how legal actions can end Chamber Court’s special records with the words that the parties wished to “solemnly renounce” (feyerlichst renunciiren),107 “further procedures were unnecessary” (ferner procedirens nit nötig)108 in the matter, or the parties simply wished to “leave it at that this time” (dismahls darbey).109 According to prevailing opinion, the legal counsels of the parties had to present to the Imperial Chamber Court a special power of attorney for such submissions, including the right to settle.110 Thus, for example, in the matter of the Neipperg party, the procurator Zwierlein stated towards the Imperial Chamber Court that he filed the motion for cancellation upon “special Instruction.”111 Usually, the motion for cancellation was discussed in the oral hearing at the Imperial Chamber Court and either formally accepted by both parties with reference to a written declaration already submitted to the files, or such declaration was requested and orally confirmed in a later hearing. These formal steps were often taken in quick succession. From the point of time of the conclusion of the settlement agreement between the bricklayers’ guild of Lübeck and the journeyman Stahl, only about 6 weeks passed until by date of 30 September 1797 the Completum-notice was registered with the special record of the Imperial Chamber Court. The scope of a cancellation declaration generally depended only on the parties’ wishes. “Any [declaration] of renunciation thus has to be understood to the effect as meant and construed by the person who gave it”. 107 HStAStuttgart, C 3, fascicle no. 3031, Special Record, fol. 4. 108 StA HH, RKG, no. M50, Special Record, entry of 26 August 1658, fol. 4r. 109 StA HH, no. S 12, Special Record, entry of 16 September 1611. 110 See also impressively in Cramer, Johann Ulrich von 1770b case IX., pp. 417-447, here pp. 418-419, who also summarizes current opinion, cf. Cramer, Johann Ulrich von 1770a, case IV., pp. 89-90.; in summary also Zedler, Johann Heinrich 1732 vol. XLVIII, column 225, wo refers to the explanations of Griebner, Michael Heinrich 1780VII., Sec. 2, p. 121. In this respect also Dalner, Andreas (as in fn. 14), Cap. III, marginal no. 44, p. 327. 111 HStAStuttgart, C3, fascicle no. 3031, Appendix no. 17. 102 Effects
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=