[IDEM libro trigesimo quinto ad edictum. ] §26.2.17.prTestamento datos tutores non esse cogendos satisdare rem saluam fore certo certius est: sed nihilo minus cum quis offert satisdationem, ut solus administret, audiendus est, ut edicto cauetur.
[THE SAME, from the thirty-fifth book on the Edict.] It is more certain than certainty itself that tutors given by testament are not to be compelled to give security that the property will be safe; but nevertheless, when anyone offers security in order that he may administer alone, he must be heard, as is provided by the Edict.
sed recte praetor etiam ceteris detulit hanc condicionem, si et ipsi uelint satisdare: nam et si ipsi parati sunt satisdare, non debent excludi alterius oblatione, sed impleta uidelicet ab omnibus satisdatione omnes gerent, ut qui contentus est magis satis accipere quam gerere, securus esset.
But the praetor rightly extended this option to the others as well, if they themselves also wish to give security; for if they themselves are prepared to give security, they ought not to be excluded by the offer of another, but, of course, when security has been furnished by all, all will administer, so that he who is more content to receive security than to administer might be secure.
§26.2.17.1Non omnimodo autem is qui satisdet praeferendus est: quid enim si suspecta persona sit uel turpis, cui tutela committi nec cum satisdatione debeat? uel quid si iam multa flagitia in tutela admisit? nonne magis repelli et reici a tutela, quam solus administrare debeat? nec satis non dantes temere repelluntur, quia plerumque bene probati et idonei atque honesti tutores, etiamsi satis non dent, non debent reici: quin immo nec iubendi sunt satisdare.
However, he who offers security is not to be preferred in every case; for what if he is a suspect or infamous person, to whom the tutelage ought not to be committed even with security? Or what if he has already committed many outrages in the tutelage? Ought he not to be repelled and rejected from the tutelage, rather than administer alone? Nor are those who do not give security rashly repelled, because for the most part, well-approved, fit, and honorable tutors, even if they do not give security, ought not to be rejected; nay, indeed, they are not even to be ordered to give security.
§26.2.17.2Duplex igitur causae cognitio est, una ex persona eius qui optulerit satisdationem, quis et qualis est, alia contutorum, quales sunt, num forte eius existimationis uel eius honestatis sunt, ut non debeant hanc contumeliam satisdationis subire.
Therefore, the judicial inquiry is twofold: one regarding the person of him who offered security, who and what kind of person he is; the other regarding the co-tutors, what kind of people they are, whether by chance they are of such reputation or of such integrity that they ought not to undergo this insult of security.