- 16 aprilie 2022
- Fără categorie
- No Comments
The same doctrine applies to those who have a natural fool∣ that lasts a lifetime. A transaction made by such a per∣sohn will not be annulled by a court of equity, unless it seems irrational and has absurdities. If this is the case, it will indeed become necessary for an equity court to intervene, although there can be no Ge∣neral rule for the line. Next, suppose that the sum included in the corro∣boration guarantee is actually paid. In this case, is the transferee obliged to return the money if it turns out that the guilt was confirmed ∣, was imaginary and that nothing was due? Neither fairness nor the common law provides a remedy in this case. Ownership of the money paid passes to the transferee; And it is an inviolable rule of e∣quity as well as the common law. That no one may be deprived of his property who is not guilty of guilt. The money in his hand is also not sine causa, because the amount he gave to the transferor is a fair thing. Comparing this case with the first, it turns out that ∣ case frequently takes place in Point of Equity, quod potior est conditio possidentis.
If the sum is only promised, equity is relieved of payment: however, if it is paid, there is no basis of equity to deprive the assignee of his property. Thus, after receiving a partial payment, a creditor assigned the entire amount to ∣ signatory in order to secure a debt owed by him. The assignee who had received payment from the debtor`s entirety on page 144, who was not aware of the previous payment, was sued for reimbursement condictione indebiti after the facts had been discovered. He put his defense on L. 44. Indeb. He insisted that he did not receive more than he was entitled to through the Assignor, this suum received, and that he was not obliged to restore what he had received as payment of a just debt. The defence was maintained accordingly*. The following decision is of the same nature. An heir who had ignored a debt to an assignee for valuable consideration and discovered a few years later that his ancestor had paid the debt to the assignor, he insisted in a con∣dictio indebiti against the assignor, and the defendant was insulted †. Rather, I mention this case because, with the general closure referred to above∣ that a man who is not guilty of fault cannot be deprived of his pro∣perty, a separate legal defence has emerged from the following circumstance that after the incorrect payment ∣∣ the assignor went bankrupt.
Proving this fact, the assignee argued that, relying on payment∣ it had failed to protect itself by an act of war that would have been effective for it, while the assignor would have continued to be solvent; and that the bankruptcy of the assignor should not concern him, but the persecutor whose error caused the loss. What is said above∣ will make it clear that the next decision is wrong. A credi∣tor executor who had confirmed a debt owed to the deceased and had received payment of that title from the debtor`s heir was appointed to return the money after it was later found that the debt had been paid to the original creditor. Page 217 Second, A is a creditor of B and B of C. The debt due from C to B is transferred by decree from Kommen to A when an arrest is placed in the hands of C. But what happens if C, before A is executed, dies and no one is found to represent him? In this case, there is no room for arrest; and yet A should not be disappointed by his payment∣. The hearing must establish the insufficiency by assessing A as the debt owed by C to B. It follows clearly that any wilful transgression of what is ordered or forbidden by law is a moral injustice and a transgression of natural law.
This lesson will be of great importance in this study. JEAN MACKIE, heiress of Maidland, after having distributed several pieces∣ of land in the town of Wigton to people who were mainly innkeepers there, was brought to the head of the fraud and circumvention by his sister, the next heiress due to a ∣ settlement. It turned out, 1st, that Jean Mackie was a habi∣tual drunkard; that she sold her monasteries to buy drinks, and barely left a cloth to cover her nakedness; And that by tempting them with a few shillings, it was in the power of each one to make them accept a bill for a large sum, or to get them to get rid of any part of their land. 2dly, that the orders under appeal were granted without good reason∣. The General Court therefore annulled those ∣ positions. In this case, it should be noted that, although fraud and circumvention have been specified as the basis for this recycling∣ which is common in such processes, but practiced in a botched manner; however, there was not the slightest evidence that John was robbed or surrounded in any way∣. Nor was there any need ∣ to return to such a trick: a small drink or a few shillings to buy it would have tempted her to get rid of one of her subjects at any time, drunk or sober. And she herself, who was called as a witness, reported that she had freely granted these provisions∣ knew what she was doing. Where, then, is the reason for the reduction? Obviously, it is undoubtedly an immoral act to exploit weak people who are unable to resist certain temptations and thus deprive them of their property. To justify such an act, the consent of the injured party cannot have any authority, more than the consent of the child page 66.
In terms of end, it is no less harmful than theft or theft. For more information on justice, check out this ARTICLE from UCLA Law Review, this article from the University of Michigan Law Review, and this article from the Berkley Law Review. On the other hand∣ the violation of a binding legal order that has something to do with it does not necessarily imply a contempt for legal au∣thority. It can only be an act of omission that is not punishable; And it will always be built in such a way that it is built in such a way, unless it becomes clear from constraints that there was a positive intention to contaminate the law. Assuming that the transgression is only an act of omission and, therefore, not a place of punishment, the question is: what can be done to satisfy the will of the legislator∣Latur? The court has two methods: one is to order compliance with the law; And even if this order is not obeyed, criminal contempt must be the construction of the person`s behavior, which, as in the first case, must be followed by appropriate punishment. The other is to order on page 181 that the matter be settled under penalty of punishment. I will give you an example. Free owners are legally required to meet at Michaelmas to include qualified persons on the ticket; but no punishment is added to impose obedience. In the odious of a free owner who wishes to be put on the role, they forgive each other for meeting. What is the remedy here, where there is no financial loss? The Court of First Instance may designate them to meet on pain. For if it is the duty of judges to order the end, they must generally use the means in their power. And if this can be done in respect of an individual, it follows that if a case is ordered in the public interest, it is for the court to order, at the request of the Royal Counsel, that the case be dealt with under penalty.
In a proceeding at the instigation of a father authorized to fish in a river against an inferior heir, for regulating his cruelty and cross, concluding that he had to comply with Saturday`s slap; that the sterns of his atrocities should be three centimetres wide, &c. it has been decreed that the accused should be obliged to ∣ rules under penalty of L. 50 pounds sterling. It was requested for the De∣Fendant that the prosecutor be satisfied with damages in the event of ∣ agreement; because the law has not imposed a penalty and the court cannot impose one. replied that it is beyond the scope of the art to determine the damage in the present case; and therefore a sanction is necessary to enforce these rules. Because if this remedy is neglected by the legislator, it must be implemented by a court of equity according to the principle „That if there is a right, it must take effect. It follows from these principles that a procedure for extracting land should not be maintained before the deadline for payment, more than one procedure against the debtor in person for payment. In fact, I note that a process of postal items and rights was maintained after the legal term of Martinmas` mandate, although Mariä Lichtmess is the usual payment period*. But the reason for this singularity is that originally Martinmas was the conventional term corn rent, and for this rea∣it has been established as the legal term. It slipped into the practice of delaying payment until Candlemas to give the tenant time to squeeze his corns. .