★ Find a new page to transcribe in our list of Untranscribed Manuscripts
m Protected "JB/106/207/002": ready for review ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite)) |
No edit summary |
||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
'''[{{fullurl:JB/106/207/002|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]''' | '''[{{fullurl:JB/106/207/002|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]''' | ||
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
<p>All this while, one King seems not <add>sufficiently clear</add> easily deniable –<lb/> | |||
' | viz: that if there be a mischief <add>liable to be produced and</add> left without remedy,<lb/> | ||
<del>whether the instrument by which it is produced be a final<lb/> | |||
judgment or an interlocutor</del> the mischief, by having an<lb/> | |||
interlocutor instead of a final judgment, <add>an interlocutor</add> for its <add>efficient material</add> cause, is not<lb/> | |||
materially lessened: <del>But the reasoning I suppose is <add>was</add> this</del><lb/> | |||
and that a man who had his choice <del>with</del> whether he <add>for want of an appeal</add> would have<lb/> | |||
£1000 by an interlocutor or £4000 by a final judgment<lb/> | |||
would rather see <add>the loss by the</add> final judgment unappealable from and <unclear>irremediable</unclear><lb/> | |||
than the loss from the interlocutor.</p> | |||
<p>But the reasoning I suppose was this: though a man<lb/> | |||
is debarred from appealing to the Lords <del>as</del> from an interlocutor<lb/> | |||
<add>a judgment by which the <del><gap/></del> suit is not terminated</add> his right of appealing from the final judgment that comes afterwards,<lb/> | |||
<del><gap/></del> remains untouched: if then the final judgment<lb/> | |||
is the same notwithstanding the interlocutor as it would have<lb/> | |||
been without the interlocutor, there is no harm done, and by<lb/> | |||
his not having been permitted, that is by his lawyer's not<lb/> | |||
having been permitted to persuade him, to appeal against the<lb/> | |||
interlocutor, <del>he is <gap/></del> so much <add>delay</add> vexation and expence is<lb/> | |||
saved to him. <add>But</add> On the other hand if the effect of the interlocutor<lb/> | |||
be to exercise an influence on the final judgment to his prejudice<lb/> | |||
– to <del>cause him</del> occasion him to lose the cause pro | |||
<hi rend="underline">tanto</hi> or in <hi rend="underline">toto</hi>, then comes the <add>time for him to</add> appeal, and he gets <add>obtains</add> redress<lb/> | |||
against final judgment and interlocutor together: – and as to<lb/> | |||
<del>delay But how far this m</del> any delay that may have been<lb/> | |||
produced by the interlocutor, <del>the plain</del> provision is made against<lb/> | |||
that inconvenience, by the <add>encreased</add> cost: for which provision is <gap/> by<lb/> | |||
the <gap/> that is to come.</p> | |||
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{ | {{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Ready_For_Review}} |
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. |
|||
---|---|---|---|
1807-01-08 |
11 or 4 - 12 or 5 |
||
106 |
scotch reform |
||
207 |
|||
002 |
|||
text sheet |
1 |
||
verso |
c2 / c3 / e12 |
||
jeremy bentham |
|||
57871002 |
|||