which are dilatory to the action, extraneous to the action, so to speak, and therefore  do not extinguish it, though they defer it temporarily.
When exceptions are to be raised and when not.
 Some exceptions are to be put forward at the beginning of the suit, in the preliminary  stages of trials1 and before claiming the view, to extinguish the proceeding and keep  it from continuing, as those raised against the jurisdiction and against the persons of  judges who lack the authority to judge. Also those which lie against the person of the  demandant and against the writ. If these exceptions are not raised at the beginning  of the suit, and the tenant proceeds to claiming the view, if he wishes to put them  forward after having sought the view, he will not be heard, because by claiming the  view he is taken to have tacitly renounced them and to have granted the jurisdiction  of the judge and that everything relating to the validity of the action has proceeded  in proper order.
Some exceptions must be raised before and some after the view.
 There are some [exceptions] which follow the view, as to which the tenant can [not]  be advised until the demandant has made him the view [and a thing certain is brought  before the court as to which he ought to answer] that he may then know whether he  holds what is claimed, all of it or part or none, [And so with respect to the appurtenances]  [as] where there is error as to the place where the thing claimed is situated.  These precede the litis contestatio. And what if the view is not sought? Nevertheless  they ought to be raised in order, each in its proper place, beginning with the more  worthy, as with the jurisdiction of the judge and his person,2 since the judge is  the principal part of a judicial proceeding. Then that against the person of the  demandant, if any exception lies against his person.3 Then against the writ, then  if any arises against the demandant from the person of the tenant, then that arising  from the thing, as that he holds nothing thereof, or nothing except his portion, and  so of the appurtenances, and then any that lie by reason of the place. If none of the  aforesaid exceptions lies, or if it does it is tacitly renounced, as said above, let that  be raised which lies by reason of the law, of which there are many, as where, if it is  alleged before such a judge that A. claims against B. so much land with the appurtenances  in such a vill as his right,4 [it is excepted that] no right can descend to the  demandant. As an order is observed in claiming, so one ought to be observed in excepting.  There are two exceptions which may be put forward at any time, even after  judgment, namely, that of not his proper judge and of unauthorized procurator,  since with such there is no legal proceeding, no legal controversy.5 And as it is  necessary