to him, the guardian cannot legally consent for him to do it.
 

---

Tit. 9. When minors can sue or be sued on account of the acts of their guardians or curators.

---

  
1. Pomponius, On Sabinus, Book XXIX.

Aristo says that a ward who is in possession can have judgment rendered against him on account of the fraud or negligence of his guardian; but I do not think that the damages should be fixed at the amount to which the plaintiff will make oath in court. Nevertheless, this would be the case if the ward can recover the value of the property from his guardian.

2. Ulpianus, Opinions, Book I.

Where a guardian or a curator lends the money of the minor whose affairs he is administering, and he himself makes the stipulation, or purchases land in his own name, an equitable action will be granted to the party to whom the money belongs, for its recovery, or for the collection of the loan.

3. Papinianus, Questions, Book XX.

The fraudulent acts of guardians can neither injure nor profit their wards. When it is commonly said that the fraud of a guardian cannot injure a ward, this means in case the latter is not pecuniarily benefited by the deceitful conduct of the guardian. Wherefore, Sabinus very reasonably holds that the ward can be sued in a tributorian action on account of fraud committed by his guardian; for instance, if he should favor the interest of his ward by means of an unjust distribution of property. The same rule applies in an action on deposit, and also in one claiming an estate, provided that it is proved that what the plaintiff lost through the fraud of the guardian was credited to the account of the ward.

4. Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LXIV.

If, however, the guardian should commit any fraudulent act with reference to outside matters, the ward would sustain no injury.

5. Papinianus, Opinions, Book V.

After the death of an insane person an action to enforce a judgment will not be granted against a curator who administered his affairs, any more than against a guardian; provided that, after his office has been relinquished it is established that no renewal was made by his consent and the obligation transferred to either the curator or the guardian.

(1) A guardian who binds himself to pay a sum of money for which judgment was rendered against the father of his ward, can legally refuse to do so, if an action is brought against him after the termination of his guardianship. It was decided that the same rule will not apply to the case where a guardian borrowed money in his own name, and with it paid a judgment for his ward, unless the creditor made the contract in order that the money might be used for the satisfaction of the judgment.

6. The Same, Definitions, Book II.

A guardian, in compliance with a decree of the Praetor, left an agent for the administration of the affairs of his ward. If judgment is rendered in favor of said agent, an action for its enforcement will be transferred to the ward, just as if the guardian himself had obtained it.

7. Scaevola, Questions, Book XIII.

Relief is granted to a guardian who defends a young child, in order that an action for the enforcement of the judgment may be granted against the ward.

8. The Same, Opinions, Book V.

A guardian, who was at the same time the co-heir of his ward, had an action brought against him for the execution of a trust, and bound himself for payment in full. The question arose whether an equitable action should be granted against the ward, after he had reached the age of puberty, for the recovery of his share of the amount. The answer was that it should be granted.
  

---

Tit. 10. Concerning suspected guardians and curators.

---

 
1. 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.

(1) Therefore, 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.

(2) It should be remembered that the accusation of suspicion is derived from the Law of the Twelve Tables.

(3) We give the right of removing suspected guardians to the Praetors, at Rome, and in the provinces, to the Governors of the same.

(4) There 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 Praetor 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 Praetor can take cognizance of the case of a suspected guardian.

(5) We 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.

(6) The 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.

(7) Moreover, 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 Praetor 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.

(8) Where anyone of plebeian rank is accused before the Praetor of any atrocious acts committed during his guardianship, he shall be sent to the Prefect of the City to be severely punished.

2. The Same, On All Tribunals, Book I.

A freedman shall also be sent to the Prefect of the City for punishment, if he is proved to have fraudulently administered the guardianship of the children of his patron.

3. 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 Caecilius Petinus, and held that a guardian who had been removed for being suspicious, could bring the same charge against his fellow-guardians.

(1) The 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.

(2) Not only the curator of a minor, but also one of an insane person or a spendthrift, can be removed on the ground of suspicion.

(3) Moreover, 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.

(4) Again, 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 Praetor, from conclusive evidence of the facts, that he is suspicious. This should be understood as being for the benefit of wards.

(5) Now 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.

(6) It 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.

(7) The 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 Praetor; 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.

(8) If, 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.

(9) If 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.

(10) Where 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 praetorian action on account of his previous administration, the accusation cannot be brought.

(11) Where 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.

(12) Where a guardian is an enemy of the ward or his relatives, and, generally speaking, if there is any good reason to induce the Praetor not to permit him to administer the guardianship, he should reject him.

(13) Severus 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."

(14) A guardian who does not demonstrate his ability to support his ward is suspicious, and can be removed.

(15) If, 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 Praetor.

(16) Guardians 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.

(17) A guardian who, without proper consideration, or through fraud, induces his ward to reject an estate, can be accused as suspicious.

(18) Where 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.

4. The Same, On All Tribunals, Book I.

There are reasons why anyone may relinquish a guardianship or a curatorship and preserve his reputation.

(1) Therefore, the cause of his removal should be mentioned in the decree, in order that it may be known that the reputation of the guardian does not suffer.

(2) But what if the magistrate did not, in his decree, indicate the cause of the removal? Papinianus says that this should not affect the good name of the guardian; which is correct.

(3) If the Praetor by his decision does not remove the guardian from office, but forbids him to discharge its duties, it must be said that the better opinion is that he ceases to be a guardian.

(4) Those who have administered none of the affairs of the trust cannot be accused of being suspicious; they can, however, be removed on the ground of idleness, negligence, or fraud, if they have acted dishonestly.

5. The Same, Disputations, Book III.

He also can be denounced as suspicious who has given security, or who offers to give it; for it is more advantageous for the ward to have his property safe than to hold instruments merely providing for its preservation. Nor is a fellow-guardian to be tolerated who did not denounce his colleague as suspicious, because he had given security to his ward,

6. Callistratus, On Judicial Inquiries, Book IV.

For the reason that security does not change the evil disposition of the guardian, but gives him an opportunity to more readily plunder the property of the ward.

7. Ulpianus, On All Tribunals, Book I.

Children under the age of puberty are not permitted to denounce their guardians as suspicious; but it is clear that minors are allowed to denounce their curators in this manner, if they desire to do so; provided that they act under the advice of their near relatives.

(1) Where not fraud, but gross negligence which very nearly resembles fraud, has been committed by a guardian, he should be removed, as being suspicious.

(2) In the consideration of this subject, certain additional provisions were made by a Rescript of our Emperor and the Divine Severus, addressed to Atrius Clonius; for they decreed that, where guardians did not appear in cases involving the distribution of supplies to their wards, they should be deprived of their property, and that the ward should be placed in possession of the effects of him who had been pronounced suspicious by the decree, for the purpose of preserving the same, and if it was perishable, or liable to be diminished in value by delay, it was ordered to be sold, after the appointment of a curator.

(3) Moreover, if a guardian does not appear after having been appointed, it is customary to summon him by several proclamations, and finally, if he does not present himself, he should be removed from office, because of his non-appearance. This proceeding should only be resorted to very rarely, and after a careful investigation has been made.

8. The Same, On the Edict, Book LXI.

We consider a guardian to be suspicious whose behavior is such as to render him an object of distrust; for a guardian, however poor he may be, should not be removed on the ground of suspicion, if he is trustworthy and diligent.

9. Modestinus, Inventions.

Where a guardian is connected with his ward by some tie of relationship or affinity, or where a patron is administering the guardianship of his enfranchised ward, and is about to be removed from the office, the best course is for a curator to be joined with him, rather than to have him removed with blemished character and reputation.

10. Papinianus, Questions, Book XII.

When a guardian is removed on account of suspicion, by a decree of the Praetor, he need have no apprehension of liability for the time to come, for it would be unjust for anyone to be removed from guardianship or curatorship, and still not be secure for the future.

11. The Same, Opinions, Book V.

After a guardianship has ceased to exist, the investigation of a suspected guardian is also at an end, even though the guardianship was the first to terminate.

12. Julius Aquila, Opinions.

In an investigation of suspicion there is nothing in the facts stated, by which a curator can prevent the Praetor from making use of a slave of the ward for the detection of the fraud of the curator.