[ULPIANUS libro primo ad edictum. ] §27.8.6.prQuod ad heredem magistratus pertinet, exstat diui Pii rescriptum causa cognita debere dari actionem: nam magistratus si tanta fuit neglegentia, ut omnem cautionem omitteret, aequum est haberi eum loco fideiussoris, ut et heres eius teneatur: si uero cauit et tunc idonei fuerunt et postea desierunt, sicut et ipse magistratus probe recusaret hanc actionem, ita et heres multo iustius.
[ULPIAN, in the first book on the Edict.] As far as it pertains to the heir of the magistrate, there exists a rescript of the deified Pius that, after the case has been investigated, an action ought to be given; for if the magistrate was of such great negligence that he omitted all security, it is equitable that he be held in the place of a surety, so that his heir also may be held liable. But if he did take security, and they were solvent at that time and afterwards ceased to be so, just as the magistrate himself would properly refuse this action, so also his heir would do so much more justly.
nouissime non alias ait in heredem actionem dandam, quam si euidenter magistratus cum minus idoneis fideiussoribus contrahunt.
Lastly, he says that an action is not to be given against the heir other than if the magistrates evidently contract with less solvent sureties.