[IDEM libro undecimo quaestionum. ] §26.7.37.prTutorem, qui tutelam gerit, Sabinus et Cassius, prout gerit, in singulas res per tempora uelut ex pluribus causis obligari putauerunt.
[THE SAME, in his Eleventh Book of Questions.] Sabinus and Cassius thought that a tutor who administers a guardianship is bound, according to his administration, in respect of individual matters from time to time, as if from several causes.
§26.7.37.1Secundum quam sententiam seruus institor dominicae mercis uel praepositus debitis exigendis si liber factus in eodem actu perseueret, quamuis tempore seruitutis obligari non potuerit, praeteriti temporis nomine actione negotiorum gestorum non inutiliter conuenietur, earum scilicet rerum, quae conexam rationem cum his, quae postea gesta sunt, habuerunt: sic enim et tutelae iudicium earum quoque rerum causa tenere placuit, quae post pubertatem administrantur, si posterior actus priori cohaereat neque diuisus propriam rationem habet.
According to this opinion, if a slave who is the manager of his master's goods or is appointed to collect debts, on being manumitted, continues in the same activity, although he could not be bound during the time of his slavery, he will be sued not without effect by the action on business transacted in respect of the past time; namely, for those matters which had a connected account with what was transacted afterwards: for thus it was also accepted that the action of guardianship holds for the sake of those matters which are administered after puberty, if the subsequent act coheres with the prior and does not, being divided, have its own separate account.
§26.7.37.2Inde descendit quaestio, quae uolgo circa filium familias tractata est, qui tutor testamento datus post tutelam gestam emancipatus in eodem officio perseuerauit.
From this arises the question which is commonly discussed concerning a son in power, who, having been appointed tutor by will, after administering the guardianship was emancipated and continued in the same office.
et secundum Sabini et Cassii sententiam eueniet, ut de eo quidem, quod post emancipationem gestum est, in solidum conueniri possit, de praeterito autem, siue peculium non sit ademptum siue ademptum sit, in id quod facere possit.
And according to the opinion of Sabinus and Cassius, it will result that, regarding what was transacted after his emancipation, he can be sued in full, but regarding the past, whether his peculium was not taken away or was taken away, to the extent of his ability to pay.
quod si superioris temporis nomine patrem de peculio pupillus conuenire maluerit (annus enim utilis ex quo tutela agi posse coepit computabitur): ne capiatur pater inducta totius temporis causa, tempus, quo filius familias tutelam gessit, comprehendendum erit.
But if, in respect of the prior time, the pupil prefers to sue the father concerning the peculium (for the available year will be computed from the time when the action on guardianship could begin to be brought): lest the father be prejudiced by the cause of the whole time being introduced, the time during which the son in power administered the guardianship must be included.