372
losing party but upon any party who might be tempted to disturb
the judgment by raising a claim in connection with its object, and
it could be imposed on both parties and even on relatives who could
claim through them.^35 The promissor also had to draft a tablet of
forbearance (†uppi la ragàmim) as evidence of the trial, the verdict and
the fact of the oath.
The existence of this oath led Lautner to suggest that the court’s
decision was not binding; only the oath made it so.^36 The oath is
only imposed, however, after other court orders, such as for resti-
tution, have been made and penalties imposed.^37 It is more plausi-
ble, therefore, that the oath was a supplementary measure. It allowed
the court to impose a heavier penalty and raised the possibility of
divine sanctions.3.2.4 While there was no formal system of appeal, there were two
channels open to a dissatisfied litigant. In CT 29 42–3 (= Wilcke,
“Diebe.. .,” 65), the plaintiffs did not accept the court’s decision to
impose a particular oath on the defendants. They therefore con-
vened a second court, with mostly the same judges. They did not
accept the second judgment either, however, which left them only
with recourse to a higher authority, the king (see further below).
Rejection of the decisions of the two lower courts did not mean that
they were not binding, however, merely that the plaintiffs had not
yet exhausted their remedies within the system.^383.2.5 The court could execute its judgments. In YOS 2 25:17–20
(= Westbrook, Marriage Law.. ., 136–37), the court, having made a
restitution order in favor of M., a female litigant, adds: “We have
sent a soldier with her—let them give M. anything that is now to
be seen.” Self-help was available to judgment creditors, in the form
of distraint (see 7.4 below).(^35) E.g. CT 45 18:19–26 = Veenker, “Appeal.. .,” 9–10: “A. shall not sue fB...
for the (inheritance) again, he shall not say: ‘This I forgot.’”
(^36) Entscheidung.. ., 2–3, 55–56.
(^37) Dombradi, Darstellung.. ., 362–65.
(^38) Cf. AbB 11 7; 10 19, and see Veenker, “Appeal...”.
WESTBROOK_f10–360-430 8/27/03 12:26 PM Page 372