[ULPIANUS libro trigesimo sexto ad edictum. ] §27.5.1.prProtutelae actionem necessario praetor proposuit: nam quia plerumque incertum est, utrum quis tutor an uero quasi tutor pro tutore administrauerit tutelam, idcirco in utrumque casum actionem scripsit, ut siue tutor est siue non sit qui gessit, actione tamen teneretur.
The praetor introduced the action on quasi-guardianship out of necessity: for because it is usually uncertain whether someone has administered a guardianship as a tutor or indeed as a quasi-tutor acting for a tutor, for that reason he formulated an action for both cases, so that whether the person who acted is a tutor or is not, he should nevertheless be held liable by the action.
solent enim magni errores intercedere, ut discerni facile non possit, utrum quis tutor fuerit et sic gesserit, an uero non fuerit, pro tutore tamen munere functus sit.
For great errors are accustomed to intervene, so that it cannot easily be discerned whether someone was a tutor and acted as such, or indeed was not, but nevertheless performed the duty as if he were a tutor.
§27.5.1.1Pro tutore autem negotia gerit, qui munere tutoris fungitur in re impuberis, siue se putet tutorem, siue scit non esse, finget tamen esse.
Now, a person manages affairs as a tutor if he performs the duty of a tutor in the property of a minor, whether he believes himself to be a tutor, or knows he is not but nevertheless feigns to be so.
§27.5.1.2Proinde et si seruus quasi tutor egerit, diuus Seuerus rescripsit dandum in dominum iudicium utile.
Accordingly, even if a slave has acted as a quasi-tutor, the deified Severus rescribed that an analogous action (iudicium utile) should be granted against the master.
§27.5.1.3Cum eo, qui pro tutore negotia gessit, etiam ante pubertatem agi posse nulla dubitatio est, quia tutor non est.
There is no doubt that an action can be brought against one who has managed affairs as a tutor even before puberty, because he is not a tutor.
§27.5.1.4Quare si quis finita tutela pro tutore negotia impuberis gessit, tenebitur.
Therefore, if anyone, after a guardianship has ended, has managed the affairs of a minor as a tutor, he will be held liable.
§27.5.1.5Sed et si prius pro tutore administrauerit, deinde quasi tutor, aeque tenebitur ex eo quod pro tutore administrauit, quamuis deuoluatur hic gestus in tutelae actionem.
But also, if he first administered as a tutor, and then as a tutor, he will be equally liable for what he administered as a tutor, although this management is transferred into the action on guardianship.
§27.5.1.6Si quis quasi tutor negotia gesserit eius qui iam pubes est neque tutorem habere potest, protutelae actio cessat: simili modo et si eius, qui nondum natus est.
If anyone has managed as a quasi-tutor the affairs of one who is already of puberty and cannot have a tutor, the action on quasi-guardianship does not apply; in like manner also if he managed the affairs of one who is not yet born.
nam ut pro tutore quis gerat, eam esse personam oportet, cuius aetas recipiat tutorem, id est impuberem esse oportet.
For in order for someone to act as a tutor, the person must be one whose age admits of a tutor, that is, he must be a minor.
sed erit negotiorum gestorum actio.
But there will be an action on unauthorized agency (negotiorum gestorum).
§27.5.1.7Si curator impuberi a praetore datus negotia gesserit, an, quasi pro tutore gesserit, teneatur, quaeritur.
If a curator appointed to a minor by the praetor has managed affairs, it is asked whether he is held liable as if he managed as a tutor.
et est uerius cessare hanc actionem, quia officio curatoris functus est.
And it is more correct that this action does not apply, because he performed the office of a curator.
si quis tamen, cum tutor non esset, compulsus a praetore uel a praeside, dum se putat tutorem, gesserit tutelam, uidendum, an pro tutore teneatur.
However, if anyone, although he was not a tutor, having been compelled by the praetor or by the governor, while he believed himself to be a tutor, managed the guardianship, it must be considered whether he is held liable as a tutor.
et magis est, ut, quamuis compulsus gesserit, teneri tamen debeat, quia animo tutoris gessit, cum tutor non esset.
And the better opinion is that, although he acted under compulsion, he ought nevertheless to be held liable, because he acted with the intention of a tutor, when he was not a tutor.
at iste curator non quasi tutor, sed quasi curator gessit.
But that curator acted not as a tutor, but as a curator.
§27.5.1.8In protutelae iudicio usurae quoque ueniunt.
In the judgment of quasi-guardianship, interest is also included.
§27.5.1.9Sed utrum solummodo in id quod gessit tenebitur an uero in id etiam quod gerere debuit? et si quidem omnino non attigit tutelam, non tenebitur: neque enim attingere debuit qui tutor non fuit.
But will he be held liable only for what he actually managed, or indeed also for what he ought to have managed? And if indeed he did not touch the guardianship at all, he will not be held liable: for he who was not a tutor had no duty to touch it.
quod si quaedam gessit, uidendum, an etiam eorum quae non gessit teneatur: et hactenus tenebitur, si alius gesturus fuit.
But if he did manage some things, it must be considered whether he is held liable also for those things which he did not manage: and he will be held liable to this extent, if someone else was going to manage them.
sed et si cognito, quod tutor non fuit, abstinuit se administratione, uideamus, an teneatur, si necessarios pupilli non certiorauit, ut ei tutorem peterent: quod uerius est.
But even if, upon discovering that he was not a tutor, he abstained from the administration, let us see whether he is held liable if he did not inform the relatives of the ward so that they might seek a tutor for him; which is more correct.