[IDEM libro tertio disputationum. ] §27.8.2.prProponebatur duos tutores a magistratibus municipalibus datos cautione non exacta, quorum alterum inopem decessisse, alterum in solidum conuentum satis pupillo fecisse, et quaerebatur, an tutor iste aduersus magistratum municipalem habere possit aliquam actionem, cum sciret a contutore suo satis non esse exactum.
[THE SAME, in the third book of Disputations.] It was proposed as a case that two tutors were appointed by municipal magistrates without security having been exacted, of whom one died insolvent, while the other, having been sued for the whole amount, satisfied the ward; and it was asked whether that tutor could have any action against the municipal magistrate, since he knew that security had not been exacted from his co-tutor.
dicebam, cum a tutore satis pupillo factum sit, neque pupillum ad magistratus redire posse neque tutorem, cum numquam tutor aduersus magistratus habeat actionem: senatus enim consultum pupillo subuenit: praesertim cum sit, quod tutori imputetur, quod satis a contutore non exegit uel suspectum non fecit, si scit, ut proponitur, magistratibus eum non cauisse.
I replied that since satisfaction had been made to the ward by the tutor, neither the ward nor the tutor could resort to the magistrates, since a tutor never has an action against the magistrates; for the senatusconsultum comes to the aid of the ward. This is especially true since there is a ground of imputation against the tutor, in that he did not exact security from his co-tutor or did not report him as suspect, if he knew, as is proposed in the case, that the co-tutor had not given security to the magistrates.