According to the Florentine statute, the creditor of any Commune or of any _Universitas_ (corporation) might proceed against it, _sicut procedi potest contra alias singulares personas debitrices, in persona_. This was carried so far, that it was permissible to proceed against every individual member of the association, and even to have him arrested, _liceat ipsi creditori capi et detinere omnes et singulares personas dicti Communis vel Universitatis, quousque fuerit integre satisfactum_.[404] If landed property had been laid waste or houses burnt, the proprietor was entitled to compensation from the author of the deed; from his associates (_consorti_), were he a noble, or from his relations, even to the fourth degree, if a commoner. Nay more, the injured person might also proceed against the Commune, University, or district (_plebatum_) in which the crime had been committed; he was at liberty to follow any of these modes of redress, and if unsuccessful in one to try another.[405] The statute prescribed the form of procedure and the terms of the sentence.[406] The Commune, University, or district was thus compelled to be always ready to raise the alarm, when similar acts were perpetrated, and to pursue and arrest the criminal, since, in case of failure, they were held responsible.[407] In all matters, even such as purchases or sales, great importance was assigned to the condition of the persons concerned. In some cases, where land was to be sold, the law required that it should be sold to a neighbour; commoners, however, were not compelled to sell to magnates.[408] Similarly no one might buy, sell, or acquire the usufruct of lands held in common, or any piece of land or house touching another man's wall, without according the joint-owner, associate, or neighbour the right of pre-emption.[409] In case of a dispute between relations or associates, _qui consortes sint de eadem stirpe, per lineam masculinam usque ad infinitum_,[410] the judge was bound, at the request of one of the parties concerned, to leave the matter to the decision of arbiters chosen by the parties themselves; but no plebeian could act as arbiter between nobles.[411] In reviving a law of much earlier date, the statute of 1355 informs us that arbiters were therein mentioned, as blood-relations.[412] Whence it may be inferred that similar compromises began to be customary, at a very remote period, between relations and associates who voluntarily selected arbiters from their own group. Down to the year 1324, the custom had been sanctioned by law; at a later time it lost its primitive character of a voluntary and domestic agreement, and assumed the shape of a regular legal trial. XIV.