but he can detain them for the penalty promised in the compromise, presupposing that it was acted upon in the compromise that, the pact remaining, one could act for the penalty, as is said in the similar [text] (Digest, on location, law of hiring, whence [it comes], Digest, not to be taken away; and that which is noted, Digest, on justice and testaments, law Who in office, to exhibit, law 1). Primarily, however, [it is] to know whether the party was disobedient, and to pronounce that disobedience, and consequently that they have fallen into the penalty, as in the law As often, Code on judgments, with what is noted there, Digest, law on official cognizance, to which makes what is noted by the Archdeacon, in the chapter final Canons, under the word adjudged, on the office of the ordinary, book 6. Perhaps this is not true because, since the sentence must be conformable to the libel, and this is not petitioned in the libel, it does not seem that it can [be], as in the chapter In what way, on accusations, and [the] Digest, in those things where the party has a penalty, and perhaps such things do not come from the office of the judge because odious things are to be restricted.

¶ On citations. 15.

Note that where someone is cited to a place not safe, they can appeal, and if they do not seek a safe place, [chapter] On the part, with what is noted there, by Innocent IV, on appeals. Safer, however, the party will do if they send an excuse to allege about the place not being safe, and if their exception or excuse is not admitted, then from the repulsion of the excuse or the exception about the place not being safe, they will be able to appeal, as is said in the similar [text] that where a judge is recused, the recusation ought to be proposed before the judge first, and the recusation being proposed, if the judge proceeds, he can be appealed, as noted by Innocent IV in the chapter Causa, under the word is therefore better, on the office of the delegate, of the golden rule: the party seeking to have assigned to them a safe place, and if it is denied, they ought to appeal, of which speak as by the Archdeacon in the chapter Venerabilibus, under the word not proved, on sentences, book 6, and the Curia holds this. And this is where the cause of recusation would be a suspected place, because in it dwell the enemies of the king, not as the chapter Acceding, so that the suit is not obstructed, and the chapter Pastoral, on things adjudged, and the chapter When the place, on betrothals, and there the gloss under the word notorious.

¶ On sentence, thing adjudged. 16.

Note that a sentence is not vitiated by witnesses not being published, if appeal was made from the non-publication, or if publication was sought by the party, as noted by Innocent IV in the chapter With J. and A., under the word published, on things adjudged.

¶ On actions. 17.

Note that a prelate cannot act for damage given to his subject if he says it concerns him, but the subject can act for his own [benefit], as noted by Innocent IV in the chapter Dilect, under the word city, on appeals, with what is noted in the chapter It happens, on sentences, and there according to one opinion, that the judge in an action for injuries ought not to have regard for the damage, because that comes through the action of the Aquilian law.

¶ On regular proctors. 18.

Note that a monk and other religious, in cases in which they can act and be convened, can make proctors in their own name, as noted by Innocent IV in the chapter With R. and A., on things adjudged, and there note that such persons, when there is utility for the church, can intervene even for a layman, nor would the party be heard if they alleged that there is no utility for the church, because it does not concern a private person to seek or to know the necessity of the monastery, but it only concerns the abbot and convent; see in the Clementines Religious, on proctors.

¶ On unions. 19.

Note that the reservation of the Pope does not impede a union being made by the ordinary, and the reason is because a union concerns the property of the benefice, and the Pope's collation, which is done because of the reservation, concerns the fruits of the benefice, and therefore the union holds, although the effect of the union is suspended by the Pope's reservation for that time for which he confers the benefice, not the property of the benefice, as is said in the similar [text] in the chapter 1, on causes of possession, in the Clementines, by Johannes Andreae in the chapter Dispensing, on judgments. And from this it is said that a reservation following a union made by the ordinary impedes the effect of the union, provided that in the collation made by the Pope of such a reserved benefice, no mention is made of the union which precedes, because the perpetual union is not taken away, but its effect is deferred, as the chapter Know, on elections, book 5, arguing from the law With so, Digest on obligations, and what is led, and provided that the union be made because of a necessary cause, that cause or its effect is deferred by the act of the prince supervening, as law final, Digest on municipal [matters]. Also, such necessity is deferred to time and not perpetually, where it does not seem absurd, although the note of the Archdeacon in the chapter No one, on elections, book 6, might seem to do against this, because of all things mention must be made, otherwise the impetration does not hold, but this does not obstruct, because the reservation is made by the Pope motu proprio [of his own motion], and thus subreption ought not to be alleged, as the chapter If by motion, on prebends, book 6. And on the matter of unions, see the aforementioned decisions 160, 165, 167, 27, 254, 275, 375, 452, and 464. And that a legate a latere can unite a parish church to a dignity, see the aforementioned decisions 459 and 611.

¶ On dispensations. 20.

Note that a bishop can transfer a monk to a secular benefice, so that such a benefice be united to the monastery of the monks and ruled by a monk, as noted by the Archdeacon in the chapter With, on benefices, on prebends, book 6. But what if in this case, if the bishop, while uniting such a secular benefice to the monastery of the monks, enacts that the benefice shall be ruled by monks, but nevertheless does not expressly dispense upon the transfer of the monks serving in the said secular benefice, whether such a union is valid, since in the dispensation in the union no mention is made? And it seems that it is not valid, [based on] the chapter Cannot, on prebends, book 6, in the end, with