Responsa for Sanhedrin 62:27

Q. When a widow seeks to collect her ketubah from the heirs, who has the right, she or the heirs, to compel the other to rely on a local court or to compel that other to appear before an authoritative court outside of the community?
A. If both parties agree to rely on the local court, the matter is left to the court either to rely on their own judgment, or to inquire of an authoritative court of their own choosing. But, if the parties to the suit come to no agreement, and one of the litigants demands that the case be brought before an authoritative court, the claimant has the right to determine before which court the case shall be tried. In this case the widow is the claimant.
SOURCES: Cr. 98.

Q. One of two opposing litigants wants his case to be tried by the local court of Rothenburg, while the other litigant insists on bringing it before the Beth Havaad (superior court) at Marienburg.
A. The Talmud differentiates between litigants, giving a creditor the right to choose the court for the trial of his case (Sanh. 31b). At present, however, an ordinance of the communities prevails to the effect that, in a place where an authoritative court exists, no litigant may insist on taking his case before the Beth Havaad. Therefore, the litigants (of Rothenburg) must choose a court that will hear their claims; and the court, in turn, will refer their claims to a superior court of its own choosing.
SOURCES: P. 290. Cf. Weil, Responsa 155.

Q. A demands that Leah return to him the money he deposited with her. Leah claims that A deposited the money with her on condition that she do not return it to him without his wife's consent. [A's wife does not consent to the return of the deposit]. Are we to believe a trustee who was appointed by the two opposing parties regarding the terms of his trusteeship, or may we require him to take an oath? Moreover, Leah is a married woman. May her husband object to her being degraded by imposing an oath on her?
A. A trustee appointed by both parties is not required to take an oath regarding the terms of his trusteeship. But, Leah was not appointed trustee by both parties. She was only appointed by the husband, and, therefore, is required to take an oath. Leah's husband cannot object to imposing an oath on her. If the law requires that a woman take an oath, the husband has no right to protest against her being degraded in court. But, since Leah, as long as she is married, has no money of her own, and were she to claim that she had already returned the deposit, no oath would be imposed on her, we now lend credence to her words and require no oath. However, the court should give A a writ stating that after Leah will be divorced or widowed she will have to return the money to A or take an oath to the effect that A deposited the money with her on condition that she return it upon his wife's consent only.
SOURCES: L. 306–7; Mord. B. K. 89. Cf. Pr. 739; Tesh. Maim. to Mishpatim, 44.