Title VIII: On Delays

Latin source headnote: Summarize thus, lest it appear to belong under the rubric on appeals: a citation that is both summons and peremptory ought not to be excessively brief, especially where ecclesiastical things are concerned, unless necessity suggests otherwise.

Alexander III, to the Bishops of Canterbury and Worcester.

Our beloved sons, the Abbot and Monks of H., took care to intimate to us that, when we committed to the Dean and Archdeacon of Lincoln for termination the cause pending between them and the nuns of Leden. concerning the church of Alten., they, fearing that they would be aggrieved by the aforesaid judges because at the first citation they established for them an excessively brief and peremptory term, appealed to our hearing; the judges nevertheless adjudged the aforesaid church to the aforesaid nuns. (And below:) But because it does not belong to the order of law to hasten a peremptory day in such a way, especially when ecclesiastical things are concerned, unless perhaps necessity presses, nor to promulgate sentence in such a way against those who contumaciously absent themselves—except that the opposing party be placed in possession, so that, affected by weariness, they may thus be compelled to stand in judgment—through apostolic writings we command your fraternity, by way of precept, that, if it is so, after revoking as void whatever you find attempted after an appeal of this kind, you proceed in the cause according to the tenor of the earlier letters.

Latin source headnote: Deliberative adjournments are denied to a defendant if through the letters of citation he could have been fully instructed and could have deliberated concerning the matter in question.

Celestine III.

Furthermore, in your petition you added that, when causes are delegated to you by the Apostolic See, you insert the apostolic rescript in the letters of citation so that, after seeing it, the one sued by another may be able to deliberate. And when he comes not at the first and second canonical citation but only at the third, peremptory one—although the claimant comes at all the citations—and the claimant proposes his claim in court, the defendant, intent upon vexing him, then for the first time seeks deliberative adjournments, although the claimant offers him the authentic instrument so that he may compare it with the rescript which he received at the first citation, asserting also that during so long a span of citations he could, if he wished, have had time for full deliberation.

§ 1. Therefore, because you desire to be instructed about what is to be done in this case, we answer you in this way: when the defendant has been lawfully summoned to judgment in the aforesaid manner, if from the rescript transmitted to him he could have been fully instructed concerning the matter about which he is sued in judgment, deliberative adjournments are not [further] to be granted to him, but one is rather to proceed to examination of the cause and impose its due end. [Given at the Lateran, in the third year of our pontificate, 1193.]

Latin source headnote: From the clarification of a general or ambiguous word placed in a complaint, new deliberative adjournments are not to be given if, from the things expressed, the defendant could deliberate concerning that ambiguity or generality. This is what it says.

Honorius III, to the Bishop of Ferentino.

Your letters and the petition of our beloved son, the priest of Saints Prisca and Aquila in the City, exhibited to us contained that, when we had considered that the cause pending between the same archpriest on one side and the noblemen Andrew of Alatri and G., and their brothers and sons, on the other, concerning certain possessions and other things, should be committed to you, the same priest offered against the noblemen A. and G., in the name of his church, a complaint containing that the pension from the said possessions had not been paid to that church, three years and more having now elapsed.

But when those noblemen petitioned that he explain to them the span which he intended to signify by this addition, “and more,” and the priest expressed that payment of the said pension had ceased for seven years, the same noblemen, saying that the complaint had been changed by an expression of this kind, sought longer adjournments for deliberating. Because you denied these to them, they appealed to our hearing. Therefore, considering an appeal of this kind frivolous, we command your fraternity that, notwithstanding it entirely, you proceed in the business itself, reason leading the way, according to the contents of the earlier letters.

Latin source headnote: If a person cited in an arduous cause is summoned from afar for the public utility, even to the place of judgment, in such a way that within the term of citation he could not deliberate and arrange the other things necessary for appearing, he is not compelled to answer at the term if he is found at the place of judgment, but will have new adjournments. This is what it says notably.

Gregory IX, to the Abbot of L'Eau Vive in the diocese of Tours and the Archdeacon of Tours.

The Archbishop of Bourges set forth to us—(And below:) We commanded the Archbishop of Bordeaux that, concerning the right of primacy which the said Archbishop of Bourges proposes that he has over him and his province, he should present himself before us, personally or through a suitable proctor, at the beginning of the recently past Lent, which we assigned him as a peremptory term. And when afterward, personally summoned for the support of the Roman Church, he approached our hearing, the said Archbishop of Bourges, established at the Apostolic See, urgently petitioned that we ought to proceed in the same business.

But the same Archbishop of Bordeaux, returning to his own lands, constituted a proctor for himself in that business who, preserving the exceptions belonging to him in answering, defending, and other matters, was to do everything which he would have done in his own person. Therefore, when the aforesaid archbishop petitioned that the proctor answer him, the latter proposed by way of exception that he was not bound to do this, since the said Archbishop of Bordeaux, having been summoned for another, greater cause—namely, for the public utility—ought to have been regarded as absent and to have possessed the privilege of being sent back home. Nor had he yet deliberated concerning this matter with his suffragans and others whose counsel so arduous a cause required, nor had he had time in which he could be prepared for both businesses as was expedient.

But the other party answered to the contrary that, since he had first been summoned concerning the aforesaid question, it had not been our intention to revoke the first mandate by the later one. He had also had so long a space of time that, if he had wished, he could have deliberated concerning the aforesaid cause, as he had done with certain persons, and conveniently attend to both businesses. (And below:) Therefore, with the counsel of our brothers, we considered that a further delay until the next coming feast of the Lord's Nativity should be granted to him.