Ex communi clariss. et consultiss. iuris professorum ordinis, in inclyta Basiliensium Academia decreto, subsequentes (de feudis) theses

XL.

A fief cannot be alienated without the lord's consent. But what if he has alienated a part; is he deprived of the whole? Baldus asserts this, but incorrectly. A distinction is applied regarding whether it can be given as a dowry.

XLI.

In the alienation of a fief that has been frequently sub-infeudated, one might rightly doubt whether the consent of all, or only of the superior lord, is required. I shall defend the position that the consent of all is required, contrary to others.

XLII.

However, what I have said regarding consent is not universal. For what if he alienates a profectitium a fief inherited from an ancestor to a legitimate agnate relative on the father's side? What if he alienates something as new as it is inherited, to a descendant? What if custom (as in France) permits otherwise? And in many other ways.

XLIII.

Can it be pledged as security? I believe it is generally true that it cannot, unless by reason of necessity, and unless it is to the lord of the fief, and with other limitations.

XLIV.

It is lost by a refutatio formal surrender or renunciation made by the vassal to the lord, even to the legitimate agnates themselves if it is a paternal fief, but not if it is a new one, unless it was so agreed by pact. In which case, while the renouncer is still alive, investiture must be sought within the designated times.

XLV.

If a vassal renounces to the lord, is he liable to the sub-vassal for eviction? Zasius denies it; I believe the contrary is more true.