date

PRIVATE [...?] Dec r 1806
PRIVATE

[...?] Dec r 1806

Scotch Reform To L d Grenville

(8)[?] (1)

Resolut.

Interlocution [...?]

VI [...?] [...?]

A circumstance that may perhaps be not altogether void of instruction, is - that of the bar so inexorably opposed to Appeals against Interlocutory Judgments considered as addressed to the House of Lords, is not in any the smallest part of its extent opposed to Appeals against Judgments of the same description when considered as addressed to the projected Chamber of Review. To the Chamber of Review Appeals against Interlocutory Judgments may pour in without stint[?]: from that seat of novel justice to the House of Lords not a single one must transpire.

Here then comes a dilemma for the solution of which I must beg leave to refer Your Lordship to the learned Author of this plan of reformation:- if appeals against interlocutory judgments are not necessary to justice, how can they be allowed to the Chamber of Review:- if necessary, how come they to be prohibited to be made to the House of Lords?
Similar Items
  • Title: [27 Feb y 1807 (5 Letter V]
    Description: 27 Feb y 1807

    (5

    Letter V

    Resolut. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14

    4 th. That as to Resolution 13 th, inhibiting Appeals to the House of Lords from interlocutory judgments, not excepting those from the Chamber of Review, the inhibition it imparts is inconsistent with the very principle of appeal, and can not be defended on any other ground than that the supreme appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords is unnecessary in toto, as well in its application to final judgments as in its application to interlocutory ones:- for that the distinction between an interlocutory and a final judgment is not in its nature so fixed and determinate, but that the effect of a final judgment may be given to an interlocutory one.
  • 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: [28 Dec r 1806 Scotch Reform To L d]
    Description: 28 Dec r 1806

    Scotch Reform To L d Grenville

    Adoplusida?[?] 1 3

    Resolut. 13

    Interloct[?] Unapplicable

    There are particular cases: and supposing the Resolution to be in these respects too extensive, its /the/ over-amplitude might be corrected by apposite exceptions.

    The /But/ proposed prohibition of Appeals against Interlocutory Judgments assumes and supposes a clear and invariable line of distinction in existence drawn between interlocutory judgments and final ones. Does /Exists then/ any such law exist my Lord? I do not mean in form, but in effect? Is is altogether clear tha neither precedent nor analogy can afford either warrant or plausible [...?] for framing /pronouncing/ judgments that shall be interlocutory in form, final in effect? Take almost any final judgment at random, is ther /can there be/ any difficulty, in framing a judgment, which shall /being/ be in all other respects the same, with the single difference of its being declared to be provisional only, reserving to another time the definitive disposal of the matter /subject matter/ in dispute till another time? This interlocutory judgment, (for under that appellation surely it could come,) this interlocutory judgment, for so long as it continues unmodified /unaltered/, produces the effect of a final one. But by whom is it to be altered? /But who is there to alter it?/ The Court below will not: and the Court above, the House of Lords, this Resolution being carried into act, can not.