De transactionibus theses LXIV

exception, or replication, when the first action survives; if that is truly extinguished, an action regarding fraud original: "actio de dolo" survives.

LVI.
Unless it was specifically transacted regarding fraud as well.

LVII.
If, however, fraud has fallen into the crime of forgery or calumny, the transaction ought to be retracted by the duty of the judge.

LVIII.
And even if the adversary did not know the documents were false, we contend there is room for retraction.

LIX.
A transaction is retracted, following the example of a judgment, through restitutio in integrum restoration to the original state, whether that restitution is requested primarily or incidentally, by opposing an exception or replication of forgery.

LX.
A great question arises here: if an exception of forgery is simply filed against a plaintiff who forced the defendant into a transaction using false documents, does this exception suffice, or is restitutio in integrum restoration to the original state first necessary? We shall defend the distinction made by Bartolus an influential medieval legal scholar: if a deceived person simply wishes to invalidate a transaction, he can do so with a simple exception or replication; but if he wishes for the transaction or a judgment to be abolished definitively, it is necessary to obtain restitutio in integrum restoration to the original state either primarily or incidentally.

LXI.
A forgery that gave cause to one clause of a transaction will not be extended to another, so that it might be rescinded.

LXII.
Nor should it be ignored that a controversy instituted regarding forgery can be finished by a transaction.

LXIII.