Responsa for Ketubot 187:12
ולא אמרן אלא דלא איתיה במתא אבל איתיה במתא איבעי ליה למיתי:
This applies only when he was not in town, but if he was in town he should have come to the court.
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. A summoned B to court contesting his settling-rights in T. The court upheld B's rights. The other inhabitants of T now want to summon B to court again, on the ground that they have additional claims and arguments that would bolster their case against B. It is my opinion that they have forfeited their right to a retrial since they were in T during the first trial and failed to present their claims and arguments at the time.
A. Your opinion is correct. The inhabitants of T should have brought forth their claims and arguments at the original trial. For the same reason, a person summoned to court by a single inhabitant must not fail to answer the summons, on the ground that he wants to answer the claims of all the inhabitants at a single trial and does not wish to appear in court repeatedly with each individual inhabitant, since all claims against him should be brought forth during his trial when summoned by the single inhabitant or be permanently dismissed.
SOURCES: L. 216; B. p. 292, no. 367.
A. Your opinion is correct. The inhabitants of T should have brought forth their claims and arguments at the original trial. For the same reason, a person summoned to court by a single inhabitant must not fail to answer the summons, on the ground that he wants to answer the claims of all the inhabitants at a single trial and does not wish to appear in court repeatedly with each individual inhabitant, since all claims against him should be brought forth during his trial when summoned by the single inhabitant or be permanently dismissed.
SOURCES: L. 216; B. p. 292, no. 367.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy