De feudis theses LVI

L.
In the third place are called the collaterals: about whom a common conclusion is likewise received, that they succeed to infinity, the prerogative of the degree, however, being observed, which will be computed according to civil law.

LI.
In this order, that the sons of brothers together with the brothers of the deceased, his paternal uncles, succeed, and indeed by stocks succession by family branch rather than by individual head, is more than manifest law.

LII.
What, however, should be pronounced concerning the sons of brothers existing alone, it is very difficult to answer, especially since some adhere so stubbornly to their own opinion that they judge one holding the contrary to be stuck in a common error. Nevertheless, for the sake of discussion, we shall defend this opinion against them: that the sons of brothers alone ought to succeed not by heads, but by stocks.

LIII.
Furthermore, a uterine brother a brother sharing the same mother but a different father is not admitted to the fief.

LIV.
A consanguineous relative, however, joined together with both sides, succeeds equally.

LV.
Now the contrary of fiefs should be addressed, namely the causes from which a fief is lost. But since there are so many of them that they cannot be comprehended in such a brief compendium, I refer myself to the feudalists.

LVI.
Yet, so that some opportunity for discussion may be supplied concerning these causes of the loss of a fief, therefore, in place of a conclusion, and especially for the sake of exercising the intellect, we submit this conclusive thesis against almost all the doctors, relying only on the texts: A fief alienated by a vassal without the consent of the lord, to the prejudice of the same senior, cannot be prescribed acquired by right of passage of time by him to whom it was alienated, by any span of time.