28 April 1808

§.4.

I. Reasons for the Work

§.4. Demand the sole instrument

3. True it is, that forasmuch as it may happen to the effect of the collative incident or state of things of which the positive part of the demandants efficient cause of right is composed, to be defeated by the existence of some ablative event, so may it to the effect of such ablative incident or state of things, to be defeated by some other incident or state of things, the effect of which on that account may with relation to the collative or investitive incident in question be termed re-investitive: and so on indefinitely, through a chain of opposite and alternating incidents of any length.

4. But of such reinvestitive incident the possible existence, as it might be, so it ought to be, foreseen and provided for in and by the instrument of demand, and the designation of it subjoined to the designation of the ablative incident to which it applies: the ablative incident (it may be said) has not had place unless accompanied or followed by the reinvestive incident by which the ablative effect of it is destroyed.

5. In fact, whether in the case supposed, any separate mention need be made of any distant incident in the character of a re-investitive incident, will frequently depend upon the structure of the language, and upon the words employed accordingly for the designation of the collative incident, so that according to the mode of designation pursued, the re-investitive incident may either be brought forward in the first instance, or kept back till the ablative incident makes its appearance, and then subjoined to it, and as it were placed behind it.