As We detest everything relating to malicious prosecution and subterfuge, We have thought that there are some matters having reference to these subjects which are in need of legal correction. For We have ascertained that some persons, entitled to no cause of action, having established an understanding with certain individuals who make a business of instituting legal proceedings, sue others; and that they file complaints subjecting defendants to loss, and then desist, after having exposed their adversaries to great expense; an abuse which has especially prevailed in the provinces where such plaintiffs and those who defend others have formed an association for profit.

  In order to prevent these things from occurring in the future, We order that the plaintiff shall not file a complaint and give the defendant occasion for incurring expense without having previously furnished security to the latter or his representative that he will, within two months, join issue in court without fail; and if he should neglect to do so, that he will be liable to the defendant for double the costs; but the bond shall not be given for more than thirty-six aurei.

  The following matter is also worthy of amendment. Someone applies to Us, and states that he has brought an action against a debtor before one of Our judges; and that then the latter has, in his turn, summoned him who is indebted to him before another judge, the result of which is something astonishing, for each party to the suit appears as plaintiff; a state of affairs which is at once pitiable and ridiculous, for where one of the litigants desired to prosecute his own case, his adversary immediately sued him, and brought him before another court to whose jurisdiction the former was subject, so that the parties having sued each other were eternally involved in litigation.
  (1) Therefore We decree that if anyone should think that another who has sued him is indebted to him, he shall not, in his turn, bring an action against him before another judge, but must bring it before the same one who already has cognizance of the case, who shall dispose of both transactions. If the judge before whom the action is brought is displeasing to him, he can reject him, and We grant him a delay of twenty days dating from the service of the complaint for this purpose, after which, and during the said twenty days, he will be permitted to reject the judge, and obtain another before whom both cases shall again be brought. In this way no more fraud will be committed, and each litigant can avail himself of his own right. If, however, the defendant should keep silent, and should afterwards himself attempt to bring suit before another judge, he will be obliged to wait until the first action against himself has been decided, and then he can institute proceedings before a different magistrate. We establish this rule to prevent litigants from being made the victims of the schemes and malicious prosecutions which they are accustomed to employ against one another.

  Your Highness will hasten to cause the provisions which We have been pleased to insert in this Imperial Law to be carried into effect.