[PAULUS libro secundo decretorum. ] §26.7.53.prAemilius Dexter magistratus sui tempore datis tutoribus cessauerat in exigenda satisdatione, deinde quibusdam excusatis a sequentibus magistratibus Dexter tutor adsumptus fuerat: creatus conueniebatur in solidum duplici ratione, quod cum magistratus esset et tutores dedisset satisdationem non exegisset.
[PAULUS, from the second book of Decrees.] Aemilius Dexter, during his term as magistrate, having appointed guardians, had been negligent in demanding security; subsequently, some of them having been excused, Dexter himself was co-opted as a guardian by the succeeding magistrates. Having been so appointed, he was sued for the whole amount on a twofold ground, namely, because when he was magistrate and had appointed guardians, he had not demanded security.
ex diuerso dictum est, licet satis exactum non esset, tamen in diem tutelae finitae idoneos fuisse tutores neque cessationem curatorum obesse tutoribus debere.
On the other side, it was argued that although security had not been demanded, the guardians had nevertheless been solvent up to the day the guardianship ended, and that the negligence of the curators ought not to prejudice the guardians.
pronuntiauit, si in diem finitae tutelae idonei permansissent tutores, licet et satis non esset exactum, curatorum esse periculum, si minus, tutorum et magistratuum: hoc est tunc esse periculum eius, qui suspectum non fecisset aut satis non exegisset, cum finita tutela non inueniretur idoneus fuisse.
He decided that if the guardians had remained solvent up to the day the guardianship ended, although security had not been demanded, the risk belonged to the curators; if not, to the guardians and the magistrates: that is to say, the risk belongs to him who had not accused the guardian as suspect or had not demanded security, only when, upon the termination of the guardianship, the guardian is found not to have been solvent.