date

28 Dec r 1806 Scotch Reform To L d
28 Dec r 1806

Scotch Reform To L d Grenville 2

Resolut. 13.

Interloc. Unapplicable

Give judgment for the Plff? - That would be to determine that the evidence /testimony/ if which it knows nothing, would had it been given, have been conclusive. Shall it simply suspend the final judgment, [...?] it to the Court below, one of the Chambers of Session, to cause the testimony yo be collected? This would be - not [...?] entertaining an Appeal against an interlocutory judgment alone, but something worse. The delay that would have been occasioned by the appeal against the interlocutor alone would it have been too great to be endurable? Here is that same delay produced[?], plus /with the addition of/ the delay intervening between the interlocutor and the final judgment. Say that the delay /interval/ between interlocutor and final judgment would be the same as whether the final judgment were pronounced before Appeal, or afterwards: if nothing be lost by the prohibition put upon the Appeal against the Interlocutor alone nothing in part[?] of dispatch would be lost, still nothing would be gained.

What if it be a case for examination in perfection[?] in memoriam, or for examination Scoticé Latina-Anglicé de bona esse?[?] At the time of calling for the evidence This witness on /at/ the point of death or expatriation: long before the House has given its Judgment (By the preceeding Resolution there is the new Chamber of Review for the cause to go through first[?] the testimony is given: Moreover the Table of Resolutions, if duly consulted might serve to prove not that it /nor let it/ should be altogether forgotten, that we are dying at all ages.

It is by an Interlocutor that provisional possession is deterred: but the effect of such delivery if made to a wrong person may be irreparable injury. Irreparable injury by waste: timber cut down and sold /the land stripped of its timber/: the house pulled down and the materials sold. Irreparable injury to person yet more serious. Woman delivered to a wrong husband: female orphan to a seducer instead of a proper guardian. When Virginia was put into the hands of the nomine[?] of Appius[?], it was or might have been by an Interlocutor.
Similar Items
  • Title: [18[?] Jan y 1807 I. [...?]]
    Description: 18[?] Jan y 1807

    I. [...?]

    Letter V

    II.[...?]

    III. Interlocutor

    IV. Delay

    All this while, one thing seems not easily [...?]able /sufficiently clear/ - viz: that if there be a mischief, liable to be produced and left without remedy, the mischief, by having an interlocutor instead of a final judgment /an interlocutor/, for its material /efficient/ cause, is not materially lessened: and that a man who had his chosen whether he for want of an appeal would have ,1001 by an interlocutor or ,1,000 y 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 from an interlocutor, a judgment by which the suit was 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 lawyers not having been permitted to persuade him, to appeal against the interlocutor, 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 judgement to his [...?] - to occasion him to lose[?] the cause per 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 any delay that may have been produced by the interlocutor, provision is made against that inconvenience, by the increased costs for which provision is announced by the [...?] that is to come.
  • Title: [20 April 1807 (3) 3 Letter]
    Description: 20 April 1807

    (3) 3

    Letter V

    Inadequate compensation

    2. Interlocutors

    Under the liberty I am thus taking, whatsoever there may be of garrulity believe me, my Lord, there is nothing like disrespect couched: and for proof, I will confess to Your Lordship that years ago when first I took the part of the law in hand, legislating where so many of us build castles - no, said I to myself, we will have no appeals against particulars.

    The reason was simple, and shewed well enough at the first blush. It was the reason already given. Till final judgment is passed, be there ever so many interlocutors, and all wrong, still there is no harm done: wait then for final judgment: if the final judgement is right, appeal against interlocutors is useless: final judgment wrong, then comes appeal against final and interlocutory judgments at the same time. All well this, to a side glance: but no sooner did I take it up, to look at it at right angles than the following questions presented themselves, and the illusion vanished.

    Question 1 t. Is there any permanent and indelible distinction between an interlocutory judgment and a final one? - Answer in the negative.

    Question 2 d. Is there any thing that, being to be done by a final judgment, can not be done by an interlocutor if those on whom it depends are so disposed? Answer - very little, or say more likely, nothing. Whatever your final judgment be, call it an interlocutor, and the thing is done.

    Question 3 d. Supposing a clear and unpassable line were drawn, are there not cases in which an interlocutor, erroneous yet not to be appealed from, be productive of irreparable mischief? - mischief no less irreparable and no less serious than as any that could be done by any final judgment? Answer - plenty.
  • Title: [31 Jan y 1808 on L d Eldon's Bill]
    Description: 31 Jan y 1808

    on L d Eldon's Bill

    II. Appeals

    5 or 6. Interlocutors unappealable

    2. When the mischief, if any, that would result from the execution of the interlocutor is irreparable in its nature, the prohibition thus put upon Appeal, deprives the mischief of its only remedy.

    Of the cases, in which, supposing the interlocutory judgment erroneous, and thence productive of mischief, that mischief is in its action irreparable, exemplifications to a considerable extent have been given above.

    When the cause is ripe for final judgment, and final judgment has accordingly been pronounced, then it is indeed that the prohibition here put upon Appeals is taken off; and whatsoever may have been the number the interlocutors that have entertained may, all of them, be appealed against at once. But in the mean time the mischief has taken place and that mischief irreparable: and now that relief is become impossible, it is now for the first time that the party aggrieved is allowed to call for it.