Juris feudalis conclusiones aliquot miscellaneae, quas, divina asspirante clementia, in celeberrima Basiliensi Academia pro summo in utroque jure gradu obtinendo

The woman not succeeding, ought to prove it.

Thus says Laudensis in paragraph "in between the daughter," if of a fief defended; and Alciatus, conclusion 3, volume 3; and Rolandus a Valle, conclusion 1, volume 1, simply say that when a granddaughter through a brother is in possession, the agnate would be held to prove it is a feudum. b) Such that she is not capable; b) Text in paragraph "what therefore," and all there; most recently Frid. Schenck on Investment of a thing made alien, although Alvarottus doubts there; it seems to be founded on the fact that against one who is unable to act, prescription does not run. Law 1, Code on Annual exception. I said chapter 9, question 13 and chapter 10, question [106].

XIII
As long as the vasallus vassal possesses, the prescription of a servitude, or other burden imposed by him, does not run against the Lord, or the agnati relatives on the father's side, before the succession was deferred to them, unless it is immemorial. Which certainly ought to be accepted concerning that where neither the agnate nor the Lord could prove by any reason that the thing had been free.

XIV
In the revocation of an illicitly alienated feudum, the agnates are preferred to the lord, and the agnates to the son, unless it is also a new one by agreement and provision; for that returns indistinctly to the lord. But for the sake of debating, I will defend the same in an ancient hereditary one.

They say this obtained before the constitutions of Lothair and Frederick. Per text in paragraph "Furthermore," how once; and in paragraph "likewise, if there were," by what methods the fief is lost (but certainly that place is later, is doubtful, and Alvarottus and more sane ones understand [mostly] that it would be the same, saying even if he left a son, for all speak of a new fief); and per text in paragraph "this also," on the succession of the fief; and paragraph "but also," by whom investment is made, where by fraud a sub-enfeoffment was made; and the text seems to be in chapter 1, in the beginning, on another feudal father, which texts they say are not expressly found corrected, therefore they will stand. Raynerius in paragraph "if someone," major number 30, on commonly, chapter 9, question 105 and following. d) Cited chapter 9, question 103 and 104. e) Per chapter 1, on the prohibition of alienation by Frederick and Lothair; and paragraph "final," what was the prior cause. See the authorities, cited question 105, in letter C.

XV
The Lord, however, and the agnates are excluded by a buyer in good faith for the space of 30 years from the revocation of an illicitly alienated feudum; I understand this concerning the agnates to whom the right of revoking was already open; for I believe that prescription does not run for others before the succession is deferred to them, just as it does not run for those not yet born.

XVI
The Lord can never, even in cases in which by law it is committed, deprive a vassal by his own authority, but will await the sentence of a Judge depriving him, or a declaratory one.

XVII
There is a vehement dispute: whether where a feudum is lost by operation of law, if the lord has not complained during his lifetime, his heir can deprive the vassal; and I think it is to be defended that he can, as it seems to be more received.

f) Cited chapter 9, question 125 and question 132, where also seeing those holding the contrary, per chapter 1, on the prohibition of feudal alienation by Frederick.
g) Cited chapter 9, question 120, with following.
h) Thus see chapter 10, question 95 in my Synopsis, and following there.
i) Cited chapter 10, question 106 and 107.