[IDEM libro trigensimo primo ad edictum. ] §50.14.2.prSi proxeneta interuenerit faciendi nominis, ut multi solent, uideamus an possit quasi mandator teneri.
[THE SAME, in the thirty-first book on the Edict.] If a broker has intervened for the purpose of establishing a debt, as many are accustomed to do, let us see whether he can be held liable as if he were a mandator.
et non puto teneri, quia hic monstrat magis nomen quam mandat, tametsi laudet nomen.
And I do not think he is held liable, because he points out the debt rather than mandates it, even though he may praise the debt.
idem dico, et si aliquid philanthropi nomine acceperit: nec ex locato conducto erit actio.
I say the same even if he has received something under the name of a gratuity; nor will there be an action based on letting and hiring.
plane si dolo et calliditate creditorem circumuenerit, de dolo actione tenebitur.
Clearly, if he has circumvented the creditor through fraud and cunning, he will be held liable under the action for fraud.