[PAULUS libro quarto quaestionum. ] §46.1.71.prGranius Antoninus pro Iulio Pollione et Iulio Rufo pecuniam mutuam accipientibus, ita ut duo rei eiusdem debiti fuerint, apud Aurelium Palmam mandator exstitit: Iulii bona ad fiscum uenerunt: similiter et creditori fiscus successerat.
[PAULUS in the fourth book of Questions.] Granius Antoninus, for Iulius Pollio and Iulius Rufus who were receiving a mutual loan of money, in such a way that they were two joint debtors of the same debt, stood as a mandator before Aurelius Palma: the property of the Iulii came to the treasury; similarly, the treasury had also succeeded to the creditor.
mandator allegabat se liberatum iure confusionis, quia fiscus tam creditori quam debitori successerat.
The mandator alleged that he was released by the right of merger, because the treasury had succeeded to both the creditor and the debtor.
et quidem si unus debitor fuisset, non dubitabam sicut fideiussorem, ita et mandatorem liberatum esse: quamuis enim iudicio conuento principali debitore mandator non liberetur, tamen ubi successit creditor debitori, ueluti solutionis iure sublata obligatione etiam mandator liberatur, uel quia non potest pro eodem apud eundem quis mandator esse.
And indeed, if there had been a single debtor, I did not doubt that just like a guarantor, so too the mandator was released: for although a mandator is not released when the principal debtor is sued in court, nevertheless when the creditor succeeds the debtor, the obligation being extinguished as if by right of payment, the mandator is also released, or because no one can be a mandator for the same person before the same person.
sed cum duo rei promittendi sint et alteri heres extitit creditor, iusta dubitatio est, utrum alter quoque liberatus est, ac si soluta fuisset pecunia, an persona tantum exempta confusa obligatione.
But when there are two joint debtors and the creditor has stood as heir to one of them, there is a justifiable doubt whether the other is also released, as if the money had been paid, or whether only the person was exempted by the merged obligation.
et puto aditione hereditatis confusione obligationis eximi personam: sed et accessiones ex eius persona liberari propter illam rationem, quia non possunt pro eodem apud eundem obligati esse, ut quemadmodum incipere alias non possunt, ita nec remaneant.
And I think that by the acceptance of the inheritance, the person is exempted by the merger of the obligation; but also that the accessories arising from his person are released for that reason, because they cannot be obligated for the same person before the same person, so that just as they cannot otherwise begin, so they do not remain.
igitur alterum reum eiusdem pecuniae non liberari et per hoc nec fideiussorem uel mandatorem eius.
Therefore, the other joint debtor of the same money is not released, and through this, neither is his guarantor or mandator.
plane quia is mandati iudicio eligere potest uel creditorem, competituram ei exceptionem doli mali, si coeperit conueniri.
Clearly, because he can choose even the creditor in an action on mandate, the plea of fraud (exceptio doli mali) will be available to him if he begins to be sued.
cum altero autem reo uel in solidum, si non fuerit societas, uel in partem, si socii fuerunt, posse creditorem agere.
But against the other debtor, the creditor can sue either for the whole amount (in solidum), if there was no partnership, or for a share (in partem), if they were partners.
quod si creditor fideiussori heres fuerit uel fideiussor creditori, puto conuenire confusione obligationis non liberari reum.
But if the creditor has stood as heir to the guarantor, or the guarantor to the creditor, I think it is agreed that the debtor is not released by the merger of the obligation.
§46.1.71.1Si ponamus unum ex reis promittendi pactum esse, ne a se peteretur, deinde mandatorem soluisse: mandati iudicio conuenire potuit etiam eum, cum quo pactum est: non enim pactum creditoris tollit alienam actionem.
If we suppose that one of the joint debtors contracted that payment should not be demanded from him, and then the mandator paid: he could also sue by the action on mandate that very person with whom the pact was made; for the creditor's pact does not take away another's action.
§46.1.71.2Placet mandatorem teneri etiam si faeneraturo creditori mandet pecuniam credere.
It is held that the mandator is held even if he mandates a creditor who is about to lend money at interest to lend the money.