[IDEM libro undecimo responsorum. ] §46.3.96.prPupilli debitor tutore delegante pecuniam creditori tutoris soluit: liberatio contigit, si non malo consilio cum tutore habito hoc factum esse probetur.
[THE SAME, in the eleventh book of Responses.] A debtor of a pupil, upon the delegation of the tutor, has paid money to the creditor of the tutor: release occurs, if it is not proved that this was done with a bad design formed with the tutor.
sed et interdicto fraudatorio tutoris creditor pupillo tenetur, si eum consilium fraudis participasse constabit.
But also, the creditor of the tutor is held liable to the pupil by the fraud interdict, if it shall be established that he participated in the design of fraud.
§46.3.96.1Cum pupilla magistratui, qui per fraudem pupillo tutorem dedit, heres extitisset, tutores eius cum adulescente transegerunt: eam transactionem pupilla ratam habere noluit: nihilo minus erit tutorum pecunia liberata nec tutores contra adulescentem actionem nec utilem habebunt, qui suum reciperauit.
When a female pupil had become the heir to a magistrate who, through fraud, had given a tutor to a male pupil, her tutors entered into a transaction with the youth (the former pupil): the female pupil refused to ratify that transaction: nevertheless, the tutors' money will be released, and the tutors will have neither a direct nor an equitable action against the youth, who recovered his own.
plane si adulescens pecuniam restituere tutori pupillae maluerit, rescisso quod gestum est actionem utilem in pupillam heredem magistratus accipiet.
Clearly, if the youth should prefer to restore the money to the tutor of the female pupil, the transaction being rescinded, he will receive an equitable action against the female pupil, who is the heir of the magistrate.
§46.3.96.2Soror, cui legatum ab herede fratre debebatur, post motam legati quaestionem transegit, ut nomine debitoris contenta legatum non peteret.
A sister, to whom a legacy was owed by her brother who was the heir, after a dispute was raised concerning the legacy, entered into a transaction to the effect that, being content with the claim (nomen) of a debtor, she would not sue for the legacy.
placuit, quamuis nulla delegatio facta neque liberatio secuta esset, tamen nominis periculum ad eam pertinere itaque, si legatum contra placitum peteret, exceptionem pacti non inutiliter opponi.
It was held that, although no delegation had been made and no release had followed, nevertheless the risk of the claim belonged to her, and therefore, if she should sue for the legacy contrary to the agreement, the exception of an agreement (exceptio pacti) would not uselessly be opposed to her.
§46.3.96.3Cum eodem tempore pignora duobus contractibus obligantur, pretium eorum pro modo pecuniae cuiusque contractus creditor accepto facere debet nec in arbitrio eius electio erit, cum debitor pretium pignoris consortioni subiecerit: quod si temporibus discretis superfluum pignorum obligari placuit, prius debitum pretio pignorum iure soluetur, secundum superfluo compensabitur.
When pledges are bound for two contracts at the same time, the creditor must credit their price in proportion to the amount of money of each contract, nor will the choice be at his discretion, since the debtor has subjected the price of the pledge to a community (consortium) between them. But if, at separate times, it was agreed that the surplus of the pledges should be bound, the prior debt will be paid by law out of the price of the pledges, and the second will be satisfied from the surplus.
§46.3.96.4Cum institutus deliberaret, substituto pecunia per errorem soluta est: ad eum hereditate postea deuoluta causa condictionis euanescit: quae ratio facit, ut obligatio debiti soluatur.
While the instituted heir was deliberating, money was paid by mistake to the substitute heir: since the inheritance subsequently devolved upon him, the ground for a condictio (claim for return) vanishes; which reason causes the obligation of the debt to be dissolved.