2.1.94 to 2.1.99

V. Whether or not wards can alienate property. (80) We must next call attention to the fact that neither a woman nor a ward can alienate property by mancipation without the authority of their guardians, but a woman can alienate property not subject to mancipation without such authority, which a ward cannot do. (81) Hence, if a woman lends money to anyone without the authority of her guardian, for the reason that she transfers it to him, and as money is not subject to sale, the borrower contracts an obligation. (82) If, however, a ward should do this, as he does not transfer the money to the borrower, the latter does not contract an obligation; and therefore the ward can recover his money, provided it is in existence; that is to say he can claim it as his under quiritarian right, but a woman can only recover the money by an action for debt. Hence the question arises whether the ward who lent the money can, in any action whatever recover it from the person who borrowed it if it has been expended, as recovery must be had for a party in possession. (83) On the other hand, all property, whether subject to sale or not, can be transferred to women and to wards without the authority of their guardians; and this is granted them because their condition is improved by the transaction. (84) Hence if a debtor pays any money to a ward, he transfers the ownership of the same to him, but he himself is not released from liability, for the reason that a ward cannot release a debtor from an obligation without the authority of his guardian, as he is not permitted to alienate any property without his guardian's consent; still, if he receives any benefit from the money, and continues to demand payment of the debt, he can be barred by an exception on the ground of fraud.