[PAPINIANUS libro secundo responsorum. ] §3.5.30.prLiberto uel amico mandauit pecuniam accipere mutuam: cuius litteras creditor secutus contraxit et fideiussor interuenit: etiamsi pecunia non sit in rem eius uersa, tamen dabitur in eum negotiorum gestorum actio creditori uel fideiussori, scilicet ad exemplum institoriae actionis.
[PAPINIANUS, Responses, Book II] A person mandated his freedman or friend to contract a loan; a creditor, relying on his letter, entered into the contract, and a guarantor intervened. Even if the money was not turned to his benefit, an action for the management of affairs will nevertheless be granted to the creditor or guarantor against him, namely, after the model of the action on the business manager.
§3.5.30.1Inter negotia Sempronii, quae gerebat, ignorans Titii negotium gessit: ob eam quoque speciem Sempronio tenebitur, sed ei cautionem indemnitatis officio iudicis praeberi necesse est aduersus Titium, cui datur actio.
While managing the affairs of Sempronius, a person, without knowing it, managed an affair of Titius. On account of this case as well, he will be liable to Sempronius, but it is necessary that, by the office of the judge, a security of indemnity be provided to him against Titius, to whom the action is given.
idem in tutore iuris est.
The same rule of law applies in the case of a guardian.
§3.5.30.2Litem in iudicium deductam et a reo desertam frustratoris amicus ultro egit, causas absentiae eius allegans iudici: culpam contraxisse non uidebitur, quod sententia contra absentem dicta ipse non prouocauit.
A friend of an obstructive defendant voluntarily conducted a lawsuit that had been brought to court and abandoned by the defendant, alleging the reasons for his absence to the judge; he will not be deemed to have incurred fault for not having appealed against the judgment rendered against the absent person.
ULPIANUS notat: hoc uerum est, quia frustrator condemnatus est: ceterum si amicus, cum absentem defenderet condemnatus, negotiorum gestorum aget, poterit ei imputari, si cum posset non appellasset.
ULPIANUS notes: this is true because the obstructive defendant himself was condemned; however, if the friend, having been condemned while defending the absent person, should bring an action for the management of affairs, it can be imputed to him if he had not appealed when he could have done so.
§3.5.30.3Qui aliena negotia gerit, usuras praestare cogitur eius scilicet pecuniae, quae purgatis necessariis sumptibus superest.
A person who manages another's affairs is compelled to pay interest on that money, namely, which remains after necessary expenses have been cleared.
§3.5.30.4Libertos certam pecuniam accipere testator ad sumptum monumenti uoluit: si quid amplius fuerit erogatum, iudicio negotiorum gestorum ab herede non recte petetur nec iure fideicommissi, cum uoluntas finem erogationis fecerit.
The testator wished his freedmen to receive a certain sum of money for the expense of a monument; if any larger amount has been expended, it will not be properly claimed from the heir by an action for the management of affairs, nor by the right of a trust, since the will set the limit of the expenditure.
§3.5.30.5Tutoris heres impubes filius ob ea, quae tutor eius in rebus pupillae paternae gessit, non tenetur, sed tutor proprio nomine iudicio negotiorum gestorum conuenietur.
An impubertal son, the heir of a guardian, is not liable for those things which his own guardian did in the affairs of his father's female ward; but the guardian himself will be sued in his own name by an action for the management of affairs.
§3.5.30.6Quamquam mater filii negotia secundum patris uoluntatem pietatis fiducia gerat, tamen ius actoris periculo suo litium causa constituendi non habebit, quia nec ipsa filii nomine recte agit aut res bonorum eius alienat uel debitorem impuberis accipiendo pecuniam liberat.
Although a mother may manage the affairs of her son in accordance with the father's wishes on the basis of maternal affection, she will nevertheless not have the right to appoint an agent for lawsuits at her own risk, because she herself cannot properly sue in the son's name, alienate his property, or release a debtor of the impubertal child by receiving money.
§3.5.30.7Uno defendente causam communis aquae sententia praedio datur: sed qui sumptus necessarios ac probabiles in communi lite fecit, negotiorum gestorum actionem habet.
With one person defending a lawsuit concerning common water, the judgment is given in favor of the estate; but he who has incurred necessary and reasonable expenses in the common lawsuit has an action for the management of affairs.