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

LXX.
But if the plaintiff has simply edited his action, and the defendant has responded to it, and the plaintiff does not descend to the proof of the action, the suit is not contested.

LXXI.
An indirect response of the defendant occurred when he did not simply and directly deny the law or fact of the cause, but opposed an exception a legal plea or defense.

LXXII.
This exception was either dilatory delaying or peremptory conclusive. An exception opposed to an action did not abolish it, but only delayed it.

LXXIII.
And this either impeded the capacity of pressing the cause itself, or the process of the judgment.

LXXIV.
The capacity of pressing the cause was impeded by the exception of payment, which granted space for paying or performing that which is owed; such is the exception of non-petitioning.

LXXV.
The process of the judgment was impeded if an exception was opposed against the person of the judge, the plaintiff, and the defendant, or the procurator legal representative.

LXXVI.
In both instances, however, when a dilatory exception was objected, the suit regarding the principal cause was not contested.

LXXVII.
For a dilatory exception does not cohere with the instituted action, but is concerned outside of it.

LXXVIII.
Thus also today it is agreed among interpreters of law and pragmatists that when a dilatory exception is opposed to an instituted action, the suit regarding the principal cause is not contested.

LXXIX.
If a peremptory exception was opposed to an action, the suit was also not