The Same, On Sabinus, Book XXXIX. The privilege of appointing guardians was, by a Constitution of the Divine Marcus conferred upon the Juridicus who presides at Alexandria.

The Same, On Sabinus, Book XXXIX. But suppose there are grandchildren, must it be held that a guardian is appointed for them under the name of “children”? The better opinion is that the guardian is also appointed for them, provided the testator made use of the word “children”. If, however, he used the word “sons”, they will not be included, for the term son is one thing, and the term grandson another. It is clear that if he appointed a guardian for his posthumous children, the offspring of the latter, as well as the other children, will be included.

The Same, On Sabinus, Book XXXIX. If anyone should name a guardian as follows: “I appoint So-and-So guardian of my children”, the appointment will be held to have been made for the sons as well as the daughters of the testator, for daughters are included in the term children. 1If a man should appoint a guardian for his son, and he has several sons, will he be held to have appointed him for all of them? Pomponius is in doubt on this point; but the better opinion is that he will be held to have made the appointment for all. 2Where anyone appoints a guardian for his children, or merely for his sons, he will be held to have made the appointment for any whom he may have who are held captive by the enemy, if it is not clearly established that the intention of the testator was otherwise. 3If anyone should appoint a guardian for his children, not being aware that Titius was his child; shall he be considered to have made the appointment only for those whom he knew to be under his control, or also for him who he did not know was his son? The better opinion is that he should not be considered to have made the appointment for the latter, although he is included among the number of his sons; but, for the reason that he did not have him in mind at the time, it must be said that the appointment does not have reference to him. 4Hence the same rule will apply where a man was certain that his son was dead, while in fact he was living; for he is not held to have appointed a guardian for one whom he believed was dead. 5Where anyone appoints a guardian for his posthumous children, and the latter are born during his lifetime, will the appointment be valid? The better opinion is that it will be valid, even though the said children should be born while he is living.

Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXXIX. A Proconsul, a Governor, and the Prefect of Egypt, or one who holds the office of Proconsul of a province temporarily, either on account of the death of the Governor, or because the administration of the province has been committed to him by the latter, can appoint a guardian. 1In accordance with a Rescript of the Divine Marcus, the Deputy of a Proconsul can also appoint a guardian. 2Where, however, the Governor of a province is permitted to appoint a guardian, he can only do so for those who were born in said province, or have their domicile therein.

Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXXIX. An application for a guardian is held to have been made even when this is done through another; and the same rule applies to the appointment of one, for he who makes it through the agency of another does the same thing.

Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXXIX. A surety can be added to every obligation.

Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXXIX. Our slaves and our children can, indeed, steal from us, but they will not be liable to an action for theft; as he who can decide the case of a thief has no need to bring suit against him. Therefore, no action was granted to him by the ancient legislators. 1Hence the question arose, if a slave was either alienated or manumitted, whether he would be liable to an action for theft. It was decided that he is not liable, for a cause of action which does not exist in the beginning cannot afterwards arise against a thief of this kind. It is, however, clear that if, after having been manumitted, he should appropriate any property, he can be said to be liable to such an action, because he then commits a veritable theft. 2When, however, a slave whom I purchased, and who was delivered to me, is returned to me under a conditional clause of the sale, he should not be considered as ever having belonged to me, but he has been mine, and has ceased to be such. Therefore Sabinus says that, if he commits a theft, his position is such that the person who returned him will not be entitled to an action for theft. But although he cannot bring such an action, still, when he is sent back, the value of the property stolen should be estimated and included in the action for his return. 3If a fugitive slave should steal from his master, the question was asked whether the latter could also bring an action against the person who had bona fide possession of him before he was restored to the power of his master. This point gives rise to some difficulty; for although I may be considered to have had possession of the slave during the time in which he was a fugitive, still I will not be liable to an action for theft, as he was not under my control. For Julianus says that when I seemed to possess him, this was of no advantage except to enable me to acquire him by usucaption. Therefore Pomponius, in the Seventeenth Book on Sabinus, says that the action for theft will lie in favor of the owner whose slave was in flight.

The Same, On Sabinus, Book XXXVIII. Those are included under the term “colleagues” who possess the same authority. 1Anyone who is outside of the suburbs of a city is considered to be absent; but he is not considered to be absent while still within the suburbs.