Pomponius, Epistles, Book XX. Whatever a husband must restore to his wife out of the peculium of a slave will form part of the dowry which is to be given up, and therefore the husband will be liable for fraud and negligence in the acquisition or preservation of the said peculium; and the profits obtained from the same, just as those of any other dotal property will belong to the husband.

The Same, Epistles, Book XX. It is stated by Aristo that, where a ward loses possession of any part of an estate through the fault of his guardian, there is no doubt that he will be liable for the amount in an action on the estate, if security has been given to the ward. Moreover, security is held to have been given, even if the guardian is solvent, so that the ward can recover from him the amount for which judgment is rendered against him in an action. Where, however, the guardian is not solvent, it should be considered whether the damage will be sustained by the ward or by the claimant of the estate; hence it must be held to be just as if the property was lost by accident, and just as if the ward himself who is free from blame had diminished, destroyed, or lost any property belonging to the estate. The inquiry can also be made with reference to a possessor who is insane, where any of the property is lost on account of his insanity. What is your opinion on this point? Pomponius says, “I think that the opinion of Aristo is correct. But why are you in doubt as to who should suffer the loss, if the guardian should prove insolvent; for as it can very properly be said that the ward can only be compelled to transfer the rights of action which he has against the guardian to the vendor of the property, so also the heir or the possessor of the estate, if through no fault of his (for instance, if he should be forcibly ejected from land belonging to the estate, or a slave forming part of it should be wounded by anyone without the fault of the possessor), he would only be obliged to assign the rights of action to which he was entitled on this ground. It must be said that the same rule will apply where any loss takes place through the negligence or fraud of the guardian of an insane person, just as in the case where a guardian or a curator entered into a stipulation, or sold property belonging to an estate. I also think that it should be admitted that anything which happens through the insanity of anyone, should remain unpunished; just as if it had been caused by some accident, and without the act of the party sued.”