Praeside Deo Optimo Maximo: Ex decreto et authoritate amplissimi Iurisconsultorum Collegii in inclyta Basiliensium Academia, pro solenni Docturae gradu in utroque Iure consequendo, subsequentes de litis contestatione Theses

XVII.
And for that reason a simple confession, of which we are treating here, made with whatever intent and at whatever time, does not induce a contestation of a suit; as Jacob of Ravenna, William of Cuneo, Cynus, and others rightly believe.

XVIII.
Many place the affirmative contestation of a suit on the part of the plaintiff, when the plaintiff proposes his intention and affirms that the defendant owes him this or that.

XIX.
Which affirmation of the plaintiff is indeed a part of the contestation of a suit, but it does not constitute a member of the whole divided thing.

XX.
Again, the negative contestation of a suit is commonly subdivided into general or implied, and special or explicit.

XXI.
The interpreters call it general when response is made not item by item to all points of the action, but to all at once; such as: I deny the things narrated as they are narrated, and I say that the things requested ought not to be done.

XXII.
They call it special when the defendant responds item by item to the cause of action and the petition.

XXIII.
Whence it is not undeservedly asked, does a general negative response suffice? In this, I follow those who advise that judges should not permit the defendant to respond with a general and absolute negation when many things are proposed conjunctively.

XXIV.
For by this reasoning, judgments are eluded: no suit is established between the plaintiff and the defendant; nor can the judge pass a certain sentence.