★ Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.
Auto loaded |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
<p>with business of a still more important nature, are<lb/> so much exposed, two engagements, inconsistent with<lb/> each other, have for want of a recollection of those circumstances<lb/> and incidents from whence the inconsistency<lb/> results, been unawares entered into. In<lb/> such case, what says justice? — that the prior engagement<lb/> shall stand; that the posterior engagement <lb/> shall <del>yield</del> <add>give way</add>. The engagement with your Memorialist<lb/> was the work of a twelvemonth: an engagement <lb/>committed to writing, and continuing in a <lb/> state of habitual & mutual recognition all the time: <lb/> the engagement with gentlemen who wished for another<lb/> choice was the breath of the moment: if irreconcilable,<lb/> which engagement ought to give way?<lb/> This posterior & flying engagement then was <hi rend="underline"><foreign>ab<lb/> initio</foreign></hi>, a void one: it was between two parties only<lb/> where there were three. For by the very nature of the <lb/>business, as your Lordships have seen, your Memorialist<lb/> was a necessary & indispensable party<lb/> to any such engagement: and no engagement on<lb/> this head could be valid which had not his concurrence.</p> | |||
<p>One objection your Memorialist has heard,<lb/> which though specious to a first thought, vanishes<lb/> at the second. Your Lordships, he has been<lb/> informed, or some of your Lordships having <lb/>heard that since the year 1782 which is the</p> | |||
<add>date</add> | |||
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}} | {{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}} | ||
with business of a still more important nature, are
so much exposed, two engagements, inconsistent with
each other, have for want of a recollection of those circumstances
and incidents from whence the inconsistency
results, been unawares entered into. In
such case, what says justice? — that the prior engagement
shall stand; that the posterior engagement
shall yield give way. The engagement with your Memorialist
was the work of a twelvemonth: an engagement
committed to writing, and continuing in a
state of habitual & mutual recognition all the time:
the engagement with gentlemen who wished for another
choice was the breath of the moment: if irreconcilable,
which engagement ought to give way?
This posterior & flying engagement then was ab
initio, a void one: it was between two parties only
where there were three. For by the very nature of the
business, as your Lordships have seen, your Memorialist
was a necessary & indispensable party
to any such engagement: and no engagement on
this head could be valid which had not his concurrence.
One objection your Memorialist has heard,
which though specious to a first thought, vanishes
at the second. Your Lordships, he has been
informed, or some of your Lordships having
heard that since the year 1782 which is the
date
|
Identifier: | JB/118/095/002"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 118. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
|
118 |
panopticon |
||
|
095 |
|||
|
002 |
|||
|
copy/fair copy sheet |
2 |
||
|
recto |
f37 / f38 |
||
|
39149 |
|||
