Juris feudalis conclusiones aliquot miscellaneae, quas, divina asspirante clementia, in celeberrima Basiliensi Academia pro summo in utroque jure gradu obtinendo

a See chapter 11 in my Synopsis, conclusion 13, where I prefer authorities on both sides.

b See said chapter 11, question 15.

c In my Synopsis, chapter 11, question 10, and beyond those cited there, this is maintained by Baron Hotman and others. d This is the true understanding of chapter 1, On the Controversy between a Vassal and Bishop, although many contradict it as I said in chapter 12, question 27.

e Minsynger, century 4, observation 90. Wefel, chapter 17. See chapter 12, question 48. Schenck, number 2, on controversies before the local magistrates.

f See the title On Usufruct, how it is secured.

g Law "the last," Code on how to enter into possession of legacies. Accursius on paragraph 2, Institute On Usufruct. Law 1 and 4, Code On Usufruct, and all doctors of law in these places.

h Minsynger, century 5, observation 36, which is noted by D. Gothofred on Law 1, Code On Usufruct; and Brederod recently in his notes on the Speculum, under the word "vassal"; Jason in his prelude to the feudal law, column 10; Baldus on Law 1, Code "if many concur," and the same.

XVIII.
I maintain that a hereditary feudum fief lost due to an investitura investiture/grant of fief not requested at the proper time, or due to services not rendered to the lord, is forfeited to the lord himself, with the agnati relatives on the father's side excluded. Regarding a crime committed against someone other than the lord, I can defend, contrary to common opinion, that other agnates are to be admitted even in the second degree, with descendants excluded.

XIX.
When a lord is summoned by a vasallus vassal and denies his status as lord, claiming the matter is an allodial property held in absolute ownership dispute or that the fief opened upon the vassal's death and does not pass to a daughter, there is serious doubt as to whether this exception should be handled before peers or the local Ordinary Judge. I defend the position that even if the petitioner is not otherwise the lord’s vassal, he may still compel the lord to grant the investiture so that the peers may hear the case.

XX.
I believe that a reconuentio counterclaim has no place before peers in a non-feudal case, although the common opinion holds the opposite.

XXI.
Although by common law a vsufructuarius usufructuary/one who has the use of property is bound to provide security to the proprietor to use the property according to the judgment of a good man, to the extent that not even the testator can waive it, a vassal does not provide such security to the lord, as he holds a fuller usufruct or vtile dominium beneficial ownership.