[ULPIANUS libro trigesimo quinto ad edictum. ] §26.4.5.prLegitimos tutores nemo dat, sed lex duodecim tabularum fecit tutores.
[ULPIANUS, from the thirty-fifth book on the Edict.] No one appoints statutory tutors, but the Law of the Twelve Tables made them tutors.
§26.4.5.1Sed etiam hos cogi satisdare certum est, in tantum ut etiam patronum et patroni filium ceterosque liberos eius cogi rem saluam fore satisdare plerisque uideatur.
But it is certain that these also are compelled to give security, so much so that it seems to most jurists that even a patron, a patron's son, and his other children are compelled to give security that the property will be safe.
sed hoc causa cognita praetorem statuere debere melius est, utrum debeat satisdare patronus liberique eius an non, ut, si persona honesta sit, remittatur ei satisdatio et maxime, si substantia modica sit: si autem patroni persona uulgaris uel minus honesta sit, ibi dicendum est satisdationem locum habere: ut aut modus tutelae aut persona aut causa admittat satisdationem.
But it is better that the praetor, after investigating the case, should decide this—whether the patron and his children ought to give security or not—so that, if the person is of honorable status, the security may be remitted for him, especially if the estate is of moderate size; but if the patron's status is low or less honorable, then it must be said that there is room for security, so that either the scale of the guardianship, the person, or the circumstances may admit the security.
§26.4.5.2In legitimis et in his, qui a magistratibus dantur, quaesitum est, an uni decerni tutela possit.
Regarding statutory tutors and those appointed by magistrates, the question has been raised whether the guardianship can be decreed to one person alone.
et ait Labeo et uni recte tutelam decerni: posse enim aliquos uel absentes uel furiosos esse: quae sententia utilitatis gratia admittenda est, ut uni decernatur administratio.
And Labeo says that the guardianship is rightly decreed even to one person; for it is possible that some of them are either absent or insane. This opinion should be accepted for the sake of utility, so that the administration may be decreed to one person.
§26.4.5.3An ergo et prouocare se inuicem secundum superiorem clausulam possint? et magis est, ut, si omnes satis non dederint uel si finita est satisdatio (nonnumquam enim satisdatio ab eis non petitur, aut satis desinit esse cautum, aut magistratus municipales ab his quos dederint aut non potuerunt aut noluerunt satis exigere), posse dici etiam in his, quo casu cautum non est, admittendam prouocationem.
Can they, therefore, also challenge each other according to the above-mentioned clause? And it is more accepted that, if all of them have not given security, or if the security has ceased to be sufficient (for sometimes security is not demanded from them, or security ceases to be sufficient, or the municipal magistrates either could not or would not exact sufficient security from those whom they appointed), it can be said that even in these cases, where security has not been given, the challenge should be admitted.
§26.4.5.4An ergo et in patronis idem sit dicendum, maxime ubi cessat satisdatio? et puto in patronis non oportere admitti prouocationem nisi ex magna causa, ne quis spem successionis deminuat: nam si patrono tutela non fuerit commissa, poterit per compatronum damno adfici, qui solus rem pupilli male administrat.
Should, therefore, the same be said also in the case of patrons, especially where security is excused? And I think that in the case of patrons, the challenge ought not to be admitted except for a great cause, lest anyone diminish his expectation of succession; for if the guardianship has not been entrusted to the patron, he may suffer damage through a co-patron who alone administers the ward's property badly.
§26.4.5.5Si legitimus tutor capite minutus sit, dicendum est desinere eum esse tutorem et locum esse iudicio tutelae finita tutela.
If a statutory tutor undergoes a loss of status, it must be said that he ceases to be a tutor, and that there is room for the action of tutelage, the tutelage having ended.