date

PRIVATE 23 April 1807 Letter
PRIVATE

23 April 1807

Letter V

Inadequate compensations

2. Interlocutors Unappealable

V. English[?] Law

In English law, speaking of Common Law, no such thing as an interlocutor is to be found. I speak of interlocutory judgments which are such in name: one stage of the cause excepted, in which the judgment, the signature of which, is performed upon the mechanical principle upon which so much is done under English technicalism, the Judge whose judgment it is said to be, neither knowing nor caring any thing about the matter, and human reason having no share in it.

For irregularity, upon the principle of nullification, this sort of interlocutor is sometimes set aside: set aside, but only by the Court itself by which it is supposed to be pronounced, not, in the way of Appeal, by the House of Lords or any other Court.

On the other hand if interlocutors in effect be in question and, if a judgment which is never definitive, in so much as the possession which it delivers is never otherwise than definitive -be understood to be an interlocutor in effect - in the most impersonal class of civil causes that English procedure laws /judicature/ no final judgment tha is ever pronounced is ever final - nothing that is ever done is ever done by any thing but interlocutors. I speak of the judgment in /on/ the sort of action called an ejectment: to which may or may not be added the action of trespass, in the case where it is employed for the trial of a title.

In Scotland such abundance, in England such scarcity of interlocutors, are arrangements that can not be both of them conducive to the discovery of truth, or subservient to the ends of justice. In fact neither of them is. But what renders English procedure somewhat less unconducive to its professed object than it would be otherwise, is - that of the Scottish interlocutors the function is to a certain extent answered on some occasions by those rules of Court[?] as they are called, to which birth is given by those incidental and casual applications called Motions.

+ When two roads so widely different are pursued in going or professing to go to the same place are so widely different, both may be crooked, both can not be strait.
Similar Items
  • Title: [PRIVATE 5[?] June 1807 Letter]
    Description: PRIVATE

    5[?] June 1807

    Letter V

    v. No Appeals against Interlocut

    v. Proposed prohibition of Appeals against Interlocutors - a bad remedy

    I come now to the second of these bad remedies against delay - of these bad expedients for saving the sum of time to the House of Lords - of these imaginary compensations for the delays attendant in Scotland on the proposed Chamber of Review - prohibition of Appeals to the Lords against interlocutors - interlocutory judgments pronounced by the Court of Session.

    At the outset of this letter I stated what appeared to me the only ostensible ground on which such an arrangement could have been proposed: no injury done by misdecision no injury done untill the judgment has been final.

    On the same occasion I stated what appeared to me a radical objection /contrare[?] objection/ to any arrangement built upon such ground: viz. that between the class of Appeals proposed to be prohibited and the class of Appeals proposed to be still permitted no time of separation has been drawn, has been proposed to be drawn, or is likely to be drawn, so that here is an arrangement of which compleat uncertainty, interminable litigation, and incalculable mischief is the certain consequence.
  • 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: [5 Feb y 1808 6 II. App]
    Description: 5 Feb y 1808

    6

    II. App

    Interlocutors unappealable

    3. A case there is in which the remedy is not only productive of the disease, but the disease so produced is moreover incurable.

    3. What if in any case, the mischief the production of which is in the Court below the object aimed at, is a mischief capable of being produced without any final judgment, and by staving off final judgment? In this case, to say that Appeal may be made against the interlocutor when Appeal is made against the final judgment, is to say that Appeal may be made at a time that will never come.

    Suppose a case - a supposition not altogether out of nature - a particular individual case - in which it would be more agreeable to the Judge of the Court below to see their own will done than an opposite one. The means seem not very difficult - By whatever decree the business is done call it - not a final decree but an interlocutor.

    Conceive a conception to prevail in the supreme local judicatory that it could be for the advantage of his Majesty's subjects within Scotland that the law by which they are governed should in each instance be finally settled on the spot by a set of Judges bred up in the study and practice of it instead of travelling into England (Scotia a foreign Country) than to be decided by a judicatory composed in name of all the Lords of the Imperial Parliament in effect of an English Chancellor who till the day which placed the seals in his hand, had never looked into a Scotch law book nor ever had any concern in any one Scotch cause[?] in his whole life.