[PAPINIANUS libro secundo quaestionum. ] §50.1.11.prImperator Titus Antoninus Lentulo Uero rescripsit magistratuum officium indiuiduum ac periculum esse commune.
[PAPINIANUS, Questions, Book II] The Emperor Titus Antoninus wrote back in a rescript to Lentulus Verus that the office of magistrates is indivisible and their liability is common.
quod sic intellegi oportet, ut ita demum collegae periculum adscribatur, si neque ab ipso qui gessit neque ab his, qui pro eo interuenerunt, res seruari possit et soluendo non fuit honore deposito.
This must be understood in such a way that liability is imputed to a colleague only if the property cannot be recovered either from the one who actually administered the office himself or from those who intervened on his behalf, and if he lacked means of payment upon laying down his office.
alioquin si persona uel cautio sit idonea, uel soluendo fuit quo tempore conueniri potuit, unusquisque in id quod administrauit tenebitur.
Otherwise, if the person or the security is sufficient, or if he had means of payment at the time when he could have been sued, each person will be held liable only for what he himself administered.
§50.1.11.1Quod si forte is, qui periculo suo nominauit magistratum, soluendo sit, utrum in eum prius actio reddi quasi fideiussorem debeat, an uero non alias, quam si res a collega seruari non potuerit? sed placuit fideiussoris exemplo priorem conueniendum qui nominauit, quoniam collega quidem neglegentiae ac poenae causa, qui uero nominauit, fidei ratione conuenitur.
But if it should happen that the person who nominated a magistrate at his own risk has means of payment, should an action first be granted against him as if against a surety, or indeed only if the property could not be recovered from the colleague? But it has been held that, after the example of a surety, the one who nominated should be sued first, since a colleague is sued on account of negligence and by way of penalty, whereas the one who nominated is sued on the ground of faith.