date

9 May 1808 I. Reasons Ch.II
9 May 1808

I. Reasons

Ch.II

§.2.

3. In the case of written law, in the statutory form the portion of substantive law in question being the principal, the corresponding instrument belonging to it the accessory, the substantive law has in the first instance been framed at any rate, the instrument if framed at all by the same hand, cast upon it as upon a mould, afterwards.

In the case of unwritten law, it is the instrument, in as far as any instrument can be said to have had existence, that has taken the lead: the instrument, on which every element approaching reality centers[?] having taken its fashion in the first instance, the corresponding portion of substantive law in that gasseous form of which alone in the state of unwritten law, the rule of action is susceptible, has, as it were by distillation, risen out of it.

4. In one case an instrument of demand - a declaration, an indictment - having been presented to the Judge, and on the part of the defendant objected to, has by the Judge been pronounced wrong. Why wrong? because not conformable to that image of the corresponding portion of substantive law which the fancy of the Judge, operating upon such materials as he had found at hand, had framed for the purpose.

In another case the instrument has been more fortunate: why? because no such ideal standard had been set up, or if any, the instrument was not found unconformable to it. The instrument having thus undergone the test, has been gathered up by some of those volunteer and uncommissioned hands, to whose unauthorized industry the unwritten law is in so considerable a degree indebted for its existence, and by them deposited in some corner of that immense repository which contains the materials out of which the commodity called unwritten law, when and in proportion as it is called for, is distilled for use.
Similar Items
  • Title: [10 May 1808 I. Reasons Ch.II]
    Description: 10 May 1808

    I. Reasons

    Ch.II. Laws & Pleading simul [...?]

    §.2. Simul [...?] sub jure

    10. The formularies of pleading are not the only materials of which the sort of law so improperly called unwritten is distilled. Many are the decisions, and vast the masses of unwritten law which have had no such substantive grounds. Decl n.[?] of Judges, general propositions laid down, or supposed to have been, by Judges in the course of those arguments (statements made of the case - the intended decision and the considerations on which under the name of reasons it is grounded) by which the individual decision about to be pronounced in the individual case is preceded and justified, from another class, not to mention any more.

    But the formularies are, and are accordingly acknowledged to be, the best and surest. And why the surest? because they approach the nearest to the nature of statutory, called so improperly for the purpose of distinction, written law. In this case though the general rule has neither determinate words nor avowed author, yet the words after consideration of which the particular decision was framed, were many of them of a general cast: and these are a composition, of which not only the uncomissioned Author, but the commissioned and approving Receiver (I speak of the Judge by whom the instrument was deemed good in law) are frequently to be traced: and, on the inspection of any such formulary by laying out of consideration such of the words as are designative of the individualizing circumstances, a general rule may thus be deduced with much more facility and confidence, than from any supposed words of a supposed Judge, the authenticity, correctness and compleatness of which is assured by Judges, on evidence by much too weak to be regarded as admissible in any other case.

    Other materials, it can not be denied, are received into the work: general rules, for example, deduced from the above, by the authors of abridgments, and institutional books. But the above are the original sources and the others in proportion as the reservoirs they are drawn from stand farther of and farther from these original sources, lose more and more of their weight.
  • Title: [9 May 1808 Ch.II §.2. I. Reason]
    Description: 9 May 1808

    Ch.II §.2.

    I. Reason

    Ch.II. Law & Pleadings simul [...?]

    §.2. simul ficiat[?] sub jure

    §.2. Correspondency, what naturally has place between them, of which they are susceptible under Unwritten law.

    1. In the region of unwritten law, every thing is unreal, imaginary, fictitious, delusive - the words, the penman, the place, the time - every thing.

    The substantive branch of the law has no determinate words, no avowed author, was made at no assignable place, at no assignable point of time. The foundation of the demand, in so far as laid by substantive law, having no form, no existence: it is impossible that any instrument of demand should be moulded on it: a mass of sculptured drapery can not be cast or fitted upon a Shadow.

    2. But though between two objects, one of them, viz. the instrument on good occasions at least, ideal, the other the portion of substantive law compleatly so, no written[?] well-tempered harmony, no close fitting, nothing like correct, compleat and mutual adaptation can take place, yet so far as the nature of the objects admitts, a sort of correspondancy is not altogether wanting.
  • 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.