22 April 1807

+ A2

Letter V

III Inadequate compensation[?]

1. Costs

1. Inadequacy

Such then is the worst of the remedy, in the case when the Appellant, being a Defendant in possession, is in solvent circumstances: in cases of minor importance presenting a [...?] of being efficacious; in cases of major importance, certain of not being inefficacious: and the more certain, the greater the importance of the cause.

In the other case, viz. where, the defendant being insolvent, the appeal has for its end in view the gaining leave for embezzling or despoiling[?] the property, that same remedy is altogether devoid of efficacy. In every instance whatsoever, either the subject matter in dispute is lost in

toto to the right owner, or if in any part preserved, preserved - not by the remedy but by some other means: say, for example, security found for eventual satisfaction ( payment, restitution & according to the subject matter of the injury) security, good or bad, given by some other person or persons in the character of bail or bondsmen. But of this further on, under another head.

In the case of the solvent customer to the delay-shop, the interest alone perishes; at least in the first instance: (see delay - Tables, Table I for the contingent mischiefs.) In the case of the insolvent customer, that which is exposed[?] to perish in the first instance, is the principal itself.