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

LXIII.
Finally, after various enumerated modes of the contestation of a suit, it can be asked whether it is necessary to add these words (with the intention of contesting the suit) to all the above positions.

LIIII.
And although there are those who think this clause is necessary, nevertheless, since their opinion is supported by no laws, it is deservedly rejected.

LXV.
Related to the above is also that question: whether the presence of both is required in the contestation of a suit? It seems to be required, but the contrary opinion has been received in the forum.

LXVI.
For today, the plaintiff can offer a written pleading against the defendant, and on the following day, or at another time, the defendant can respond, even in the absence of the plaintiff.

LXVII.
But if the plaintiff has proposed his action, to which the defendant does not respond immediately, but after an interval of several days, and contests the suit negatively: it is asked whether this suffices, or whether it is necessary that the plaintiff, against such a response, repeat the acts of the pleading, say that they are true, and request that judgment be pronounced accordingly, and that he be admitted to further proceedings?

LXVIII.
In this case, since the contestation of a suit to a pleading is not induced by a negative response alone, the suit is not seen to be contested by the response of the defendant alone without the repetition of the instituted action.

LXIX.
Today, in the court of the Chamber, it has prevailed that a suit is contested by the response of the defendant alone, without the repetition of the once-edited action, provided that the plaintiff wishes to proceed to further steps, as noted by Andrew Gail, book 1, Observation 73, number 3.