[PAPINIANUS libro uicesimo quaestionum. ] §26.9.3.prDolus tutorum puero neque nocere neque prodesse debet: quod autem uulgo dicitur tutoris dolum pupillo non nocere, tunc uerum est, cum ex illius fraude locupletior pupillus factus non est.
[PAPINIANUS, in the twentieth book of Questions.] The fraud of tutors ought neither to prejudice nor to benefit a ward; but what is commonly said, that the fraud of a tutor does not prejudice a ward, is true only when the ward has not been made richer by the tutor's fraud.
quare merito Sabinus tributoria actione pupillum conueniendum ex dolo tutoris existimauit, scilicet si per iniquam distributionem pupilli rationibus fauit.
Therefore, Sabinus rightly thought that a ward should be sued by the tributory action on account of the fraud of his tutor, provided, of course, that the tutor favored the ward's accounts through an unfair distribution.
quod in depositi quoque actione dicendum est, item hereditatis petitione, si modo, quod tutoris dolo desiit, pupilli rationibus illatum probetur.
This must also be said in the action of deposit, and likewise in the petition for an inheritance, provided only that what was lost through the tutor's fraud is proved to have been brought into the ward's accounts.