Title IV: On Mutual Claims

Latin source headnote: A judge, even a delegated one, compels the claimant to answer the defendant in a cause of counterclaim, and he shall hear both causes together in successive order and terminate them by one sentence. This is what it says.

Alexander III, to the Bishop of Volterra and the Abbot of Spongia.

We learned from your letters that our beloved sons the Abbot and Brothers of the monastery of Maturum are prepared to undergo your examination concerning the questions which the plebanus and clerics of Maturum propose against them if the latter ought immediately to answer concerning their questions. But because the order of reason requires that the plebanus and clerics of Maturum ought to answer the abbot and brothers of the monastery of Maturum in your presence concerning the things which they propose against them, since they petition that justice be exhibited to them by those persons before you as delegates of the Apostolic See, through apostolic writings we command your discretion, by way of precept, that, after the action of the plebanus and clerics has been proposed and an answer made, admonition having first been given, you compel them immediately to answer the said abbot and brothers before you concerning their own questions; and that you, afterward hearing in turn the arguments and allegations of the parties more diligently, terminate the business of both by agreement or judgment.

Latin source headnote: The manner of proceeding given by rescript in the cause of the original claim is understood to be repeated in the cause of the counterclaim.

Celestine III, to the Dean of Rouen.

We follow your prudence with due thanksgiving of praise because, in the manner of a prudent man, you consider that the Apostolic See is to be consulted upon points of law concerning which you sometimes doubt, [to which, indeed, the ancient Fathers established that all difficult questions and causes should fittingly be referred.] You consulted us whether, when a cause is committed with appeal removed and the defendant brings a counterclaim against the claimant before the same judge or judges—which can lawfully be done under the constitution of both canon and civil law—and the claimant interposes the obstacle of appeal concerning the counterclaim, deference is to be shown to an appeal of this kind.

We hold that, since in this case the condition or cause of the claimant and defendant is the same, and each ought to be assessed by one and the same law concerning the remedy of appeal, no deference is to be shown to an appeal interposed in this manner. For we have learned, by the testimony of Christ himself, who is Truth, that all things which people wish others to do to them they ought also to do to others. Nor does the jurist dissent from this sentence, because, besides the Authentic which begins “And consequently,” in which this is expressly contained concerning the making of a counterclaim, it is established elsewhere that a person is to use the same law which he has determined should be established against another. Therefore, just as the claimant desires justice to be done to him according to the mandator's rescript with appeal removed, in the same manner he ought to answer in justice the one bringing a counterclaim against him. [Secondly you ask, etc. (cf. c. 41, On Appeals, II.28.) Given at the Lateran, on the fifteenth day before the Kalends of July, in the third year of our pontificate, 1193.]