[ULPIANUS libro trigesimo sexto ad edictum. ] §27.3.1.11Et si quidem omnes simul gesserunt tutelam et omnes soluendo sunt, aequissimum erit diuidi actionem inter eos pro portionibus uirilibus exemplo fideiussorum. §27.3.1.12Sed et si non omnes soluendo sint, inter eos qui soluendo sunt diuiditur actio.
And indeed, if all administered the guardianship together and all are solvent, it will be most equitable for the action to be divided among them in equal shares, after the example of sureties.\n But even if not all are solvent, the action is divided among those who are solvent.
sed prout quisque soluendo est, poterunt conueniri. §27.3.1.13Et si forte quis ex facto alterius tutoris condemnatus praestiterit uel ex communi gestu nec ei mandatae sunt actiones, constitutum est a diuo Pio et ab imperatore nostro et diuo patre eius utilem actionem tutori aduersus contutorem dandam. §27.3.1.14Plane si ex dolo communi conuentus praestiterit tutor, neque mandandae sunt actiones neque utilis competit, quia proprii delicti poenam subit: quae res indignum eum fecit, ut a ceteris quid consequatur doli participibus: nec enim ulla societas maleficiorum uel communicatio iusta damni ex maleficio est. §27.3.1.15Usque adeo autem ad contutores non uenitur, si sint soluendo contutores, ut prius ad magistratus qui eos dederunt uel ad fideiussores ueniatur: et ita imperator noster Ulpio Proculo rescripsit.
However, they can be sued to the extent of each one's solvency.\n And if by chance any tutor, having been condemned, has made payment on account of the act of another tutor or on account of their common administration, and the actions have not been assigned to him, it was decreed by the deified Pius and by our Emperor and his deified father that an analogous action should be granted to the tutor against his co-tutor.\n Clearly, if a tutor who has been sued on account of common fraud has made payment, actions are neither to be assigned nor does an analogous action lie, because he undergoes the penalty for his own wrongdoing; which circumstance makes him unworthy to recover anything from the other participants in the fraud; for there is no partnership in wrongdoings, nor any lawful sharing of damage arising from a wrongdoing.\n Moreover, recourse is so far from being had against co-tutors, if they are solvent, that recourse is never had first against the magistrates who appointed them or against the sureties; and our Emperor replied by rescript to this effect to Ulpius Proculus.
quod enim Marcellus libro octauo digestorum scripsit quodque saepissime rescriptum est, quamdiu uel unus ex tutoribus idoneus est, non posse ad magistratus qui dederunt ueniri, sic erit accipiendum, si non contutor ob hoc conueniatur, quod suspectum facere uel satis exigere noluit. H §27.3.1.16anc actionem etiam in heredem tutoris competere constat. §27.3.1.17Sed et heredi pupilli aeque competit similibusque personis. §27.3.1.18Non tantum ante condemnationem, sed etiam post condemnationem desiderare tutor potest mandari sibi actiones aduersus contutorem, pro quo condemnatus est. §27.3.1.19Rationibus distrahendis actione non solum hi tenentur tutores, qui legitimi fuerunt, sed omnes, qui iure tutores sunt et gerunt tutelam. §27.3.1.20Considerandum est in hac actione, utrum pretium rei tantum duplicetur an etiam quod pupilli intersit.
For what Marcellus wrote in the eighth book of the Digests, and what has been very frequently replied by rescript, namely, that as long as even one of the tutors is solvent, recourse cannot be had against the magistrates who appointed them, is to be understood in this way: provided that a co-tutor is not sued on this ground, that he refused to make him suspect or to demand security.\n It is well established that this action lies also against the heir of the tutor.\n But it also lies equally for the heir of the ward and for similar persons.\n A tutor can request that the actions be assigned to him against a co-tutor, on whose account he has been condemned, not only before condemnation, but also after condemnation.\n Under the action for the embezzlement of accounts, not only those tutors are liable who were statutory, but all who are tutors by law and administer the guardianship.\n It must be considered in this action whether only the price of the thing is doubled, or also the interest of the ward.
et magis esse arbitror in hac actione quod interest non uenire, sed rei tantum aestimationem. §27.3.1.21In tutela ex una obligatione duas esse actiones constat: et ideo, siue tutelae fuerit actum, de rationibus distrahendis agi non potest, siue contra, tutelae actio quod ad speciem istam perempta est. H
And I think it more correct that in this action the interest does not come into account, but only the valuation of the thing.\n It is well established that in guardianship two actions arise from a single obligation; and therefore, if the action of guardianship has been brought, the action for embezzlement of accounts cannot be brought, or conversely, the action of guardianship is extinguished so far as that particular matter is concerned.\n However, Papinian says that this tutor, who has embezzled the ward's money, is also liable for theft; and although he is liable for theft, if he is sued in this action, he is not released from the action of theft.
§27.3.1.22unc tamen tutorem, qui intercepit pecuniam pupillarem, et furti teneri Papinianus ait: qui etsi furti teneatur, hac actione conuentus furti actione non liberatur: nec enim eadem est obligatio furti ac tutelae, ut quis dicat plures esse actiones eiusdem facti, sed plures obligationes: nam et tutelae et furti obligatur. H §27.3.1.23anc actionem sciendum est perpetuam esse et heredi similibusque personis dari ex eo quod uiuo pupillo captum est: sed in heredem ceterosque successores non dabitur, quia poenalis est. H §27.3.1.24aec actio tunc competit, cum et tutelae actio est, hoc est finita demum tutela.
For the obligation of theft and that of guardianship are not the same, so that one might say there are several actions for the same act, but rather there are several obligations; for he is bound both under guardianship and for theft.\n It must be known that this action is perpetual, and is granted to the heir and similar persons on account of what was taken during the lifetime of the ward; but it will not be granted against the heir and other successors, because it is penal.\n This action lies when the action of guardianship also lies, that is to say, only after the guardianship has ended.