[ULPIANUS libro duodecimo ad edictum. ] §27.6.7.prNouissime praetor ait: 'in eum qui, cum tutor non esset, dolo malo auctor factus esse dicetur, iudicium dabo, ut quanti ea res erit, tantam pecuniam condemnetur'. §27.6.7.1Non semper tutor conuenitur nec sufficit, si sciens auctor fuit, uerum ita demum, si dolo malo auctor fuit.
[ULPIAN libro duodecimo ad edictum.] Lastly, the praetor says: 'Against him who, though he was not a tutor, is said to have given his authorization with malicious intent, I will grant an action, to the effect that he shall be condemned to pay so much money as the matter shall be worth.' A tutor is not always sued, nor is it sufficient that he gave his authorization knowingly, but only if he did so with malicious intent.
quid si compulsus aut metu, ne compelleretur, auctoritatem accommodauerit, nonne debebit esse excusatus?
What if, having been compelled or through fear of being compelled, he lent his authorization? Ought he not to be excused?
§27.6.7.2Quod ait praetor 'quanti ea res erit', magis puto non poenam, sed ueritatem his uerbis contineri.
As to the praetor's words 'as much as the matter shall be worth,' I am rather of the opinion that not a penalty, but the actual value is contained in these words.
§27.6.7.3Pomponius libro trigesimo recte scribit etiam sumptuum in hoc iudicio rationem haberi, quos facturus est actor restitutorio agendo.
Pomponius rightly writes in his thirtieth book that account is also taken in this trial of the expenses which the plaintiff is about to incur by bringing a restitutory action.
§27.6.7.4Si plures sint qui auctores fuerunt, perceptione ab uno facta et ceteri liberantur, non electione:
If there are several persons who gave their authorization, by satisfaction being obtained from one, the others also are released, not by the election of the action.