discernible maturity. Interdiction must likewise be imposed upon the spendthrift who destroys his wealth, whether he is young or old, grey-haired or in the vigor of youth. A spendthrift is one who dissipates his money on acts of disobedience or sheer extravagance. If, however, he preserves his property and does not squander it—even though he is an open sinner who wrongs only himself—then no interdiction applies to him; he is released from guardianship because he manages his assets wisely.

There is no objection to engaging in trade with an orphan’s property, and the guardian incurs no liability for doing so. Indeed, if the orphan benefits more when his wealth is mixed with the guardian’s, that is permissible.

Anyone who wishes to place his adult son under interdiction must bring him before the judge so that the judge may witness his condition and bar people from lending to him or transacting with him.

Any sale made by the spendthrift is void; the item sold is returned to him, and the purchaser may not claim back any part of the price if the spendthrift has already wasted it. Whoever hands money or property to a person under interdiction—be he free or enslaved, adult or minor—has only himself to blame if he cannot retrieve the very same object. The same ruling applies to a loan: the creditor may not pursue the interdicted person for any of it, neither during his folly nor after he reforms, and no claim attaches to his liability. All the creditor may take is whatever of his original property he can still locate in the interdicted person’s possession.

After the spendthrift attains maturity, the judge will rule in his favor so that he may recover what he sold during his days of folly, just as he could have done beforehand. The judge annuls any transactions he has spoiled, and if any of the items are found with him they are taken from him.

A virgin woman, even if she has remained unmarried past the usual age, is treated like one under interdiction until her husband consummates the marriage with her and her uprightness becomes apparent. This is the distilled doctrine of Malik, although some of his companions dissent on the matter.

If the guardian gives the interdicted person some of his own property to test him and the latter contracts a debt with it, that debt is void: it is not chargeable to his property, his personal liability, or the guardian’s estate. This differs from the slave whose master gives him money to test him, for in that case the slave is deemed authorized.

And it has been said: