Dictionary of Greek and Roman antiquities. Ed. by William Smith. Illustrated by numerous engravings on wood.

CURATOR. CURATOR. 37t
twenty-five years of age against all fraud (dolus). might be their age, were placed under the cura of
The person who was guilty of such a fraud was their agnati by the law of the Twelve Tables.
liable to a judiciurn publicurn (Cic. De Nat. Deor. When there was no legal provision for the appointiii. 30), though the offence was such as in the ment of a curator, the praetor named one. Curacase of a person of full age would only have been tores appointed by a consul, praetor, or governor
matter of action. The punishment fixed by the of a province (prcteses), were not generally required
lex Plaetoria was probably a pecuniary penalty, to give security for their proper conduct, having
and the consequential punishment of infamia or been chosen as fit persons for the office. What
loss of political rights. The minor who had been the lex Plaetoria required for particular transacfraudulently led to make a disadvantageous contract, tions, the emperor Aurelius made a general rule,
might protect himself against an action by a plea and all minors, without exception, and without any
of the lex Plaetoria (exeeptio legis Plaetoriae). special grounds or reasons (non redditis causis),
The lex also appears to have further provided that were required to have curatores.
any person who dealt with a minor might avoid all The following is the result of Savigny's investigarisk of the consequences of the Plaetoria lex, if the tions into the curatela of minors after the constitution
minor was aided and assisted in such dealing by a of M. Aurelius. The subject is one of considerable
curator named or chosen for the occasion. But difficulty, but it is treated with the most consumthe curator did not act like a tutor: it can hardly mate skill, the result of complete knowledge, and
be supposed that his consent was even necessary to unrivalled critical sagacity. The minor only rethe contract; for the minor had full legal capacity ceived a general curator when he made application
to act, and the business of the curator was merely to the praetor for that purpose: he had the right
to prevent his being defrauded or surprised. of proposing a person as curator, but the praetor
The praetorian edict carried still further the might reject the person proposed. The apparent
principle of the lex Plaetoria, by protecting minors contradiction between the rule which required all
generally against positive acts of their own, in minors to have a curator, and the fact that the
all cases in which the consequences might be minor received a general curator only when he apinjurious to them. This was done by the "in in- plied for one, is explained by Savigny in his essay
tegrum restitutio:" the praetor set aside trans- (p. 272, &c.). The curator, on being appointed,
actions of this description, not only on the ground had, without the concurrence of the minor, as
of fraud, but on a consideration of all the circum- complete power over the minor's property as the
stances of the case. But it was necessary for the tutor had up to the age of puberty. IHe could
minor to make application to the praetor, either sue in respect of the minor's property, get in
during his minority, or within one year after attain- debts, and dispose of property like a tutor. But it
ing his majority, if he claimed the restitutio; a was only the property which the praetor intrusted
limitation probably founded on the lex Plaetoria. to him that he managed, and not the acquisitions
The provisions of this lex were thus superseded or of the minor subsequent to his appointment; and
rendered unnecessary by the jurisdiction of the herein he differed from a tutor who had the care of
praetor, and accordingly we find very few traces of all the property of the pupillus. If it was intended
the Plaetorian law in the Roman jurists, that the curator should have the care of that which
Ulpian and his contemporaries speak of adole- the minor acquired, after the curator's appointscentes, under twenty-five years of age, being under ment, by will or otherwise, a special application
the general direction and advice of curatores, as a for this purpose was necessary. Thus, as to the
notorious principle of law at that time. (Dig. 4. property which was placed under the care of the
tit. 4; De Minoribus xxv Annis.) The establish- curator, both as regards alienation and the getting
melt of this general rule is attributed by Capito- in of debts, the minor was on the sanle footing
linus (IVI. Anton. c. 10) to the emperor M. Aurelius as the prodigus: his acts in relation to such miatin a passage which has given rise to much discussion. ters, without the curator, were void. But the
Savigny's explanation is as follows: - Up to the legal capacity of the minor to contract debts was
time of Marcus Aurelius there were only three not affected by the appointment of a curator; and
cases or kinds of curatela: 1. That which was he might be sued on his contract either during
founded on the lex Plaetoria, by which a minor his minority or after. Nor was there anlly inconwho wislied to enter into a contract with another, sistency in this: the minor could not spend his
asked the praetor for a curator, stating the ground actual property, for the preservation of his property
or occasion of the petition (reddita causa). One during minority was the object of the curator's apobject of the application was, to save the other con- pointment. But the minor would have been detracting party from all risk of judicial proceedings prived of all legal capacity for doing any act if he
in consequence of dealing with a minor. Another could not have become liable on his contract. The
object was, the benefit of the applicant (the minor); contract was not in its nature immediately inju.
for no prudent person would deal with him, ex- rious, amid when the time came for enforcing it
cept with the legal security of the curator. (Plaut. against the minor, he had the general protection of
Pseudolus, i. 3. 69. "Lex Ame perdit quinavicenaria: the restitutio. If the minor wished to be adrometnunt credere omnes.") 2. The curatela, which gated [ADOPTIO], it was necessary to have the
was given in the case of a man wasting his sub- consent of the curator. It is not stated in the
stance, who was called " prodigus." 3. And that extant authorities what was the form of proceeding
in the case of a man being of unsound mind, when it was necessary to dispose of any property
" demens," "furiosus." In both the last-mentioned of the minor by the mallcipatio or in jure cessio;
cases provision was made either by the law or by but it may be safely assumed that the minor acted
the praetor. Curatores who were determined by (for he alone could act on such an occasion) and
the law of the Twelve Tables, were called legitimi; the curator gave his consemit, which, in the case
those who were named by the praetor, were called supposed, would be analogous to the auctoritas of
honorarii. A furiosus and prodigus, whatever the tutor. But it would differ from the auctoritas,
BB 4