JB/056/267/001: Difference between revisions

Transcribe Bentham: A Collaborative Initiative

From Transcribe Bentham: Transcription Desk

Find a new page to transcribe in our list of Untranscribed Manuscripts

JB/056/267/001: Difference between revisions

Ohsoldgirl (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Ohsoldgirl (talk | contribs)
m Protected "JB/056/267/001": ready for review ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite))
 
(No difference)

Latest revision as of 17:33, 26 September 2025

Click Here To Edit

1828 July 25
Jud

Preface

62. or 10
After serieses of years
remains to be elicited the
only evidence allowed in
Common Law Court by
of extraneous witnesses.

At the end of the larger largest number of these two serious serieses of
years thus employed no other sort of evidence has been thus elicited in Equity
practice by Equity Judges than that of which not a particle of which would
have been supposed to be elicited in Common Law practice
by Common Law Judges. In Equity practice remains therefore
to be effected at the end of this series of years the eliciting in a mode elicitation of the only
sort of evidence which is supposed to be elicited in Common practice, to wit the evidence
the evidence of extraneous witnesses: and in these case the mode of elicitation is different from,

differing from that peril employed in Equity practice as well
as above in Equity practice, as well as from all modes that are employed in Common Law practice.

To the next page

66 or 14
This when only one engaged
on each side — confusion &
to any amount added,
when parties added to any
amount.

The The sort of case here supposed which, for
the purpose of giving to the conception of the reader such relief
as the nature of the case admits have thus far been employed
is that which on each side of the suit presents to view no more than has but one individual
But the instances in which this sort of case is exemplified have place
are by far the least numerous: on the plaintiffs side
there may be individuals in any number: and so likewise
on the Defendants side: the degree in which these multiplication
the confusion is may be and is capable of being [and a
accordingly] the confusion and with it the delay expence
and profit, must be left to imagination,
to in giving adequate expression to it volumes might be
employed.

67. or 15
On a cross Bill parties
may be both plaintiff & defendant —
Bill of reviver
filed. Death ends suitor
& suit — suitor revived at
Resurrection — suit on payment
of fees to Judge & Co

On the plaintiffs side or on the Defendants side or
on both, for as above on the occasion of a Cross Bill every party
may be made to appear in both characters a fresh Bill
[ called a Bill of reviver Note?] must be presented given in [as
in the word is filed Note?] When the Almighty puts the suitor to
death, the Equity Judge puts the suit to death with him, the revival
of the suitor waits the general resurrection: for the reviver
of the suit is in a less quantity of time is necessary,
it takes place of course in payment to made to the Judge and Co
if the price put upon it in the shape name of fees.



Identifier: | JB/056/267/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 56.

Date_1

1828-07-25

Marginal Summary Numbering

62 or 10, 66 or 14 - 67 or 15

Box

056

Main Headings

Procedure Code

Folio number

267

Info in main headings field

Jud

Image

001

Titles

Category

Text sheet

Number of Pages

1

Recto/Verso

recto

Page Numbering

C5

Penner

Watermarks

B&M 1828

Marginals

George Bentham

Paper Producer

Arthur Moore; Richard Doane

Corrections

Paper Produced in Year

1828

Notes public

ID Number

18323

Box Contents

UCL Home » Transcribe Bentham » Transcription Desk
  • Create account
  • Log in