[IDEM libro trigesimo quinto ad edictum. ] §27.9.7.prSi pupillorum sint communia praedia qui diuersos tutores habent, uideamus, an alienatio locum habere possit.
[THE SAME, in the thirty-fifth book On the Edict.] If lands are common property of wards who have different tutors, let us see whether alienation can take place.
et cum prouocatio necessaria sit, puto alienationem impediri: neuter enim poterit prouocare, sed ambo prouocationem exspectare.
And since a challenge is necessary, I think that the alienation is prevented; for neither will be able to challenge, but both must await the challenge.
item si eosdem tutores habeant, multo magis quis impeditam alienationem dicet.
Likewise, if they have the same tutors, one will say all the more that the alienation is prevented.
§27.9.7.1Si pupillus dedit pignori ex permissu praetoris, nonnulla erit dubitatio, an alienatio possit impediri.
If a ward has given something in pledge with the permission of the praetor, there will be some doubt whether the alienation can be prevented.
sed dicendum est posse creditorem ius suum exsequi: tutius tamen fecerit, si prius praetorem adierit.
But it must be said that the creditor can enforce his right; yet he will act more safely if he first approaches the praetor.
§27.9.7.2Si pater uel parens tutor sit alicui ex liberis, an praetor adeundus sit, si obligare uelit? et magis est ut debeat: pronior tamen esse debet praetor ad consentiendum patri.
If a father or ascendant is tutor to one of his children, must the praetor be approached if he wishes to pledge the property? And it is more reasonable that he should; however, the praetor ought to be more inclined to consent to a father.
§27.9.7.3Si praetor tutoribus permiserit uendere, illi obligauerint uel contra, an ualeat quod actum est? et mea fert opinio eum, qui aliud fecit, quam quod a praetore decretum est, nihil egisse.
If the praetor has permitted the tutors to sell, and they have pledged, or vice versa, is what has been done valid? And my opinion is that he who has done something other than what was decreed by the praetor has done nothing.
§27.9.7.4Quid ergo si praetor ita decreuerit 'uendere obligareue permitto', an possit liberum arbitrium habere, qui faciat? et magis est ut possit, dummodo sciamus praetorem non recte partibus suis functum: debuit enim ipse statuere et eligere, utrum magis obligare an uendere permittat.
What then if the praetor has decreed thus: 'I permit to sell or to pledge', can the person who does it have free choice? And it is more reasonable that he can, provided we understand that the praetor did not properly perform his duty; for he himself ought to have decided and chosen whether he should permit to pledge rather than to sell.
§27.9.7.5Si obligauit rem tutor sine decreto, quamuis obligatio non ualeat, est tamen exceptioni doli locus, sed tunc, cum tutor acceptam mutuam pecuniam ei soluerit, qui sub pignore erat creditor.
If a tutor has pledged property without a decree, although the pledge is not valid, there is nevertheless room for the plea of fraud (exceptio doli), but only when the tutor has paid the borrowed money received to the creditor who held the pledge.
§27.9.7.6Item uidendum est, an et obligare ei rem possit: et dicendum est, si eandem sortem acceperit nec grauioribus usuris, ualere obligationem, ut ius prioris creditoris ad sequentem transeat.
Likewise, it must be seen whether he can also pledge the property to him; and it must be said that, if he has received the same amount of principal and not at a heavier rate of interest, the pledge is valid, so that the right of the prior creditor passes to the subsequent one.