anja amend-traut appeal to be granted by the lower instance court dealing with the matter in dispute.65 In case of approval, the court then sent the procedural files to the Imperial Chamber Court, together with the Epistle. In terms of procedure, Hochhausen now had several options: If the iudex a quo did not grant leave of appeal, the appellee could turn to the Imperial Chamber Court due to the denial of leave of appeal, or could cease to pursue the matter.66 If, however, he further pursued an appeal, a judicial judgment could be passed for lack of a procedural requirement material to the admissibility of further proceedings. Instead of turning to the Imperial Chamber Court due to the denial of justice, however, and obviously under the impression of a threat of legal action against him, Hochhausen waived the legal remedy in the following by formally withdrawing his appeal.67 Also in the causa of the of the citizens of Weiler, it was not the Imperial Chamber Court that suggested cancelling the action, even though its mere involvement caused the withdrawal of the complaint. Incidentally, this and a further case68 demonstrate that onlymore in-depth file research frequently reveals at what stage of a lawsuit conducted over several instances a dispute ended. In both cases, the proceedings pending before the Imperial Chamber Court were not withdrawn. Rather, in the causa of the citizens of Weiler, the summary proceedings before the Imperial 65 In this respect Merzbacher, Friedrich 1971, columns 195-196; Oberländer, Samuel (ed.) 1753 p. 301. 66 Overall, on the denial of justice Oestmann, Peter 2010 pp. 51-141, here esp. pp. 90-102. For more details on the course of procedure, see Diestelkamp, Bernhard 1999, pp. 283-308, here p. 285. Owing to the option of turning to the Imperial Chamber Court when leave of appeal was denied, the party could request the surrender of the files practically irrespective of the Epistle also mentioned in the RKGO(cf. RKGO2, 30, 1); Oberländer, Samuel (ed.) 1753. In this respect also Laufs, Adolf 1976 pp. 208-211 and 292. 67 StadtACologne, RKG, no. 813. 68 In 1568, Sebastian Volz and his consortiummembers sued the guardians of the children of the late Hans Dietrich von Gemmingen before the Manorial Court in Rottweil in respect of the dissolution of their properties situated in the communal district of Mühlhausen. After the claimants had been informed of the customary law applicable in Mühlhausen during the taking of evidence, they withdrew their – obviously pointless – complaint. The claimants’ following appeal to the Imperial Chamber Court, however, was not based on a change of mind, but was directed against the cost decision, which obliged the claimants to pay 420 florins, HStAStuttgart, C3, fascicle no. 4924, [Q] 11, judgment letter of the Manorial Court Rottweil of 1576. 93
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=