[Decretales]

nevertheless, the sentence of those judges will hold. What is written original: "ius scriptum" also holds that if arbitrators have not pronounced original: "sententiaverint" contrary to written law, their sentence stands unless an appeal has been made, as in the sixth book original: "vi." of the Questions, under the section on distinctions. The reason is that by the wording of the letters, jurisdiction was given.

a Person or thing. Whoever seeks a thing ought to seek a certain thing. On this matter we shall speak below, in the title on libels, where the claimant is placed.

b Special. Obtained original: "impetrate" from elsewhere by those who could have been reached by general clauses against the first petitioner regarding the same case.

c Letters. But when can he who possesses original: "possidet" obtain [letters] regarding the same thing, since he cannot initiate an interdict of possessions original: "interdictum possessionum" since he himself is in possession? See below, in the title on judicial matters, as examined original: "examinata". Furthermore, if a vindication of a thing is made against the possessor, as in the Institutes on actions, you should say that the one who obtained original: "impetrans" obtained them so that he might act for the pretor original: "pretorio". Secondly, he obtained them so that he might not be disturbed regarding the possession of that thing which he possesses. For otherwise an action is given to the possessor so that he may not be ejected.

d Special. But it is clear that if one [rescript] is general and the other special, if the letters do not make mention of the general in the special, the special prevails, as above, in the same chapter. Where the special does not derogate from the general, because it makes no mention of it; the reason is given there: because the first is a privilege original: "privilegium", the second was common law. But common law does not abolish a privilege unless it makes mention of that privilege.

e Superfluous. In the case where the general mandate has been revoked.

f By substitution. And yours, regarding this case, is a sufficiently good question, and he resolves it immediately there, until jurisdiction is held.

g Jurisdiction. But what if the letter does not have the exercise [of power]? And thus it seems he cannot delegate to another. And it is absurd to delegate jurisdiction to another before one acquires it oneself. Or if he cannot cite parties before the expression of matters. Therefore, parties are cited and delays original: "inducie" are given so that one may deliberate. But in this case they cannot deliberate. Where a hospital is sought with all its appurtenances, he can send, but he does not have the exercise. Sending is what is good, but how do the judges obtain jurisdiction when the Pope does not intend to provide them? Also, would jurisdiction be revoked by the death of the delegate regarding persons not expressed? It is to be noted whether it is revoked by death or by word of mouth. But it is true that it is revoked by death regarding those things which are not expressed, as it does not close its bosom to the returning.

h Apostolic Church. But regarding what is liberal, if indeed he grants a grace original: "gratiam", he is held to it. Rather, when it is the command of the Gospel original: "evangelii", where there is necessity, there is no liberality. It can be said that what he does is grace, because all the ways of the Lord are mercy and truth, for where there is justice, mercy is applied.

i Lesser, yet baser. Are delegated, for from Jove is the beginning, the Muses are full of Jove, and reason must be brought forth from the head. Because the beginning is the most important part of any thing. And he who is of greater dignity must be preferred.

k Greater and worthier. Which persons shall we call greater and worthier? For I find that any cleric ought to hold dignity. Sometimes even slaves original: "mancipia" are said to hold dignity. Sometimes secular powers are said to hold dignity.

And if it can be deservedly said that until jurisdiction is revoked, the delegate holds it over the expressed articles of things or persons. But before persons or things are expressed, the delegate cannot exercise such jurisdiction.

The Apostolic See shows itself liberal to petitioners, but some abuse its grace wickedly. Therefore, We, wishing to oppose their malice, decree that when only lesser and baser persons are designated in our commissions, greater and worthier persons are not understood to be included under the general clause. Nor is it lawful, by occasion of such generalities, to summon such an unbridled multitude into judgment, nor should they be heard on greater and more serious matters than they make mention of regarding lesser and lighter matters. If anyone, however, has expressed certain persons, not because he wishes to proceed in judgment with them, but so that he may pass to their peers or lesser ones, because fraud and deceit should not protect him, he ought to be entirely deprived of what he has obtained.

dignity. Sometimes even the office of a teacher original: "doctoratus" is called a dignity. Also, shall we consider that seniority original: "maioritatem" of which we speak?

When greater and worthier persons are called, notable persons are meant, who cannot be contained under a general clause. Such must be those who would move the mind of the Prince to grant or deny the rescript. By reason of seniority original: "maioritatis", it is taken by some. Also, because regarding judgments, dignity is deferred to the person. It seems that through a general clause, a priest or cleric cannot be reached, since he himself is greater than any layman. Provided that the greater cleric is not designated or noted by a special name. And in this, the judge will also observe who should be called greater or lesser and what matters should be called greater or smaller, for no certain or more certain [rule] can be given.

On the Cantor original: "cantori" and the Prior original: "priori" of the Lepers.

You have made known to us that the priest R. of Collouill has obtained apostolic letters to other judges regarding the question which is held between him and the Abbot of Bec. When they had cited the adverse party, the priest did not wish to litigate before them. And when you wished to proceed in the investigation of the cause, the Abbot proposed to us that he was not bound to answer the priest through letters directed to you, since he had been cited by others through letters from different judges which had not been revoked by the authority of those [letters]. We, therefore, attending to the fraud of the mentioned priest, who obtained two commissions regarding the same business, of which one did not make mention of the other, because fraud and deceit ought not protect anyone, we decree that he be...