[GAIUS libro primo de uerborum obligationibus. ] §46.1.70.prSi a reo sub condicione fuero stipulatus, potero fideiussorem et in hanc et in aliam condicionem obligare, si modo eas coniungam: nisi enim utraque exstiterit, non tenebitur, cum reus ex una condicione teneatur.
[GAIUS in the first book on Verbal Obligations.] If I have stipulated from a principal debtor under a condition, I will be able to obligate a guarantor both under this condition and under another, provided that I connect them; for unless both are fulfilled, he will not be held, whereas the principal debtor is held under the single condition.
quod si eas disiungam, durior fit condicio fideiussoris nec ob id obligatur: quippe siue communis utriusque condicio extiterit siue alterutra, uideatur adprehendi, cum reus non aliter teneatur, quam si communis exstiterit: aut igitur nullo modo tenebitur fideiussor, aut, quod magis est, tenebitur, si prius extiterit communis.
But if I separate them, the condition of the guarantor becomes more onerous and for this reason he is not obligated; for whether the condition common to both or either one of them is fulfilled, he would seem to be liable, whereas the principal debtor is held only if the common condition is fulfilled. Therefore, either the guarantor will not be held in any way, or, what is more reasonable, he will be held if the common condition is fulfilled first.
§46.1.70.1Sub diuersis quoque condicionibus si fuerint interrogati, interest, utra eorum prior extiterit.
Also, if they have been questioned under different conditions, it matters which of them is fulfilled first.
si reo iniuncta, tenebitur etiam fideiussor, cum condicio eius exstiterit, tamquam si statim ab initio reus pure, fideiussor sub condicione acceptus esset.
If the one imposed on the debtor is fulfilled first, the guarantor also will be held when his condition is fulfilled, just as if from the very beginning the debtor had been accepted unconditionally, and the guarantor under a condition.
ex diuerso autem, si fideiussoris condicio prior extiterit, non tenetur, perinde ac si statim ab initio pure acceptus esset reo sub condicione obligato.
Conversely, if the condition of the guarantor is fulfilled first, he is not held, just as if from the very beginning he had been accepted unconditionally while the debtor was obligated under a condition.
§46.1.70.2Si reo in fundum obligato fideiussor in usum fructum accipiatur, quaesitum est, utrum obligetur fideiussor quasi in minus, an non obligetur quasi in aliud.
If a guarantor is accepted for a usufruct while the principal debtor is obligated for land, it has been questioned whether the guarantor is obligated as if for less, or not obligated as if for something else.
nobis in eo uidetur dubitatio esse, usus fructus pars rei sit an proprium quiddam: sed cum usus fructus fundi ius est, inciuile est fideiussorem ex sua promissione non teneri.
To us, there seems to be a doubt on this point, whether a usufruct is a part of a thing or something distinct; but since a usufruct is a right in land, it is contrary to the spirit of civil law that a guarantor should not be held on his promise.
§46.1.70.3Adeo a seruo potest fideiussor accipi, ut ipse quoque dominus in id, quod sibi debetur, fideiussorem ab eo recte accipiat: quem fideiussorem etiam ab eo ipso seruo interrogari nihil impedit.
A guarantor can be accepted from a slave to such an extent that even the master himself may properly accept a guarantor from him for what is owed to himself; and nothing prevents this guarantor from being questioned even by that very slave.
§46.1.70.4Si a furioso stipulatus fueris, non posse te fideiussorem accipere certum est, quia non solum ipsa stipulatio nulla intercessisset, sed ne negotium quidem ullum gestum intellegitur.
If you have stipulated from an insane person, it is certain that you cannot accept a guarantor, because not only would no stipulation have intervened as a nullity, but not even any transaction is understood to have been conducted.
quod si pro furioso iure obligato fideiussorem accepero, tenetur fideiussor.
But if I accept a guarantor for an insane person who is legally obligated, the guarantor is held.
§46.1.70.5Id quod uolgo dictum est maleficiorum fideiussorem accipi non posse non sic intellegi debet, ut in poenam furti is, cui furtum factum est, fideiussorem accipere non possit (nam poenas ob maleficia solui magna ratio suadet), sed ita potius, ut qui cum alio cum quo furtum admisit, in partem, quam ex furto sibi restitui desiderat, fideiussorem obligare non possit, et qui alieno hortatu ad furtum faciendum prouectus est, ne in furti poena ab eo qui hortatus est fideiussorem accipere possit.
The common saying that a guarantor cannot be accepted for wrongdoings should not be understood to mean that the victim of a theft cannot accept a guarantor for the penalty of theft (for great reason urges that penalties for wrongdoings be paid), but rather that one who has committed a theft with another cannot obligate a guarantor for the share which he wishes to be restored to him from the theft, and one who has been induced to commit a theft by another's instigation cannot accept a guarantor for the penalty of theft from the one who instigated him.
in quibus casibus illa ratio impedit fideiussorem obligari, quia scilicet in nullam rationem adhibetur fideiussor, cum flagitiosae rei societas coita nullam uim habet.
In these cases, the reason that prevents the guarantor from being obligated is that, of course, the guarantor is employed for no valid reason, since an association formed for an immoral purpose has no force.