Julianus, Digest, Book XXI. Where a guardian is appointed by a father in a will which is not regular, or which does not conform to the law, he must be confirmed for the purpose of administering the guardianship, just as if he had been appointed guardian under the will; that is to say, he will be excused from giving security.

Ulpianus, Digest, Book XXI. Where a guardian has transacted the business of his ward, even though he may not have authorized him to act in any matter, there is no doubt that he will be liable to an action on guardianship; for what can prevent such a disposition being made of the estate of the ward, that it will not be necessary for any business to be transacted in which the authority of the guardian should be interposed? 1Where there are two guardians, and an action is brought against one of them, the other will not be released from liability.

Julianus, Digest, Book XXI. If a slave owned in common by you and Titius should receive any property by delivery from your ward with your consent, Marcellus states that its ownership will vest solely in Titius; for where anything cannot be acquired by all the owners of a slave, the ancient authorities have held that it will belong in its entirety to the one by whom it can be acquired.

The Same, Digest, Book XXI. Minors are bound by the authority of their guardians, even though they themselves remain silent. For when they borrow money even though they may say nothing, they will be liable, if the authority of their guardian is interposed. Hence, where money which is not due is paid to such persons, even if they should keep silent, the interposition of the authority of their guardian will be sufficient to render them liable to a personal action for its recovery.

Julianus, Digest, Book XXI. A certain man appointed his son his heir, and left two hundred aurei to his daughter, by way of dowry, when she should marry; but left her nothing else, and appointed Sempronius guardian of the said children. The latter, having been summoned before a magistrate by the relatives and kinsmen of the female ward, was ordered to furnish maintenance to the said ward, as well as money, in order that she might be instructed in the liberal arts, this money to be paid to her teachers on account of the said ward. The male ward, having reached puberty, paid to his sister, who had already attained that age, two hundred aurei in discharge of the legacy. The question arose whether he could recover in an action on guardianship what had been expended for her support, and the amount disbursed by the guardian on account of the guardianship. I answered: I think that, although the guardian may have furnished maintenance for the sister of his ward without a decree of the magistrate, and also provided for her instruction in the liberal arts, as he was unable to do otherwise, he should not, in an action on guardianship, be obliged to pay anything on this ground either to his male ward or to anyone substituted for him.

Julianus, Digest, Book XXI. There is still more reason for granting this action, where suit is brought for the misappropriation of property by the guardian.

Julianus, Digest, Book XXI. A guardian who has been removed from office should be considered to be in the same position as one whose guardianship is terminated, and hence he is liable to actions in the same manner as if the ward had reached puberty; so in the counter-action, if he has lost anything, he is entitled to bring suit to recover it, for there is nothing to prevent a suspected guardian from recovering what he has advanced, and which he should not lose, even though he may have expended too large a sum for the benefit of his ward.

Julianus, Digest, Book XXI. If no blame attaches to a guardian on this account it will not be unjust for him to be granted an action against the magistrates.

Julianus, Digest, Book XXI. Two guardians divided the administration of the guardianship between them, and one died without leaving an heir. The question arose whether an action should be granted to the ward against the magistrate who did not see that security was given, or against the other guardian. I answered that it was more equitable for an action to be granted against the other guardian than against the magistrate; for the former, when he was aware that security had not been furnished to the ward, should have taken charge of the entire administration; and with respect to that portion which he had committed to the care of the other guardian, he resembled one who did not attend to the transaction of certain business of his ward. For although he may have transacted a certain portion of the business of his ward, he will still be liable for neglecting to attend to what he should have done.

Julianus, Digest, Book XXI. Not only the estate, but also the person and the safety of one who is insane, must be protected by the advice and exertions of his curator. 1A curator was appointed for an insane person, and a decree issued requiring him to give security which he did not do, and, nevertheless, he alienated certain property of the insane person in accordance with the legal formalities. The heirs of said insane person brought an action to recover the property which the curator had alienated, and an exception on the ground that the curator had not sold the property was interposed. In this case, a replication should be granted that he had sold the property without furnishing security in accordance with the decree. If, however, the curator had paid the creditors of the insane person the price received for the property, a triplication on the ground of bad faith will render the possessors secure. 2Where the Proconsul removed the curator of an insane person from the administration of the property of the latter for the reason that he had not furnished security, and had transacted the business of the trust improperly, and substituted another curator in his stead, the latter, who himself did not furnish security, brought an action based on voluntary agency against the curator who had been removed, and afterwards when the heirs of the said insane person brought suit on the ground of voluntary agency against the second curator, the latter pleaded an exception based upon the settlement of the case between them and his predecessor, the heirs should be granted the right to reply that he himself had not given security when he brought the action. The judge, however, must determine whether such a reply would be of any benefit to the curator, for if the second curator had employed the money which he had recovered by a judgment against the first, for the benefit of the property of the insane person, a triplication on the ground of fraud can be interposed. 3The question arose whether payment can legally be made to one of the curators of an insane person, and whether one of them can alienate his property. I answered that such payment would be legal, and that the party who purchased, with the proper formalities, any land belonging to an insane person from one of several curators, could obtain the right to the same by prescription; because payment, sale, and delivery are rather matters of fact than of law, and therefore the act of one of the curators is sufficient, for the reason that the other is understood to consent. Hence, if the other curator is present and opposes the payment, or delivery, the debtor is not released from liability, nor can the purchaser obtain the property by prescription.