[ULPIANUS libro trigesimo sexto ad edictum. ] §27.8.1.prIn ordinem subsidiaria actio non dabitur, sed in magistratus, nec in fideiussores eorum: hi enim rem publicam saluam fore promittunt, non pupilli.
[ULPIANUS, in the thirty-sixth book on the Edict.] A subsidiary action will not be granted against the municipal council, but against the magistrates, nor against their sureties; for the latter promise that the public property will be safe, not that of the ward.
proinde nec nominatores magistratuum ex hac causa tenebuntur, sed soli magistratus.
Therefore, the nominators of magistrates will not be held liable on this account either, but only the magistrates themselves.
sed si ordo receperit in se periculum, dici debet teneri eos, qui praesentes fuerunt: parui enim refert, nominauerint uel fideiusserint an in se periculum receperint: utilis ergo in eos actio competit.
But if the council has taken the risk upon itself, it must be said that those who were present are liable; for it matters little whether they nominated, acted as sureties, or took the risk upon themselves; therefore, an analogous action lies against them.
sed si a magistratibus municipalibus tutor datus sit, non uidetur per ordinem electus.
But if a tutor was appointed by the municipal magistrates, he is not considered to have been chosen by the council.
§27.8.1.1Neque praetor neque quis alius, cui tutoris dandi ius est, hac actione tenebitur.
Neither the praetor nor anyone else who has the right to appoint a tutor will be held liable under this action.
§27.8.1.2Si praeses prouinciae denuntiare magistratus tantum de facultatibus tutorum uoluit, ut ipse daret, uideamus, an et quatenus teneantur.
If the governor of a province merely wished the magistrates to report on the resources of the tutors so that he himself might appoint them, let us see whether and to what extent they are liable.
et extat diui Marci rescriptum, quo uoluit eos, qui praesidi renuntiant, non perinde teneri atque si ipsi dedissent, sed si deceperunt, gratia forte aut pecunia falsa renuntiantes.
And there is a rescript of the Divine Marcus, by which he willed that those who report to the governor are not liable in the same way as if they themselves had made the appointment, but only if they deceived, reporting falsely perhaps out of favor or for money.
plane si praeses prouinciae satis eos exigere iussit, non dubitabimus teneri eos, etiamsi praeses dederit.
Clearly, if the governor of the province ordered them to exact security, we shall not doubt that they are liable, even if the governor made the appointment.
§27.8.1.3Si praeses prouinciae nominibus ab alio acceptis ad magistratus municipales remiserit, ut se de nominibus instruant, et perinde instructus dederit tutores: an exemplo eorum qui praetorem instruunt debeant magistratus teneri, quaeritur: utique enim interest, utrum ipsi magistratus nomina electa dederint praesidi an ea, quae ab alio praeses accepit, inquisierint.
If the governor of a province, having received names from someone else, referred them back to the municipal magistrates so that they might inform themselves about the names, and having been so informed made the appointment of the tutors, the question is raised whether the magistrates ought to be held liable after the example of those who inform the praetor; for indeed it makes a difference whether the magistrates themselves gave chosen names to the governor, or investigated those which the governor received from another.
et puto utroque casu sic teneri, quasi dolo uel lata culpa uersati sunt.
And I think that in either case they are liable in such a way, as if they acted with fraud or gross negligence.
§27.8.1.4Non tantum pupilli, sed etiam successores eorum subsidiaria agere possunt.
Not only wards, but also their successors can bring the subsidiary action.
§27.8.1.5Si curatores fuerunt minus idonei dati, dicendum est teneri magistratus oportere, si ex suggestu eorum uel nominibus ab eis acceptis praeses dederit.
If curators who were appointed were not sufficient, it must be said that the magistrates ought to be held liable if the governor appointed them upon their suggestion or from names received from them.
sed et si ad eos remiserit, ut ipsi dent uel post dationem ut exigerent satisdationem, periculum ad eos pertinebit.
But even if he referred the matter to them so that they themselves might make the appointment, or that they should exact security after the appointment, the risk will belong to them.
§27.8.1.6Magistratibus imputatur etiam, si omnino tutor uel curator datus non sit: sed ita demum tenentur, si moniti non dederint.
It is also imputed to the magistrates if no tutor or curator was appointed at all; but they are only held liable if, having been warned, they failed to make the appointment.
ideo damnum, quod impuberes uel adulescentes medio tempore passi sunt, ad eos magistratus pertinere non ambigitur, qui munere mandato non paruerunt.
Therefore, there is no doubt that the damage which pupils or adolescents suffered in the meantime belongs to those magistrates who did not obey the duty entrusted to them.
§27.8.1.7Sciendum autem est, si magistratus municipales data opera tutelam distulerint in successores suos uel si satisdationem data opera traxerint quoad successores accipiant, nihil eis prodesse.
Moreover, it must be known that if the municipal magistrates intentionally delayed the guardianship to their successors, or if they intentionally dragged out the exacting of security until their successors took office, this benefits them not at all.
§27.8.1.8Diuus Hadrianus rescripsit etiam in eum, qui electus est ad aestimandas tutorum satisdationes, actionem dandam.
The Divine Hadrian replied by rescript that an action is also to be granted against him who was chosen to estimate the security of tutors.
§27.8.1.9Si inter magistratus hoc conuenerit, ut alterius tantum periculo tutores darentur, conuentiones pupillo non praeiudicare diuus Hadrianus rescripsit: conuentione enim duumuirorum ius publicum mutari non potest.
If it was agreed between the magistrates that tutors should be appointed at the risk of one of them only, the Divine Hadrian replied by rescript that agreements do not prejudice the ward; for by the agreement of the duumvirs public law cannot be changed.
prius tamen arbitror conueniendum eum, qui hoc suscepit, deinde excussis facultatibus eius tunc ueniendum ad collegam, quemadmodum, si solus dedisset, diceremus prius eum, deinde collegam adgrediendum.
However, I think that he who undertook this should be sued first, and then, after his resources have been exhausted, one should go to his colleague, just as, if he alone had made the appointment, we should say that he must be approached first, and then his colleague.
§27.8.1.10Si quando desint in ciuitate, ex qua pupilli oriundi sunt, qui idonei uideantur, officium est magistratuum exquirere ex uicinis ciuitatibus honestissimum quemque et nomina praesidibus prouinciae mittere, non ipsos arbitrium dandi sibi uindicare.
If at any time there should be a lack of those who seem fit in the city from which the wards originate, it is the duty of the magistrates to seek out from neighboring cities the most honorable men and send their names to the governors of the province, and not to claim for themselves the discretion of making the appointment.
§27.8.1.11Si magistratus ab initio tutorem idoneum dedit et satis non exegit, non sufficit: quod si satis exegit et idoneum exegit, quamuis postea facultatibus lapsi sint tutores uel fideiussores, nihil est, quod ei qui dedit imputetur: non enim debent magistratus futuros casus et fortunam pupillo praestare.
If a magistrate appointed a fit tutor from the beginning and did not exact security, it is not sufficient; but if he did exact security and exacted it from a fit person, even though the tutors or sureties subsequently lost their means, there is nothing that can be imputed to him who made the appointment; for magistrates ought not to guarantee future accidents and fortune to the ward.
§27.8.1.12Sed et si satis non exegit, idoneus tamen tutor eo tempore fuit, quo tutelae agi potest, sufficit.
But even if he did not exact security, yet the tutor was fit at the time when the action on guardianship could be brought, it is sufficient.
§27.8.1.13Probatio autem non pupillo incumbit, ut doceat fideiussores soluendo non fuisse cum acciperentur, sed magistratibus, ut doceant eos soluendo fuisse.
Moreover, the burden of proof does not lie upon the ward to show that the sureties were insolvent when they were accepted, but upon the magistrates to show that they were solvent.
§27.8.1.14Priuilegium in bonis magistratus pupillus non habet, sed cum ceteris creditoribus partem habiturus est.
The ward does not have a privilege over the property of the magistrate, but is to have a share with the other creditors.
§27.8.1.15Exigere autem cautionem magistratus sic oportet, ut pupilli seruus aut ipse pupillus, si fari potest et in praesentiarum est, stipuletur a tutoribus, item fideiussoribus eorum rem saluam fore: aut, si nemo est qui stipuletur, seruus publicus stipulari debet rem saluam fore pupillo, aut certe ipse magistratus.
But the magistrates ought to exact security in such a way that the ward's slave, or the ward himself if he can speak and is present, stipulates from the tutors and likewise from their sureties that the property will be safe; or, if there is no one to stipulate, a public slave must stipulate that the property will be safe for the ward, or certainly the magistrate himself.
§27.8.1.16Plane ubi seruus publicus uel ipse magistratus stipulatur, dicendum est utilem actionem pupillo dandam.
Clearly, where a public slave or the magistrate himself stipulates, it must be said that an analogous action is to be given to the ward.
§27.8.1.17Si filius familias fuit magistratus et caueri pupillo non curauerit aut non idonee cautum sit culpa eius, an et quatenus in patrem eius actio danda sit, quaeritur.
If a son under paternal power was a magistrate and did not care to have security given to the ward, or if through his fault insufficient security was given, the question is raised whether and to what extent an action is to be given against his father.
et ait Iulianus in patrem de peculio dandam, siue uoluntate eius filius decurio factus sit siue non: nam et si uoluntate patris magistratum administrauit, attamen non oportere patrem ultra quam de peculio conueniri, quasi rem publicam saluam solam fore promittat, qui dat uoluntatem, ut filius decurio creetur.
And Julian says that it is to be given against the father to the extent of the peculium, whether the son became a decurion with his consent or not; for even if he administered the magistracy with the father's consent, nevertheless the father ought not to be sued beyond the peculium, as if he who gives consent for his son to be created a decurion promises only that the public property will be safe.