[IDEM libro duodecimo quaestionum. ] §26.7.38.prSi plures tutelam non administrauerint et omnes soluendo sint, utrum, quia nullae partes administrationis inueniuntur, electioni locus erit an ut eiusdem pecuniae debitores excipere debebunt periculi societatem? quod magis ratio suadet.
[THE SAME, in his Twelfth Book of Questions.] If several tutors have not administered the guardianship and all are solvent, will there, because no divisions of administration are found, be room for choice, or must they, as debtors of the same money, accept the partnership of risk? This is what reason rather commends.
§26.7.38.1Si quidam ex his idonei non sint, onerabuntur sine dubio ceteri, nec inique, cum singulorum contumacia pupillo damnum in solidum dederit.
If some of them are not solvent, the others will without doubt be burdened, and not unjustly, since the negligence of each individual has caused damage to the pupil in full.
§26.7.38.2Unde quaerendum est, an actiones pupillus ei, qui solus conuenitur, in alterum pro parte scilicet praestare debeat.
Hence it is to be asked whether the pupil ought to transfer actions against the other tutor to the one who is sued alone, namely, in proportion to that other's share.
sed cum propria cuiusque contumacia puniatur, qua fronte poterit hoc desiderari?
But since the individual's own negligence is being punished, with what face can this be demanded?