[IDEM libro quinquagensimo secundo digestorum. ] §45.2.6.prDuos reos promittendi facturus si utrumque interrogauero, sed alter dumtaxat responderit, uerius puto eum qui responderit obligari: neque enim sub condicione interrogatio in utriusque persona fit, ut ita demum obligetur, si alter quoque responderit.
[THE SAME in the fifty-second book of the Digests.] If, intending to make two joint debtors of promising, I interrogate both, but only one of them answers, I think it more correct that he who answered is bound; for the interrogation is not made under a condition in the person of each, so that he should be bound only if the other also answers.
§45.2.6.1Duobus autem reis constitutis quin liberum sit stipulatori uel ab utroque uel ab altero dumtaxat fideiussorem accipere, non dubito.
Furthermore, when two joint debtors have been established, I do not doubt that it is free for the stipulator to accept a surety either from both or from only one of them.
§45.2.6.2Sed si a duobus reis stipulandi interrogatus respondisset uni se spondere, ei soli tenetur.
But if, interrogated by two joint creditors of stipulating, he answers that he promises to only one of them, he is liable to him alone.
§45.2.6.3Duo rei sine dubio ita constitui possunt, ut et temporis ratio habeatur, intra quod uterque respondeat: modicum tamen interuallum temporis, item modicus actus, qui modo contrarius obligationi non sit, nihil impedit, quo minus duo rei sunt.
Two joint parties can doubtless be established in such a way that account is also taken of the time within which each must answer; nevertheless, a moderate interval of time, likewise a moderate act, provided that it is not contrary to the obligation, does not prevent them from being two joint parties.
fideiussor quoque interrogatus inter duorum reorum responsa si responderit, potest uideri non impedire obligationem reorum, quia nec longum spatium interponitur nec is actus, qui contrarius sit obligationi.
If a surety also, having been interrogated, answers between the answers of the two joint debtors, it can be seen not to prevent the obligation of the joint debtors, because neither a long space of time nor such an act as is contrary to the obligation is interposed.