Note: Innocent IV in the chapter Ex insinuacione, on procurators and last wills. Note in the chapter Ut nostrum, on ecclesiastical benefices, where however the ordinary acting against possessors might perhaps be different: concerning which say as the Archdeacon notes in the chapter Ordinarii, on the office of the ordinary, book 6. Against the first statement, let that which Innocent notes in the chapter Qui perpetuus, on the trustworthiness of instruments, where Johannes Andreae, and title 1, on the rules of law, and the Archdeacon in De electione, chapter Dudum.

On objective articles. 41.

Note that the chapter Ut circa, on excommunication, does not have a place when the objective articles that are posited have been proven, or are well suited for things proven, as in the chapter Constitutionem, at the end, title 11 in the Clementines. And therefore, when articles are posited to be admitted, the party against whom they are produced must protest, saving the right, not by admitting nor receiving the others, as Johannes Andreae notes in the chapter Constitutionem, at the end. It is customary to say in the palace: we are already at the stage of things proven, and it is established concerning the lack of right of the adversary. And thus one understands what Innocent notes in the chapter Constitutus, on the trustworthiness of proofs, title 6. That the aforementioned chapter Ut circa has a place when one appeals to the Pope, and not when one appeals to a superior, [as] the Archdeacon notes in the said chapter Ut circa, regarding the 5th [point of] appeal, and what [is noted] in book 6, in the chapter Starum, 9th of the same title, book 6, and what Johannes Andreae notes in the chapter Non pro, on procurators, in the Clementines, and note 1, above, on the 28th.

On witnesses. 42.

Note that where witnesses have been produced in a case, although it may have been pronounced in the case that the definitive sentence is null, assuming that the witnesses are published, they can be produced again. Because that which is null does not provide an impediment, in the rule Non peccat. Since the laws, however, which say that once a party knows the testimony, they cannot produce the witnesses again, have a place [only] when the witnesses have been produced in due manner. This [is what] Johannes Andreae notes in the chapter Testibus, on witnesses, in the Clementines, in the gloss. Some, however, say that the Rota held the contrary. Nor do the laws above object, because there, one did not learn of the testimony, and because it suffices in whatever manner, article Si quis in gravi, above on those seeking, Codex Ad legem Corneliam de falsis, law Si quis, and law 1, where Balbus notes, on the exhibition of evidence, especially if the publication was made at the request of the party. And this Gentilis holds, there [and] note 1, decision 148, title 140.

On renunciation and the official of the vicar. 43.

Note that a bishop's vicar, having the power of receiving the resignation of benefices for the sake of an exchange of benefices, cannot confer [a benefice] resigned for the sake of an exchange, since a special mandate is required in the collation of benefices, as noted in the office of the vicar, chapter Finis, book 6. Although some might use the contrary, because he can institute those presented by patrons without a special mandate, as is noted there, to which note in the chapter Uno, on institution, book 6. And since exchanged benefices cannot be conferred upon another unless those wishing to exchange [agree], chapter Uno, on the exchange of things, in the Clementines. It might be used again regarding beneficed [parties]

exchanged just as in benefices presented by patrons. Although the first opinion is commonly held in the Rota.

On appeals. 44.

Note that an inhibition is not regularly made by the auditor in a case, unless the issue is joined, or after the term given to impugn and justify the appeal has passed, because then the case would be held to be pending, as in the chapter Ex parte, title 5, linked with the law Lite pendente, Codex on litigation. Assuming that the issue was not joined with all, concerning which say as noted in the chapter Si, on the issue pending, in the Clementines. Johannes, however, says that since the judge accepts the appeal, he can inhibit, on appeals, Ratione, above, Inhibere, book 6, and note 1, decision 58, title 391, and decision 79, 665, and 669, and 758, and 772.

On the sons of priests. 45.

Note that according to some, and especially according to the Chancery, where there is a dispensation for an illegitimate [person] so that he may hold benefices, personages, and dignities with or without care, even if one is assumed by election, if no mention is made of a cathedral church in such a dispensation, the cathedral church does not come [under it], chapter Quamvis, 1, on prebends, book 6, title 11. Because such a dispensation is odious, and therefore must be held to its own terms. Here, that which is greater does not come, [namely] a cathedral church, by argument of the law Eos, Codex on those who may conduct, although others might hold the contrary, that such a one for whom it is dispensed in greater benefices would be understood as dispensed in lesser ones, as in the chapter Cum in illis, on prebends, book 6. To which makes that which the Archdeacon notes in the chapter 1, on the sons of priests, where he says that a bishop can dispense such a person in a cathedral prebend, if not in a dignity or personage. To which note in the chapter Veniens, regarding the present, by Innocent, on the sons of priests, since it has been dispensed regarding dignities, that it was regularly [held] in a cathedral church, title 11, on the rules of law, law Quibus, joined with the law Ad rem, law Legatum, because the benefit of the prince is to be interpreted most broadly. Note 1, decision 408.

On the order of cognizance and restitution of stolen goods. 46.

Note that where someone says he was despoiled by the party of the judge, and it is opposed to the despoiled person that the sentence previously passed against him was null, it seems that one must first take cognizance of the restitution of the judgment and of the cause of nullity, because no exception seems to obstruct the benefit of restitution, chapter Finis, on the order of cognizance, chapter In insinuatione, on the restitution of stolen goods. And this seems true, especially if the party was despoiled after an appeal, because then he seems to be one to be restored; it is otherwise if the judicial order was observed, as in the chapter Conquerente, on the restitution of stolen goods, where note P. [and] note 1, in the gloss, and in the question, in the sum, in the beginning. Where, however, it is notorious [that] the despoiled person has no right, then he is not restored, especially in beneficial causes, as