Title XLIII: On Arbitrators

Latin source headnote: Arbitrators are to be chosen in an odd number, and, when they disagree, the sentence of the greater part stands.

From the African Council.

Certainly (And below: [cf. c. 3, On the Competent Forum, II.2.]) But if, by the common agreement of the bishops between whom the case is pending, they choose arbitrators, let either one or three be chosen, so that, if they choose three, they are to follow the sentence either of all or of two.

Latin source headnote: An arbitral award or arbitral decision containing a sin which cannot be remitted by the parties is null.

Alexander III to the Archbishop of York.

Textual note: The source's evident typographical prebyterum has been corrected to presbyterum.

Not without great necessity and danger to his body, the priest A., bearer of the present letters, wearied by the journey to the Apostolic See, alleged to us in a manifold complaint that, when he had been instituted as chaplain in the church of Saint Alfrid of N. by the hand of R., archdeacon and canon of Suella, the person of that church, after the death of that same R., M., his nephew, who succeeded him in the already-mentioned church, again appointed that priest as chaplain there for greater security. During their times, he asserts that he held the chaplaincy of that church peacefully for thirty years and more.

But at last the same M., wishing to remove that priest from the same church, began to make undue exactions upon him, and a certain man of his, coming out near his house, laid violent hands upon him; and that same M. himself endeavoured to circumvent him so that he should not delay in yielding the aforesaid chaplaincy in return for five marks of silver, which that same M. also promised that he would pay him annually in the name of a pension. But when the aforesaid priest was unwilling to execute his will, the aforesaid M. is said to have done so much that, after many injuries and burdens had been inflicted upon him and all his other things had been seized, he was despoiled of office and benefice.

And when that priest, still living in exile outside your province, could not obtain justice concerning his benefice through you, at last, because, as he asserts, he was pressed by many necessities and could no longer endure his poverty, an oath was extorted from him through the craft and fraud of M. himself, that he would accept and observe the award of two clerics concerning the matter. Favouring the already-mentioned M., they commanded that priest that he should receive only five marks from him and yield the entire claim. Therefore, because it is in no way fitting for you to permit what they wrongly awarded to be left uncorrected, we command your fraternity by apostolic writings that you earnestly admonish and induce the aforesaid clerics so that, if they recognize that they made so wicked an award in this matter, you are wholly to absolve the already-mentioned priest from observance of the oath by our authority; or, if you know the award itself to rest upon equity, you are to compel both parties to its observance, appeal being removed.

Latin source headnote: An arbitrator chosen in a cleric's patrimonial cause cannot adjudge property of the church to be possessed, even for the life of the cleric. It says this, and it is a noteworthy case.

The same to the Bishop of Exeter.

It has reached us that, when the cleric W. of Calestin was of minor age, G. of Cal. took the sister of the same cleric G. as wife, and the same G. affirmed by the pledging of faith that he would give five shillings sterling to him annually. Hence, when afterward a controversy had arisen between them concerning the same five shillings, they submitted to four persons, who made an award between them in such a way that the same G. would receive annually, in place of the aforesaid five shillings, the tithes belonging to him and to his peasants which the aforesaid G. is known to have in the parish of Cal. Therefore, because an award of this kind could hereafter prove pernicious to the church of the already-mentioned place, and neither the aforesaid W. nor those persons to whom the matter had been submitted ought in any way to have done this to the damage of the church, we command your fraternity by apostolic writings that you diligently inquire into the truth of the matter and, if you find it to be so, you are diligently to admonish the above-named G., and compel him by ecclesiastical coercion, to leave the aforesaid tithes entirely free to the church of which he is a parishioner, every pretext and appeal being removed, and not presume to claim anything further for himself on an occasion of this kind. But you are to admonish the above-mentioned cleric that he should endeavour to reach an amicable and peaceful agreement with the same G.

Latin source headnote: A submission cannot be made to an individual woman as arbitress; it is otherwise if a woman otherwise possesses jurisdiction by the common law or by custom. For then a valid submission can be made to her even concerning the temporal things of a church. This states the rule clearly.

Innocent III to the Chancellor and Master Loth., Canon of Paris.

Textual note: The source's evident typographical comtemptores has been corrected to contemptores.

Our beloved sons the Abbot and Convent of Scarduna of the Cistercian Order showed us in their complaint that, when a question was pending between them on the one side and our beloved sons the Hospitallers of Ceresiers in the diocese of Sens on the other concerning the right of use in a certain wood at Oscha, which is called Fagetum, and the territory of the valley of Morini, a submission was made on both sides to our dearest daughter in Christ, A., the illustrious Queen of the French. After hearing the allegations on both sides and more fully understanding the merits of the case, with the counsel of very many bishops and other prudent men, she judged that the award should be promulgated by definitive sentence, and caused it, reduced to writing, to be confirmed by her own seal and the seals of the bishops who were present. The Hospitallers do not fear rashly to act against her sentence.

Although, according to a rule of the civil law, women are removed from public offices of this kind, and it is said elsewhere that, even though they are of the highest reputation and most excellently established, if they undertake an arbitration themselves, or if patronesses interpose a hearing among their freedmen, they are to be excluded from every judicial examination, so that from their pronouncement no penalty may be had against those who rightly contemn them, and no exception based on the agreement; nevertheless, because according to an approved custom which is observed as law in the regions of Gaul, pre-eminent women of this kind are known to possess ordinary jurisdiction over their subjects, we command your discretion by apostolic writings that you take care to admonish and induce the aforesaid Hospitallers to observe that award—especially since it was reinforced by the presence and counsel of bishops—as it was providently pronounced without depravity and willingly received by each party, and, if necessary, you are to compel them to this by the penalty established in the submission, appeal being set aside. [But the witnesses, etc. Given at the Lateran, on the second day before the Nones of November, in the fifth year of our pontificate, 1202.]

Latin source headnote: An exempt church cannot make a submission to arbitration to the prejudice of its exemption. This states the rule, and clearly.

The same to the Abbot and Convent of Pigravia.

When, in the time of Pope C. of good memory, our predecessor, you, son abbot, had come to the Roman curia, you merited to obtain a privilege and other writings from the Apostolic See, [and, as we have received from you, when you had returned to your own region, you caused the said privilege and other writings to be faithfully recited in the presence of your brothers and certain canons of Merseburg who had come there in defence of certain monks. When our venerable brother the Bishop of Merseburg learned this, he announced and wrote to the emperor that you had come to the Roman Church against the honour of the empire and had obtained a privilege to its prejudice. Moved by this, the emperor summoned you to his court and ordered the privilege to be presented to him; having received it, he afterward refused to return it to you. And while you felt yourself aggrieved in these and other matters through the bishop, after interposing an appeal you visited the Apostolic See. When letters of commission had been obtained from it through messengers, the judges cited the parties, intending to proceed in that case according to the form of the apostolic mandate. But while these things were being done, our venerable brother the Archbishop of Magdeburg, at the petition of the aforesaid bishop and by imperial mandate, removed you, suspended from office and benefice, from the administration of the monastery and assigned its care to two knights.]

Hence, fearing that danger would come upon the abbey, since danger also threatened you, concerning the controversies pending between you and the Bishop of Merseburg and certain of your monks, with faith pledged on both sides into the archbishop's hands, you promised that you would observe the award of the Archbishop of Magdeburg. And thus it happened that the archbishop himself, associating with himself both clerics and laymen, [among whom was also the imperial seneschal,] promulgated an award under a certain form.

[After these things, coming again to Rome, you took care diligently to explain to that same predecessor of ours the things which had been done. We ourselves, when we were placed in a lesser office, and our beloved sons I., Cardinal Priest of the title of Saint Stephen on the Caelian Hill, and I., Cardinal Priest of the title of Saint Prisca, were appointed auditors for you and your adversary, the custodian of Merseburg, proctor of the said bishop. At last, after hearing the things which the parties judged should be alleged, with the parties' assent the case was committed under a certain form to delegated judges, namely, that they should inquire diligently into everything, except that they should reserve entirely for examination by the Apostolic See the investigation of the liberty of that monastery together with two chapels.

Therefore, when the delegated judges had summoned the parties into their presence by apostolic authority, the aforesaid bishop alleged that those delegates were suspect to him and assigned multiple causes of suspicion. Thereafter also, wishing to evade their judgment, he appealed to the Apostolic See; but, having afterward returned before them, he gave the oath against calumny, produced witnesses, and requested and obtained adjournments. Therefore those judges, proceeding in the case, after hearing the arguments of both parties and understanding them more fully, sent all the proceedings, strengthened by the protection of their seals, to the Apostolic See, imposing a term upon the parties on which they were to present themselves personally before the apostolic presence to receive sentence.

You came to that term personally, while the bishop sent on his behalf our beloved sons H., canon of Merseburg, and B., scholasticus of Saint Nicholas of Merseburg, as representatives. They said that the proceedings which the delegates had transmitted ought neither to be published nor any faith at all be given to them, since they had been received and recorded both by suspect judges and after an appeal had lawfully been interposed. Your party petitioned to the contrary, especially because, as it firmly asserted, the aforesaid messengers did not have capacity to stand in court, since they were excommunicated, and it had been enjoined upon the bishop under penalty of suspension that he should come in his own person to conduct the case. Since he had not done so, he had incurred the penalty of suspension. The aforesaid messengers alleged that, because of illness and old age, he could not come personally to the Roman Church, denying the other things which had been objected against them.

On behalf of the bishop they represented the affair in this way: since you had received the abbey and the priesthood from him as from your prelate, as you had confessed in court, because of your depraved manner of life you began to be sued by the monks concerning many enormities. The bishop frequently restored peace and concord among them, admonishing you to pass to the fruit of a better life. But when, because of the things which you continually did, the brothers now had no hope at all of your correction, they alleged against you in synod concerning dilapidation that you voluptuously consumed the goods of the monastery assigned for the uses of the poor, that because of a lack of necessities religious life was wholly perishing there, and they also assailed you concerning sacrilege, simony, and many other crimes, sometimes before the bishop and sometimes in the presence of the cardinal. The bishop endured you for so long that he was said to deny justice to the monks.

When afterward you had been cited by the bishop, you sent a messenger who appealed concerning every grievance which could be inflicted upon you by a sentence of the archbishop. But when neither you nor a messenger came to the archbishop, the archbishop himself judged that no deference at all should be paid to an appeal made so generally to the prejudice of the church. Therefore the bishop, having taken the counsel of prudent men, cited you again and suspended you from office and benefice. Meanwhile our beloved son I., Cardinal Priest of the title of Saint Stephen on the Caelian Hill, then legate of the Apostolic See, arrived and came to the said abbey in order to compose matters between you and the aforesaid monks. But while you were hiding in neighbouring villages and Master Ulric was making allegations, the said cardinal confirmed the sentence of suspension pronounced against you.

Thus, coming secretly to Rome, with the truth concealed you obtained letters of commission and, under the appearance of renewal, a privilege which you had never possessed before. And when the delegated judges were suspect to the bishop and the monks, from whom they could not obtain even one day's adjournment, after an appeal had been interposed by the bishop's messengers, immediately when the surreptitious privilege was read, the parties transmitted their messengers to the Apostolic See. With their assent the case was at last committed to other judges under a certain form, as is contained in the letters of commission. But when not all of them could take part in the examination of the case because of the excessive distance, our beloved son the Abbot of Goizoche, together with our venerable brothers the said archbishop and the Bishops of Bamberg and Meissen and very many prelates of churches, restored peace and concord between the bishop, you, and the monks.

But, coming secretly again to the Roman Church and alleging many things against the monks and the bishop, you obtained letters of commission to two of those judges whom we said above were suspect to the bishop and from whom that bishop had recently appealed through messengers. When they would not admit the bishop's just exceptions, which he wished to prove immediately, he appealed to the Apostolic See. But while they nevertheless proceeded in the case, he came to them against his will, fearing that his justice would perish. When, after other things which the judges had done on their own initiative, they fixed a term for publication of the attestations, when the parties came only one of the judges appeared, together with a messenger of the other, who neither had letters for the others nor wished to give security that his principal had committed his functions to the judge present. Thus it happened that the Provost of Naumburg alone, although three seals were affixed, recorded the proceedings which were sent to the Apostolic See. Hence they said that no faith at all ought to be given to them, both because the instrument containing the report of those judges was defective on its face and because it was issued by one whom they say was bound by many bonds of excommunication.

But you firmly asserted that almost all the foregoing allegations made on behalf of the bishop lacked truth. Because, however, the aforesaid bishop, in that he gave the oath against calumny, sought adjournments from the delegates, and produced witnesses before them, appears to have renounced the appeal and consented to their examination, we, after taking the counsel of our brothers, ruled upon the aforesaid incidental question that the things transacted before the aforesaid judges ought to be published, so that our sentence might at last be framed according to their tenor.]

We therefore gave to you and the proctors of the aforesaid bishop our venerable brother O., Bishop of Ostia, and our beloved son P., Cardinal Priest of the title of Saint Cecilia, as auditors. And when they had faithfully reported to us and our brothers the things alleged and shown on both sides, because it was lawfully established both through confessions and through attestations that, with faith given on both sides, a submission was made to the aforesaid archbishop and also to certain others, we, with the counsel of our brothers, decree that the award pronounced by him is to be observed, excepting only those articles expressed in the award which are contrary to the liberty of that monastery and its two chapels. For, even if you wished it voluntarily, you nevertheless could not by law, without the permission of the Roman Pontiff, renounce privileges or indulgences of liberty which indicate that monastery to pertain to the right and ownership of the Roman Church, especially since in the last letters of commission it is expressly contained that our [often-mentioned] predecessor willed that no prejudice should be generated for you or your successors, or even for the monastery and two chapels of Pigravia, from the renunciation which you made concerning the privilege and other writings. [Given at Rome, at Saint Peter's, on the third day before the Ides of July, 1198.]

Latin source headnote: An arbitrator does not have power to judge beyond the matters comprised in the submission; therefore no counterclaim is made before him.

The same to the Bishop of Saint Andrews and the Abbot of Bechot.

When our beloved son [the abbot and canons of Cambuskenneth had, by authority of our letters, drawn our beloved sons the abbot and monks of Dunfermline in the diocese of Saint Andrews into a lawsuit before our venerable brother [name omitted], Bishop of Dublin, and our beloved sons [name omitted], Abbot of Coupar, and [name omitted], Abbot of Scone, of the same diocese, concerning certain tithes pertaining to their church of Eccles and damages and injuries inflicted; and those monks had sued the same abbot and canons by our delegation before our beloved sons [name omitted], Prior of Holyrood, and [name omitted], Dean of Tyninghame, of the aforesaid diocese, and you, son official, concerning the chapel of Dunipace and the tithes pertaining to it, each party, after multiple allegations and altercations, made a submission to you, so that, proceeding in those matters according to the order of law, you would terminate those controversies, concerning both possession and ownership, by judgment or agreement, appeal being set aside. Confirming this by a corporal oath, they affirmed that whatever two of you together with you, brother bishop, should judge ought to be established concerning these things, if you all could not agree together, they would hold ratified and firmly observe, and that they would not impede the arbitral proceeding by fraud or malice.

Therefore, after hearing the allegations on both sides, receiving the witnesses, and publishing their depositions, because you were in doubt concerning four articles, you transmitted the instructed case into our presence, imploring an oracle of the Apostolic See concerning those four doubtful matters. The first question arose before you from the fact that, when the canons sued the monks concerning the aforesaid tithes, the monks wished to sue those canons concerning certain other tithes, although no submission had been made to you concerning them. For the monks' party asserted that, according to lawful enactments, one who is sued before someone can sue the same person before that same judge.] Hence you petitioned that whether there is a place for a counterclaim before arbitrators be explained through the Apostolic See. [But the second, etc. (cf. c. 9, On the Reliability of Instruments, II.23).] We therefore respond to your discretion concerning the first article in this way: although in a judicial proceeding the person who is sued before a judge can counterclaim against the claimant, nevertheless he cannot counterclaim before arbitrators, since arbitrators cannot judge except concerning only those things about which a submission was made to them. [As to the second, etc. (cf. c. 9, On the Reliability of Instruments, II.23). Given at the Lateran, on the thirteenth day before the Kalends of April, in the tenth year, 1207.]

Textual note: The Latin Library transcription represents five omitted personal names with Ö. Friedberg likewise prints blank-name markers; they are explicitly identified as omitted names above rather than conjecturally supplied. The transcription's fruerit has also been corrected to Friedberg's fuerit.

Latin source headnote: One who is bound by an award to elect with the counsel of certain persons is bound to seek their counsel in the deliberation concerning the election, but is not constrained to follow it.

The same to the Rector and Brothers of the Hospital of Saint Bartholomew of Lucca.

When formerly a question was pending concerning the election of a rector and brothers in your hospital between you and our beloved son the Prior of the church of Saint Bartholomew of Lucca, before the Prior of Saint Fridianus and the primicerius of Saint Martin of Lucca, judges delegated by the Apostolic See, and each party, making a submission to them, promised that it would observe their award, and those judges determined that a certain award should be pronounced, a doubt arose on both sides concerning the award pronounced by them, which you petitioned to be clarified through the Apostolic See. We therefore, having diligently inspected the public instrument containing the award, recognized that, according to the form of the award, the Prior of Saint Bartholomew of Lucca is bound to take counsel with the household of that hospital and to deliberate with it concerning finding a rector; but, whether the household agrees or disagrees with that prior, the same prior ought in either case to elect the rector. For this reason we say that, unless the prior has deliberated with the household of the hospital concerning finding a rector and has sought its counsel, he does not have power to elect the rector, and, if he elects him in another manner, his election ought to be regarded as void and empty. But, after counsel has been taken with the household concerning this and deliberation held concerning finding a rector, the prior himself can freely elect a rector, provided only that he is suitable, whether the household agrees or disagrees with him concerning the selection of the rector. [But lest, etc. Given at Sora, on the fourth day before the Nones of August, in the eleventh year of our pontificate, 1208.]

Latin source headnote: A submission concerning spiritual matters cannot be made to a layman.

The same in the General Council.

It sometimes happens that, when to a claimant (And below: [cf. c. 9, On Fraud and Contumacy, II.14.]) For this purpose we generally prohibit a submission concerning spiritual matters from being made to a layman, because it is not fitting for a layman to arbitrate in such matters.

Latin source headnote: By authority even of a delegated judge, a submission concerning a spiritual cause can be made to a cleric and a layman; and, if the award has been accepted by the parties, it ought to be committed to execution by them, although the submission was made through a general proctor. But if the award was not approved and a penalty was added, an action lies for the penalty; otherwise, for the interest. This states the rule generally by adhering to the letter.

The same to the Archbishop of Pisa.

You informed us by your letters that, when you had received letters from us concerning execution of an award pronounced between the Hospitallers of Saint John and the pleban of Pescia concerning the hospital of Saint Allucius, when the parties had appeared in your presence, the Hospitallers sought execution of the award from you, asserting that it ought to be observed because the pleban's proctor voluntarily made a submission to the arbitrators after interposing an oath, since he said that he had received power to make a submission and settlement concerning that business. The pleban alleged to the contrary that he gave the aforesaid proctor a general mandate to conduct the case; nevertheless, he did not mandate him to make a submission or settlement concerning it without his special mandate; and, moreover, the aforesaid proctor had not been appointed with the assent of his canons. And therefore he said that the award was invalid, especially since the proctor had exceeded the limits of the mandate and the award had been promulgated by one cleric and two laymen, although they had pronounced the award with the assent of our venerable brother the Archbishop of Genoa, to whom the case had been committed.

Hence, when doubt had arisen concerning these matters, you petitioned to be instructed by an oracle of the Apostolic See how you should proceed concerning that business. Concerning this we respond to your fraternity in this way: if the award was accepted on behalf of the pleban, it ought to be held ratified without distinction and thereby committed to execution according to the tenor of the apostolic mandate. But if it was not accepted, it matters whether or not a penalty was established for observing it. And indeed, if a penalty was added in the submission, an action can be brought for the penalty. But if no penalty was established, but a submission was made simply that the sentence would be obeyed, the proctor can be sued for the interest, because by his oath he could bind himself personally, but not the church. That it is said to have been pronounced by two laymen and one cleric appears in no way to stand in the way, since it was done by authority of the said archbishop, to whom the cause concerning which the submission is said to have been made had been delegated.

Latin source headnote: If two persons elected in discord to the same prelacy make a submission to the ordinary, the submission expires upon the death of one of those making it; the ordinary nevertheless proceeds by ordinary power concerning the right of the survivor before passage is made to another election. This states the rule.

Honorius III to the Archbishop of Cologne.

It was intimated to our ears on your behalf that, when the provostship of Saint Cunibert in Cologne was vacant, the canons of that church, disagreeing on the day fixed for the election concerning the appointment of a provost for themselves, divided their votes between two, namely H. of Jülich and C. of Lombardy. When afterward deliberation was held concerning an election of this kind and the parties had appeared in your presence, they at last took care, after pledging faith, to make a submission to you concerning this. After diligently inspecting and ascertaining the merits of the case, with their assent you fixed a day for pronouncing a definitive sentence. Meanwhile, however, after the aforesaid H., elected by one party, had been removed from their midst, you took care to forbid the above-mentioned canons to proceed to make another election while your sentence was pending; some of them nevertheless elected B. of Ahrberg, canon of Cologne. Therefore, on the day when the sentence ought to have been pronounced, when the parties had appeared in your presence and the aforesaid C. petitioned that you pronounce a definitive sentence, the said B., to the contrary, alleged that you ought not to proceed further.

Therefore, to you, who humbly petition to be instructed by us, we respond briefly that, although the arbitration was ended by the death of H. himself, nevertheless you ought first to have taken cognizance of the merits of the first election before a proceeding was made to the second. For if perhaps the said C., who survives, has a right in the election concerning which the submission to you was made, it is established that the second election is wholly invalid. [On the fourteenth day before the Kalends of July, in the second year, 1218.]

Latin source headnote: An arbitrator chosen after a matter has been adjudged, concerning new disputes, cannot alter the sentence by his award, even if he received a mandate from the Pope to compose matters between the parties.

The same to the Bishop-elect and the Abbot of Saint Zeno and C., Canon of Verona.

The petition of our beloved son O., Bishop-elect of Feltre and Belluno, presented to us contained that, when the case which formerly was pending between his predecessor of good memory on the one side and the citizens of Treviso on the other concerning the district, jurisdiction, and other matters had been terminated by the sentence of our venerable brother the Bishop of Ostia, then legate of the Apostolic See, and the predecessor of that bishop-elect had for a long time peacefully possessed the things adjudged to him by that legate, nevertheless the bishop-elect himself, having at last obtained the assent of his chapters, to the prejudice of his churches made a submission with the other party to the nobleman the Duke of the Venetians as arbitrator concerning certain disputes which seemed to have arisen on both sides. Acting contrary to that same sentence confirmed by apostolic authority, the duke, with equity set aside, promulgated an iniquitous award against the aforesaid churches concerning matters adjudged by that legate.

Although we sent our letters to that duke that he ought to labour to compose matters between the parties, nevertheless, since it was not our intention to alter that sentence or to stir up the complaints quieted by it, we command your discretion [by apostolic writings] that, notwithstanding the aforesaid letters, you revoke as void whatever you find to have been done by the award of the above-named duke against the sentence of that legate, strictly forbidding him to proceed further in the submission, and compelling him by ecclesiastical censure, appeal being set aside, to restore the hostages and a certain castle given to him on occasion of that submission so that his award would be observed. [Given at Rieti, on the eighth day before the Ides of September, in the tenth year, 1225.]

Latin source headnote: A submission made to two or more persons, with this added—that in a case of disagreement a third is to be chosen by them or by others—is invalid. This states the rule.

Gregory IX to the Dean and Master P., Canon of Saint Peter in the Diocese of Arras.

It became known to us from the complaint of the layman William that, when the layman O. sued him concerning a certain sum of money before judges by apostolic authority, a submission was at last made by the parties to two arbitrators, but in such a way that, if those two disagreed with one another, the named judges would add a third, nevertheless retaining for themselves the power to compel the parties to observe the award to be promulgated by the said arbitrators. And when a third arbitrator chosen by the aforesaid judges, together with one of the two, condemned him to the other party, he, feeling himself aggrieved by the often-mentioned judges because they were compelling him to observe an award of this kind, appealed to our hearing; but they, in contempt of the appeal, pronounced a sentence of excommunication against him. We therefore command that, if it is so, since it has been established by legal provision that a submission concerning an uncertain person to be assumed into the arbitration does not bind, you are to declare that sentence of excommunication to be wholly null.

Textual note: The Latin Library transcription's apellatione has been corrected to appellatione.

Latin source headnote: A submission made to one or more persons is valid so that they may decide the case by themselves or through others whom they themselves choose. This states the rule according to the understanding perceived by the gloss here and by Innocent in the preceding chapter, which pleases me. Panormitanus.

The same to the Abbess and Convent of Jouarre.

When it is sought from us (And below:) It was alleged on your behalf that, when formerly a question had arisen between you and the Archbishop of Sens because that archbishop, asserting that your monastery was subject to him by metropolitan right, exacted procurations and other things from you, at last, when a submission had concordantly been made by the parties to R., Cardinal Deacon of Saint Angelo, then legate of the Apostolic See, and it had been promised under a certain penalty that they would obey without qualification his award or ordinance, or that of two mediators whom he should appoint concerning this, Master P., our chaplain, and I., Archdeacon of Sens, mediators appointed concerning this by that legate, terminated a cause of this kind by ordaining and deciding it. We therefore confirm by apostolic authority what was done concerning this by the aforesaid mediators.

Latin source headnote: A submission is ended before sentence is pronounced by the death of either of those making the submission; hence it does not pass to their heirs unless provision concerning them was made in the submission. It says this by comprehending the meaning of the chapter.

The same.

A submission does not extend to the heirs of the person making it if provision concerning them is not made there.