22 April 1808

Reasons for the Work

In brief, in any instrument of demand the plaintiff's right to the service therein and thereby demanded at the charge of the defendant at the hands of the Judge is not sufficiently established, even supposing the allegations therein contained to be true, in fact, as well as warranted by the power of the law, unless, unless along with an allegation of the existence of some one at least of the events or states of things to which the law has given the effect of collative or investitive events or states of things with reference to that right in favour of an individual so circumstanced as the plaintiff is, it contains an allegation of the non-existence of all such events or states of things, to which the law has given the effect of ablative or divestitive events or states of things with reference to that same right.

If this be so a portion of law (substantive law) is never compleatly and sufficiently designated and expressed, unless to whatever events and state of things it establishes in the character of collative events with relation to any right it subjoins, either at length under that same head or division of the [...?], or by reference to some other head or division, a designation of all such events or states of things to which the law has given the effect of ablative events or states of things with reference to that same right.

So, as to any instrument of demand grounded on such portion of substantive law. No[?] such instrument of demand is in no case sufficient and compleat, unless along with the individual demand which, together with the grounds thereof it exhibits, it contains a designation of all such grounds of defence as, by possibility, have application to any such demand: not only the existence of some determinate ground of demand being therein asserted, but the sure[?] existence of whatever grounds of defence might, had they existed, have been applicable to it.