[Casus longi super V libros decretalium]

The Pope responds that such an appeal is not to be deferred to after the cause has been omitted by a judge with appeal removed, because a special mandate derogates from a general one.

Note that a special mandate derogates from a general one.

On the part of, etc. Case: A certain cleric named G. obtained letters to the Bishop of Coventry against a certain other person named F. regarding a prebend of new lands original: "de noualis" under this form: that if it could be shown that the same F. was convicted of perjury and that he had renounced the prebend through his own prayers, he should be removed from it. The judge, proceeding in the cause, because it was established to him regarding the aforesaid, despoiled the same F. of that same prebend, from which sentence the said F. appealed and obtained letters to the Archbishop of Canterbury under this form, that he should show the same to him and without cognizance of the case, he should be restored. The Bishop of Coventry, understanding this, signified to the Lord Pope how he had proceeded in that business. Regarding this business, the Pope writes back to the same archbishop, saying that he does not believe he wrote so precisely, and in such letters this condition ought to be understood: if the prayers rely on the truth and a termination is applied. Whence the Pope commands the same archbishop that he should inspect the letters directed to the Bishop of Coventry, and if he finds that he had written to him in the aforesaid manner, and no mention of the former letters was had in the letters of the same F., he ought to confirm the sentence of the Bishop of Coventry and compel the same F. to come to the Apostolic See with the letters which he obtained.

From this decretal, note that a perjurer is repelled from an obtained benefit — renunciation prevents someone from his right — note that the Pope does not write without cognizance of the case, and if he writes, the letters are surreptitious original: "surrepticie", which ought to be sent back to him. Note that in apostolic letters, this condition is understood: if the prayers rely on the truth, even if it is not added; and thus note that rescripted letters are of strict law, yet some things are tacitly understood in them.

Note that the jurisdiction of a delegate is first considered according to the truth of the prayers.

according to the form of the writing; and thus note that a rescript is to be interpreted as valid more according to the truth of the matter than according to the order of the writing. Note that the judge who is given last ought to inspect the form of the letters.

Otherwise, etc. Case: Someone obtained letters against his adversary regarding some cause. That adversary later obtained that cause to be committed to other judges with no mention made of the former commission. It is said that the former letters are valid, not the second. If, however, in the second, mention is made of the first, then the second are valid, but not the first. Lastly, he says that if the cause is committed by the assent of the parties, and the other party later, without the other knowing, having suppressed the mention of the commission, obtained the cause to be committed to another, the delegate's letters are not valid, and he who forced his adversary to labor through such deceit ought to be condemned in expenses to the other party. Note the penalty of him who obtained false letters, that he lacks the entirety of those letters. Note that later letters ought to make mention of the former, lest they revoke the former. Note that after letters are obtained by the consent of the parties, other letters cannot be obtained unless they make mention of them. Note that it does not matter whether the fraud is omitted in the beginning or in the process of time. Note that he who burdens his adversary through false letters is to be condemned to him in expenses.

Among other things Case: The Pope is posited thus: He commands something under a distinction, of which one is true, the other false. In this way: if it is shown that such a one is the son of a priest, or begotten in the priesthood, who first ministered in such a church, or that he illicitly occupied the same church, that you should execute what is just. It is asked what the judge ought to do. The Pope responds that whichever of these is established to the judge, he should prevent him from that same church, and the same in...