[IDEM libro tertio responsorum. ] §27.7.7.prSi fideiussores, qui rem saluam fore pupillo cauerant, tutorem adulescens ut ante conueniret petierant atque ideo stipulanti promiserunt se reddituros quod ab eo seruari non potuisset: placuit inter eos, qui soluendo essent, actionem residui diuidi, quod onus fideiussorum susceptum uideretur: nam et si mandato plurium pecunia credatur, aeque diuiditur actio: si enim quod datum pro alio soluitur, cur species actionis aequitatem diuisionis excludit?
[THE SAME, in the third book of Opinions.] If the sureties, who had guaranteed that the property of the ward would be safe, had requested the young man to first sue the tutor, and therefore promised him when he stipulated that they would pay what could not be recovered from the tutor: it was held that the action for the remainder should be divided among those who were solvent, because this seemed to be the burden undertaken by the sureties. For even if money is lent on the mandate of several persons, the action is equally divided; for if what was given for another is paid, why does the specific form of action exclude the equity of division?