from being wasted or diminished by their curators or guardians
the praetor provides for security being given by the latter against
maladministration. This rule, however, is not without exceptions,
for testamentary guardians are not obliged to give security, the
testator having had full opportunities of personally testing their
fidelity and carefulness, and guardians and curators appointed
upon inquiry are similarly exempted, because they have been
expressly chosen as the best men for the place. 1 If two or
more are appointed by testament, or by a magistrate upon in-
quiry, any one of them may offer security for indemnifying the
pupil or person to whom he is curator against loss, and be pre-
ferred to his colleague, in order that he may either obtain the
sole administration, or else induce his colleague to offer larger
security than himself, and so become sole administrator by
preference. Thus he cannot directly call upon his colleague
to give security; he ought to offer it himself, and so give his
colleague the option of receiving security on the one hand, or
of giving it on the other. If none of them offer security, and the
testator left directions as to which was to administer the pro-
perty, this person must undertake it: in default of this, the
office is cast by the praetor's edict on the person whom the
majority of guardians or curators shall choose. If they cannot
agree, the praetor must interpose. The same rule, authorizing
a majority to elect one to administer the property, is to be
applied where several are appointed after inquiry by a magis-
trate. 2 It is to be noted that, besides the liability of guardians
and curators to their pupils, or the persons for whom they act,
for the management of their property, there is a subsidiary
action against the magistrate accepting the security, which may
be resorted to where all other remedies prove inadequate, and