date

28 April 1808 §. 6. I. Reasons
28 April 1808

§. 6.

I. Reasons for the Work

§.6. Legislator should frame demand

§.6. It belongs to the legislator in every case to determine as far as may be the tenor, as well of the instrument of demand, as of the correspondent portion of substantive law in which the party's right to make the service demanded is grounded.

1. By §. 5. art.│ │ the conformity of the instrument of demand to the correspondent portion of substantive law ought to be entire. It belongs therefore to the legislator in every case to do what depends upon himself to secure such conformity. But by no other means can he render such security so entire, as by fixing, by his own choice, the words of both.

2. Of these words there are some which it is not possible for him to determine in every, nor so much as in any, individual instance. Those are all such words as are necessary to the characterizing of the individual case. But the impossibility he is under of performing this small part which is so easy to be performed by other hands affords no reason for his omitting to perform such parts as can not with equal security against failure be performed by any but his own.

 This prevents all nulliture[?]
Similar Items
  • Title: [28 April 1808 §.8. I. Reasons]
    Description: 28 April 1808

    §.8.

    I. Reasons for the Work

    §.8. No good pleading sans homologation

    §.8. No system of pleading either compleat, or, to the extent of it, well adapted to the ends of justice, can be constructed, unless its necessary basis, viz. the correspondent portion of substantive law, be in the state of statutory, in contradistinction to unwritten (say rather jurisprudential) law.

    1. By §.6. art. 1. the system of pleadings can not be subservient to its sole professed and sole proper purpose, any further than in its conformity to the correspondent portion of substantive law, the rule of action to which it professes to give execution and effect, is entire. But it is only by the hand of the legislator, that any such conformity can be produced. To produce it in any manner requires that the operator should at least have at his disposal the tenor of the instruments of which the system is composed. To produce it in the most convenient and perfect way requires that the operator be master not only of these instruments but of the portions of substantive law into which they are respectively to be made to fit: it requires that they should be worked up together: and not only that the instruments should be made to fit into the correspondent portion of substantive law, but that each portion of substantive law should be constructed in such a manner, put into such a form, as may fit it in the best manner to the purpose of housing those instruments moulded in it.
  • Title: [28 April 1808 §. 5. I. Reasons]
    Description: 28 April 1808

    §. 5.

    I. Reasons for the Work

    §.5. Demand supposes substantive law

    The demandant, in and by his instrument of demand, can no otherwise shew to the satisfaction of the Judge that the service which he demands as due to him at the hands of the Judge really is due to him in virtue of the correspondent portion of substantive law than by bringing it to view, viz. either by repetition in terminis[?], or at least by description and reference.

    On the conformity of the demand so made to the import of the portion of law on which the demand is grounded, depends the legality of the demand, the obligation, and even the right of the Judge to render the service so demanded at his hands. If in any material part the conformity fails, so does the right of the party to demand the service, so does the right of the Judge to render it.
  • Title: [9 May 1808 I. Reasons Ch.II]
    Description: 9 May 1808

    I. Reasons

    Ch.II. Law & Pleadings simul facile

    §.1. Simul facile erunt sub lege

    1. Instrument of demand must be adapted to subst. law.

    2. Substant. law must be adapted to instrument of demand.

    3. Titles and countertitles must be provided in Code with short names, by which they may be designated in the Formulary.

    4. To encrease the conformity, legislator ought to draw up the instruments.

    Ch.II. Substantive Law and Instruments of Pleading ought to be worked up together.

    §.1. Correspondency of which they are susceptible to be given to them under Statutory law.

    1. Suppose, in any part of the field of law, a portion of substantive law already created, a portion of law conferring on persons of such or such a description a certain mass of rights, in the event of their having to produce in their favour a sufficient title to those {rights, the effect of such positive title not being destroyed by any negative one}, an instrument of demand, will, if it be adapted to its purposes as above delineated + should, it is evident, be made exactly comparable to the correspondent portion of substantive law. On this, as on all other occasions this title he makes must include a positive part and a negative part: in making out the positive part he must assert the existence in his favour of some one at least in the list of causes creative of title established in that character in the corresponding part of the Code: to assist the negative part he must deny the existence of every article on the list of causes destructive of title established in the Code in that character.

    2. This rule is of course pursued in a certain degree, though in a manner far from being the most commodious, in English practice. Where an Action is grounded on a particular Statute, in the instrument of demand, called here the declaration, reference is made to the statute: where an Indictment is grounded on a Statute, as the instrument of demand called here the Indictment, reference is also made to the Statute: and in both cases not only a designation is given of the corresponding portion of substantive law in which the demand thus grounds itself is required to be given and given accordingly, but between the wording of the text of the law and the wording of the instrument of demand a certain mode and degree of conformity is exacted[?], a negation being put upon the demand, put by the Judge, in case of failure.

    + Ch.I. §.2.