xml:lang="en" lang="en" dir="ltr">

Transcribe Bentham: A Collaborative Initiative

From Transcribe Bentham: Transcription Desk

Keep up to date with the latest news - subscribe to the Transcribe Bentham newsletter; Find a new page to transcribe in our list of Untranscribed Manuscripts

JB/106/207/002

Jump to: navigation, search
Ready for review. Submitted by Kdownunder

Click Here To Edit

All this while, one King seems not sufficiently clear easily deniable –
viz: that if there be a mischief liable to be produced and left without remedy,
whether the instrument by which it is produced be a final
judgment or an interlocutor
the mischief, by having an
interlocutor instead of a final judgment, an interlocutor for its efficient material cause, is not
materially lessened: But the reasoning I suppose is was this
and that a man who had his choice with whether he for want of an appeal would have
£1000 by an interlocutor or £4000 by a final judgment
would rather see the loss by the final judgment unappealable from and irremediable
than the loss from the interlocutor.

But the reasoning I suppose was this: though a man
is debarred from appealing to the Lords as from an interlocutor
a judgment by which the suit is not terminated his right of appealing from the final judgment that comes afterwards,
remains untouched: if then the final judgment
is the same notwithstanding the interlocutor as it would have
been without the interlocutor, there is no harm done, and by
his not having been permitted, that is by his lawyer's not
having been permitted to persuade him, to appeal against the
interlocutor, he is so much delay vexation and expence is
saved to him. But On the other hand if the effect of the interlocutor
be to exercise an influence on the final judgment to his prejudice
– to cause him occasion him to lose the cause pro tanto or in toto, then comes the time for him to appeal, and he gets obtains redress
against final judgment and interlocutor together: – and as to
delay But how far this m any delay that may have been
produced by the interlocutor, the plain provision is made against
that inconvenience, by the encreased cost: for which provision is by
the that is to come.


Identifier: | JB/106/207/002
"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 106.

Date_1

1807-01-08

Marginal Summary Numbering

11 or 4 - 12 or 5

Box

106

Main Headings

scotch reform

Folio number

207

Info in main headings field

Image

002

Titles

Category

text sheet

Number of Pages

1

Recto/Verso

verso

Page Numbering

c2 / c3 / e12

Penner

jeremy bentham

Watermarks

Marginals

jeremy bentham

Paper Producer

Corrections

Paper Produced in Year

Notes public

ID Number

57871002

Box Contents

UCL Home » Transcribe Bentham » Transcription Desk