[ULPIANUS libro sexagensimo quinto ad edictum. ] §42.7.2.prDe curatore constituendo hoc iure utimur, ut praetor adeatur isque curatorem curatoresque constituat ex consensu maioris partis creditorum, uel praeses prouinciae, si bona distrahenda in prouincia sunt:
[ULPIANUS, On the Edict, Book 65] Regarding the appointment of a curator, we use this rule: that the praetor is to be approached and he is to appoint a curator or curators based on the consent of the majority of the creditors, or the governor of the province is to do so if the property is to be sold in a province.
§42.7.2.1Quaeque per eum eosue, qui ita creatus creatiue essent, acta facta gestaque sunt, rata habebuntur: eisque actiones et in eos utiles competunt: et si quem curatores mitterent ad agendum uel defendendum, uti ius esset: nec ab eo satis, neque de rato neque iudicatum solui, nomine eius cuius bona ueneant exigetur, sed nomine ipsius curatoris qui eum misit.
And whatever has been done, performed, and transacted by him or them, who had been so appointed, shall be held valid; and useful actions are competent for them and against them; and if the curators should send anyone to conduct or defend a suit, it shall be as of right. Nor shall security be demanded from him, either for ratification or for payment of the judgment, in the name of him whose goods are being sold, but in the name of the curator himself who sent him.
§42.7.2.2Si plures autem constituantur curatores, Celsus ait in solidum eos et agere et conueniri, non pro portionibus.
But if several curators are appointed, Celsus says that they can both sue and be sued for the whole, not for their respective shares.
quod si per regiones fuerint constituti curatores, unus forte rei Italicae, alius in prouincia, puto regiones eos suas conseruare debere.
But if the curators have been appointed for different regions, as for instance one for Italian property and another in a province, I think they ought to keep to their own regions.
§42.7.2.3Quaeritur, an inuitus curator fieri potest: et Cassius scribit neminem inuitum cogendum fieri bonorum curatorem, quod uerius est.
The question is asked whether a person can be made a curator against his will; and Cassius writes that no one should be compelled against his will to become a curator of goods, which is more correct.
uoluntarius itaque quaerendus est, nisi et magna necessitate et imperatoris arbitrio hoc procedat, ut et inuitus crearetur.
Therefore, a volunteer must be sought, unless this proceeds both from great necessity and by the decision of the Emperor, so that a person might be appointed even against his will.
§42.7.2.4Nec omnimodo creditorem esse oportet eum, qui curator constituitur, sed possunt et non creditores.
Nor is it absolutely necessary that he who is appointed curator be a creditor, but even non-creditors can be appointed.
§42.7.2.5Si tres curatores fuerint et unus ex his nihil attigerit, an in eum, qui nihil tetigit, actio danda est? et Cassius existimat modum actori non debere constitui posseque eum cum quo uult experiri.
If there are three curators, and one of them has touched nothing, should an action be granted against him who touched nothing? And Cassius thinks that a limit ought not to be set for the plaintiff, and that he can proceed against whomsoever he wishes.
puto Cassii sententiam ueriorem: spectandum enim, quid redactum est, non quid ad curatorem unum peruenerit, et ita utimur, nisi inuitus factus est: nam si ita est, dicendum non eum conueniendum.
I think the opinion of Cassius is more correct; for we must look at what has been recovered, not what has come to one single curator; and we apply this rule unless he was made curator against his will; for if that is the case, it must be said that he is not to be sued.