[Decretales]

but a privilege does not take away any privilege unless mention is made in the second. Concerning the first, "de rescriptis," "veniens," F. He who petitioned that the case be committed, but petitioned common law with the appeal removed, nor did he make mention of the privilege of the opposite party. And the apostolic letters are valid, because the special mandate derogates from the general. And so, whether you say that those letters were a privilege or that the common law was not made known, this solution is necessary, namely, that this person who petitioned that he could generally appeal, petitioned according to the law, which, as the letters come, does not derogate from the general.

...that this person who was hoping was one who, because of his own crime or fault, could not appeal, because it had been forbidden to him to appeal. Whence, he is restored by the indulgence of the see. And it is in the end, C. "de inofficioso testamento," "si quando." And thus it ought to be understood rather that the matter should be valid than that it should perish, as in "de privilegiis," "in hiis," and "de sig.," "abbate," and "ff. de re dubia," "quotiens." But if such an indulgence emanates that he may freely appeal, it seems that the prince does not grant anything except that he should have the accustomed and legitimate power of appealing, as the aforementioned law says, "si quando." And thus we do not write anything. Or it is forbidden that only the law is indulged to this one for caution, because they are accustomed to be maintained...

his appeal in this part ought not to be admitted after the case has been committed to the judges, with the appeal removed, because a special mandate derogates from the general. X Item, to the Archbishop of Canterbury...

Since special.

"de officio legati," "studuisti," and "de eodem," "pastoralis." Regarding the revocation of rescripts or letters of the Lord Pope, it is distinguished thus: firstly, concerning letters that are petitioned by common law for contentious litigation, if the first petition was general and the second was made special by the adversary, the second is valid and not the first. So that in the specification of the generality, it has not yet been done, as the letters "de eodem," "pastoralis," which today must be done even in the first citation, "de eodem," "cum in multis," whether mention is made in the second of the first or not. Because a special mandate... But if the first is special and the second is general, the same law applies, because the special is valid, "de eodem," "abbate." If, however, the first is special and the second is special, if the second makes explicit mention of the first, then the second is valid and not the first, "de eodem," "cetera," "de re iudicata," "inf monasterium," "de officio delegati," "coram," and chapter "per alias," if it does not make mention, the first would be valid by the aforementioned laws. And this is to be understood in business already begun by citation and presentation having been made, as "de bonis," "de appellationibus," "ut debitus," in the end of that note, and in that note, but when... If, however, neither the first nor the second is presented to the judge, and it could well have been presented, then that which was first presented to the judge is valid. And so the other can forestall the one first petitioning, even if in the second no mention is made of the first, "de appellationibus," "ut debitus." If, however, the first petitioner could not present his letters to the judge, they will be valid up to a year. And in this canon, we can still save those laws, "de eodem," "si autem," and chapter "plerumque," provided that it was publicly presented, since it did not stand by him that he should not use his letters, "de officio ordinarii," "pastoralis," in the end. And you have it well that the protestation should precede, "de appellationibus," chapter last, and "de electione," chapter last, ... if it had not been presented, the second would be valid if they are exhibited to the judge, and at least it should proceed to citation. But if they were exhibited to the judge at first and he cited, and he could not afterwards have the copy of the judge, the same is to be said for one year, that he ought to be expected after a year, but afterwards the second are valid, nor ought the first judges to wait longer lest litigations become immortal. And because prejudice is done to him who does not possess in the waiting. Or it can be sufficiently said that those two laws, "si autem" and "plerumque," are drawn to that distinction, "ut debitus," but it is the sentence of the Pope upon the decree "cetera," "de eodem," that an end may be imposed upon litigations, "de donationibus et rerum," "fine," and chapter "venerabilis," section "appellatio," "cordi nobis," and "C. de iudiciis," "properandum," in the beginning. In letters that are petitioned for appeals, one must stand by those laws, "de appellationibus," "sepe," and chapter "oblate," and "de officiis," "uti vel inuti," "bone," or in other questions promulgated upon appeals concerning privileges, thus you say that if the second privilege does not make mention of the first, the first is valid and not the second, "de prebendis," "veniens," this is plain. If, however, the first rescript is petitioned by common law through a privilege or through privileged persons, the first is not valid unless it makes mention of the privilege, because it was obtained by concealing the truth, which speaks thus, "de eodem," title "cum ordinem." If, however, the first rescript was petitioned by the consent of the priors and the other party petitioned that the case be committed to other judges, concealing that consent, and if mention is made in the second of the aforesaid, the second are not valid, and the first petitioner ought to be condemned in expenses, "de eodem," title "cetera," "de re iudicata," "inf monasterium," "de officio delegati," "coram." In petitioning benefits, if different letters are petitioned by different persons from different churches, and if in the second no mention is made of the aforesaid, that one only is valid who will obtain that benefit who first presented his letters, "de eodem," title "capitulum sancte crucis" and "de eodem," "abbate." To this contributes, "de appellationibus," "ut debitus." Others, however, say...

if, however, in the second mention is made of the aforesaid, they will keep the form of the second letters, by analogy, "de eodem," "cum dilecta." If many other letters are petitioned for obtaining many benefits in many churches, then in the others no mention is made of the others, they are not valid, but the second is valid if he is accepted for the first, unless he makes explicit mention of his acceptance, as "de eodem," "in decretali," "quicquid," "in nostram." Also, if he petitioned the first and from them obtained some pensions, renouncing the benefit of the letters, if he afterwards petitioned others, if by concealing the truth they are not valid, "de eodem," "ad audientiam," that decree, "de filiis presbyterorum," "ex tua," not, it is said well. But these things have been said because there the first letters contained an indulgence that he...

rely on them. We command that having inspected the letters which we directed to the aforementioned bishop, if he finds that we wrote to him in the aforementioned manner, and in the letters which the aforementioned F. presented no mention was made, you confirm the sentence of the aforesaid bishop according to the tenor of the letters of the aforesaid F., and you, having taken the aforementioned F. with our letters which he brought to you, either satisfy the mandate or appeal.

To the Bishop of Provencher or similar, unless it has been intimated to our ears that when the case of G. and F., clerks, regarding the prebend of Noual, was known, he held to the same F. according to the tenor of our letters, if it were blocked that he was convicted of being private and had perpetually renounced that prebend, he is moved from it; that being known, having proven that he had adjudged the same prebend to himself, he broke forth into a vocal appeal, and you, Bishop, restored the prebend to him without cognition of the case; he brought back our letters, and... "Clerus quoniam," we do not believe we wrote so, and in such letters this condition is to be understood even if it is not added: "if the prayers be true."

He could dispense with the sons of priests. They were retaining the grace, but this is well said by law because if they were sons of priests they ought not to possess churches. And the first were general. You, however, say that the first had not been general in respect to the second, nor conversely. But the second was not valid because it did not make mention of the dispensation made by the previous letters regarding this, that those churches should proceed to those petitioning the second letters. But by law, it was pertinent regarding the sons of priests to be removed from the churches. And the first were general, and what was done by prayers is not revoked by the second, because they were petitioned by concealing the truth, he only concealed the dispensation made with those sons of priests. If, however, he had petitioned against others with whom it had not yet been dispensed, those letters would have been valid. "de officio delegati," "ex parte," it is not well said, and there it was interpreted that both were special, and because the first was there presented, and therefore the second was not valid, because it did not make mention of the first, or because it speaks of benefits, it is drawn to that, "de eodem," title "capitulum sancte crucis," because the Pope does not intend to aggrieve anyone in the reception of two, as "de eodem," title "mandatum," and chapter "literis," "de eodem," chapter "abbate." Regarding this, say... in that chapter "capitulum sancte crucis," Guilelmus Naso said that in letters of justice, only the presentation is considered, as "de appellationibus," "ut debitus," and "de eodem," title "capitulum sancte crucis." But in letters of benefits, the date was to be considered, as "de eodem," "cum te."

On behalf of the Provencher, and perpetually... concerning those, if the other is proven... and "de fideiussoribus," "provenit," in the end, and 7. Q. 1, "periculosum," "de restitutione spoliatorum," "accepta," so it seems that the aforesaid laws, 48. Di., chapter 1. But to the contrary, it seems the form of the emission, exact diligence ought to be observed, "de eodem," "cum dilecta," in the end, when the bishop does not play, but the delegates fulfill by authority. "ff. de officio eius cui mandata est iurisdictio," in the end, the praetor, and "de delegatis," "sane." Some say that both must be proven because of the conjunction "and" in those, "ff. de verborum obligationibus," "si quis ita," and "insti. de bere. iufti." original: "insti. de beredibus iustitutis", section "penultimum." I do not believe this, but I distinguish: if they are enjoined conjunctively, so that neither suffices by itself, but if both are proven, it suffices; to the remanding, both are to be proven, by analogy "de eodem," "olim," so that you begin there from the first, F., from the vice of falsity, as "de eodem," "inf ceteras." If such a one is a son of a priest, and born in priesthood, these two suffice if they are proven, S. "de verborum significatione," "cum accessissent." But if one by itself suffices to the remanding, it suffices if one is proven, even if they are mandatorily enjoined conjunctively, as these things, "de eodem," "inf ceteras." If they are enjoined conjunctively, and the conjunctive is put for the disjunctive, in "or," "ff. de verborum significatione," "sepe," 1 L., "coram" conjunction, and conversely, the disjunctive is put for the conjunctive, "ff. de verborum significatione," "cum quidam," and "de cond. di." 2, in the chalice near the end, and that plurality is to be resolved into singularity, "de prebendis," "cum tam dudum," "de privilegiis," "ut privilegia," and "de iudiciis," "exhibita," "de appellationibus," "significavit," where concerning this, "ff. de conditionibus et demonstrationibus," "de falsa," in the end, and 1, "de omnibus legibus," 1, all laws. Furthermore, the same reason that would move the delegator ought to move the delegate, "F. eodem," chapter "super literis," in the end. It would be wonderful if he remained in the church, if it were proven by jurors, even if the renunciation were not proven, or conversely. There was never mention of the Lord Pope for both.