Juridical Dissertation on Contumacy

argument. l. ult. §. 1. ff. de appellat. And that, as Antonius Faber adduces in Cod. l. 3. tit. 1. def. 23. num. 11., so that, namely, the effect may not be broader than its cause. After many, Caspar. Klock. tom. 3. Consil. 187. num. 181. where he infers from this that Contumacy committed regarding a citation alone does not harm regarding the litis contestatio.

XXIV.

The goal of Contumacy is that the authority of the Judge be despised, and the right of the opposing party rendered worse, per l. 13. §. 2. C. de Jud. c. 3. § 4. X. de dol. & contum. Mev. p. 8. Dec. 289. For by Contumacy, not only is the party offended, but also the Judge: Hilliger. ad Donell. Enucleat. lib. 23. c. 10. lit. A. Hence it is that the Judge, to protect his Jurisdiction, can punish the Contumacious party arbitrarily or extraordinarily without an accusation. Mindanus de mandat. Judic. l. 2. c. 4. n. 4. Mev. p. 6. dec. 19. Notwithstanding l. 19. ff. de in Jus voc. By this penalty, the contempt is estimated, not, however, the interest of the party, Brunnem. de proc. c. 4. num. 9. And he teaches that this should first be intimated under threat, then indicated, and applied to the treasury, d. loc., where he also refers to the denial of a hearing in other cases, num. 12. Add Godofred. ad l. 26. ff. Ex quib. causis major lit. E. Maranta p. 5. de contumac. num. 9. & seqq. where he recounts 24 penalties of Contumacy.

XXV.

The effects of Contumacy are either common to both parties, or proper to the Plaintiff or the Defendant. Common: that the Contumacious party, whether he wins or succumbs, is condemned in the expenses of that term, per l. 79. ff. de Jud. l. 13. §. 2. Cod. eod. Nov. 112. c. 3. §. 2. c. 1. de dol. & contum. in 6.to See, however, Zasius, ad l. 13. C. de Jud. §. 6. num. 7. And this refunding of damage and expenses is the ordinary penalty of Contumacy: Mev. p. 2. dec. 327. Sonnemannus ad Nov. 69. cap. 3. vid. Brunnem. tr. de proc. c. 4. num. 3. Vid. §. 1. de pœn. tem. litig. By which are also understood the expenses for Advocates and Procurators, per l. 15. C. de Judic. ibique Brunnem. & in d. tr. de process. civ. loc. cit. Carpz. de process. tit. 8. art. 1. num. 9. Dissenting: Hartmannus: Pistor. Obs. 140. To which also, according to the opinion of Zasius (ad l. 13. §. 6. C. de Judic.), belong the costs which the obedient party made in inns, though moderate, not superfluous, and with that deducted which he would otherwise have spent at home. And these