Title — Decretals of Gregory IX
Title III: On the Offering of the Complaint
Chapter I
Latin source headnote: The claimant is bound to present the complaint in writing. Or thus: the judge ought not to admit a claimant to litigate unless he first offers the complaint in writing. This is what it says in other words.
From the council at Saint-Médard.
Bishop Ignarus said: “Do you have a written complaint of protest or petition, as ecclesiastical tradition requires?” But they answered that they had no complaint at hand. Bishop Ignarus said: “The authority of ecclesiastical laws [is such that in causes concerning transactions it always requires writing, to such an extent that one who approaches the sacred font is commanded to give his name; one who is advanced to the highest priesthood is elected by a decree confirmed by the hands of all. One ordained, moreover, is commanded to receive letters from those who ordained him. One who is also separated from ecclesiastical fellowship by any excess is either received or cast out by a written document. But one who is accused, excommunicated, or reconciled is commanded to be accused or reconciled through writing. And thus in other matters of this kind writing is required to such an extent that, as blessed Gregory writes in his memorandum to John the defender, taking from the Roman laws, a sentence pronounced without writing does not deserve even to have the name of a sentence.”]
“Therefore, brothers [and sons,] you must, according to ecclesiastical authority, declare your protest in the sequence of a written complaint and present it to the [sacred] synod, confirmed by your hands, so that an answer can then be made to you fittingly and canonically.” And then those brothers, drawing up a written complaint [and subscribing their names to it], presented it to Hincmar [the bishop, etc.]
DE LIBELLI OBLATIONE.
Actor tenetur in scriptis libellum porrigere. Vel sic: Iudex non debet admittere actorem ad litigandum, nisi prius libellum in scriptis offerat. H. d. per alia verba.
Ex concilio apud sanctum Medardum.
Ignarus episcopus dixit: Habetis libellum reclamationis vel postulationis, sicut ecclesiastica se habet traditio? Illi [autem] responderunt, se prae manibus nullum habere libellum. Ignarus episcopus dixit: Legum ecclesiasticarum [auctoritas talis est, ut in causis gestorum semper scripturam requirat, adeo, ut qui ad sacrum fontem accedit suum dare nomen praecipiatur; qui ad summum sacerdotium provehitur, decreto manibus omnium roborato eligitur. Ordinatus autem a suis ordinatoribus literas accipere iubetur. Qui etiam ab ecclesiastica societate quolibet excessu discinditur libellari scriptione aut recipitur aut deiicitur. Sed qui accusatur, vel excommunicatur, seu reconciliatur, per scripturam accusari vel reconciliari iubetur. Et sic in ceteris huiusmodi in tantum scriptura deposcitur, ut sicut B. Gregorius in commonitorio ad Ioannem defensorem ex Romanis legibus sumens scribit, sententia, quae sine scriptura profertur, nec nomen sententiae habere mereatur.] Quapropter, fratres [et filii,] Oportet vos secundum ecclesiasticam auctoritatem reclamationem vestram libelli serie declarare, eamque vestris manibus roboratam synodo [sacrae] porrigere, ut tunc vobis convenienter et canonice valeat responderi. Et tunc ipsi fratres libellum conscribentes [eique sua nomina subscribentes] porrexerunt Hincmaro [episcopo etc.]
Chapter II
Latin source headnote: When a real action is brought, it is not sufficient that the thing be sought generally; rather, it ought to be specified in such a way that obscurity and equivocation are avoided.
Innocent III.
It was declared to our apostolate by the representation of the brothers T. and R. that, when a cause had been conducted before our beloved sons the Abbot and Prior of Saint Bartholomew of Noyon, judges delegated by the Apostolic See, between them on one side and V. Turpis de Athechi and his sisters of the diocese of Soissons on the other concerning a certain piece of land, after a complaint had been offered to them, the same T. and R., since they had several lands, petitioned the judges that the land concerning which the question was pending be shown to them. When the others refused to do this and were unwilling to define by sentence whether this ought to be granted to them, those brothers appealed from the manifest grievance to our hearing. Therefore, through apostolic writings we command your discretion that, if it is so, you, after revoking to its due state whatever you learn to have been attempted after an appeal of this kind, etc.
Quum agitur reali, non sufficit rem generaliter peti, sed debet ita specificari, ut evitetur obscuritas et aequivocatio.
Innocentius III.
Significantibus T. et R. fratribus nostro fuit apostolatui declaratum, quod, quum inter ipsos ex una parte, et V. Turpem de Athechi et sorores eius dioecesis Suessionensis ex altera super quadam terra coram dilectis filiis abbate et priore sancti Bartholomaei Noviomensis iudicibus a sede apostolica delegatis tracti fuissent in causam, oblato eis libello, ipsi T. et R., quum plures terras haberent, ut terra illa, super qua quaestio vertebatur, ostenderetur eisdem, a iudicibus postularunt. Quod quum ipsi facere denegarent, nec utrum hoc deberet eis concedi, vellent per sententiam definire, iidem fratres a manifesto gravamine ad nostram audientiam provocarunt. Quocirca discretioni vestrae per apostolica scripta mandamus, quatenus, si est ita, vos, revocato in statutum debitum, si quid post appellationem huiusmodi noveritis attentatum, etc.
Chapter III
Latin source headnote: A defendant is not bound to answer a complaint in a personal action if the ground of the claim is not expressed.
Gregory IX, to the Archpriest of Cittanova and M., Canon of Culm.
Our beloved sons, the brothers of the church of Saint Mary de Hispida, showed us by their petition that, when the Prior and Convent of Saint Mary ad Carceres sued them concerning a certain sum of money before the Prior of the Holy Trinity of Verona by apostolic authority, it was proposed on their behalf by way of exception that, since the said prior and convent were unwilling to express in the complaint presented for the action why the said money was owed to them, they were in no way bound to answer concerning it; and because the said judge refused to admit an exception of this kind, they appealed to our hearing. Therefore we command that, if it is so, after revoking as void, etc.
Non tenetur reus respondere libello in actione personali, si non exprimitur causa petendi.
Gregorius IX. Archipresbytero Civitatis novae et M. Canonico Culmensi.
Dilecti filii fratres ecclesiae sanctae Mariae de Hispida sua nobis petitione monstrarunt, quod, quum prior et conventus sanctae Mariae ad Carceres ipsos super quadam pecuniae summa coram priore sanctae Trinitatis Veronensis auctoritate apostolica convenissent, ex parte ipsorum fuit excipiendo propositum, quod, quum dicti prior et conventus nollent exprimere in porrecto libello conventionali, quare sibi dicta pecunia deberetur, super hoc minime respondere tenebatur, et quia dictus iudex exceptionem huiusmodi admittere denegabat, nostram audientiam appellaverunt. Ideoque mandamus, quatenus, si est ita, revocato in irritum, etc.