anja amend-traut (Ein[e] jede Verzicht[serklärung] ist also zu verstehen, wie sie derjenige gemeynet und gedeutet haben würde, der sie geleistet.)112 The renunciatio with its sole effect of ending the action at least led to a decisionon costs.113The partywithdrawing an action personally brought usually had to bear the relevant costs – according to the principle of causation.114 Accordingly, the appellant’s legal counsel Gülich stated for the records in the case of the Hamburg appellant Moller, during the hearing of the Imperial Chamber Court, that he “hereby bindingly accepted” (hirmit in Recht an) the cancellation of the action applied for, but only on condition that the appellee due to the remedy assumed the costs “accrued in this and in the previous instance” (in hießig[er] alß voriger Instantz aufgeloffen[e]).115 It can be inferred from the reviewed files that the renunciation usually entailed a settlement agreement and thus also a substantive effect. Upon conclusion, involving public offices, as for example stated in a Council Decree, these amicable settlements only attained “full legal force” (ihre volle Rechts-Kraft) after having been “accepted – determined and confirmed” (angenommen – beschloßen und bestättiget) by both parties.116 Thus, not only the asserted claimor right became extinct, but the suing party then also withdrew the legal remedy and in addition, the adversaries waived the judicial assertion of any claims in the future.According to the parties’ wishes, both elements were to “stand and fall together.”117 In the matter of members of the family Neipperg versus Wilhelm Reinhard Count of Neipperg, the settlement “cum renunciatione litis” of August 1773 states: “[...] according to our own signing and sealing of this 112 Zedler, Johann Heinrich 1732 vol. XLVIII, colum 212. 113 On the effects of the renunciatio Schröter, Ernst Friedrich von 1674 Cap. IIX; Dalner, Andreas (as in fn. 14), Cap. XIX, Müchel, Hugo 1870. 114 In the matter of Sebastian Volz and his consortium members against the guardians of the children of the late Hans Dietrich von Gemmingen, the cost specification in dispute, however, wrongly also included further costs, which the defendants on their part caused in other legal actions, HStAStuttgart, C3, fascicle no. 4924. Further examples for instance at Schröter, Ernst Friedrich von 1674 Cap. VI, marginal no. 51, Cap. IIX, marginal no. 28 ff. On the obligation to bear costs, cf. also Griebner, Michael Heinrich 1780 p. 121. 115 StA HH, RKG, no. M50, Special Record, entry of 26 August 1658, fol. 4V. 116 StadtA Lübeck, RKG, no. M8, [Q] 36, Addendum no. F, fol. 3. 117 So also Cramer, Johann Ulrich von 1770a for the case described there, IV., Sec. 3, p. 88. 103
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=