[IDEM libro primo de omnibus tribunalibus. ] §26.10.4.prHae enim causae faciunt, ut integra existimatione tutela uel cura quis abeat. §26.10.4.1Decreto igitur debebit causa remouendi significari, ut appareat de existimatione. §26.10.4.2Quid ergo si non significauerit causam remotionis decreto suo? Papinianus ait debuisse dici hunc integrae esse famae, et est uerum. §26.10.4.3Si praetor sententia sua non remouerit tutela, sed gerere prohibuit, dicendum est magis esse, ut et hic desinat tutor esse. §26.10.4.4Qui nihil gesserunt, non possunt suspecti postulari, uerum ob ignauiam uel neglegentiam uel dolum, si dolo fecerunt, possunt remoueri.
[THE SAME, On All Tribunals, Book 1.]\n\nFor these causes bring it about that a person departs from the tutelage or curatorship with his reputation intact.\n\nTherefore, the cause of removal must be indicated in the decree, so that the status of his reputation may be clear.\n\nWhat then if he has not indicated the cause of removal in his decree? Papinianus says it ought to have been held that this man is of unimpaired reputation, and this is true.\n\nIf the praetor by his judgment has not removed a person from the tutelage, but has prohibited him from administering, it must be said that it is more reasonable that this person also ceases to be tutor.\n\nThose who have administered nothing cannot be accused as suspect, but on account of idleness, negligence, or fraud (if they acted with fraud), they can be removed.