UMDLTextshome Login

Yourbookbaghas0items

Home

Search

Browse

Bookbag

Help

Principlesofequity:
Kames,HenryHome,Lord,16961782.
Tableofcontents |Addtobookbag

PRINCIPLESOFEQUITY.BOOKI.

<<Previoussection Nextsection>>

Page56
PARTI.Powersofacourtofequitytoremedytheimperfectionsofcommonlawwith
respecttopecuniaryinterest,bysupplyingwhatisdefective,andcorrectingwhatiswrong.

THEimperfectionsofcommonlawaresomanyandsovarious,thatitwillbe
difficulttobringthemintoanyperfectorder.Thefollowingarrangement,ifnot
thebest,seemsatleasttobenaturalandeasy.Inhandlingthepowersofa
courtoflaw,thosebywhichindividualsareprotectedfromharmseem
naturallytotakethelead,beingofalllegalpowersthemostessentialto
societywhichmaybedividedintotwochapters:1.Imperfectionsofcommon
lawinprotectingmenfrombeingharmedbyothers2.Inprotectingtheweak
ofmindfromharmingthemselves.Chapter3.Imperfectionsofcommonlaw
withrespecttothenaturaldutyofbenevolence.4.Imperfectionswithrespect
todeedsandcovenants.5.Withrespecttostatues.6.Withrespectto
transactionsbetweendebtorandcreditor.7.Withrespecttolegalexecution.
8.Powerofacourtofequitytoinflictpunishment.
CHAP.I.Powersofacourtofequitytoremedywhatisimperfectincommonlaw,withrespectto
theprotectingindividualsfrominjuries.

THEsocialstate,howeverdisireable,couldneverhavetakenplaceamong
men,weretheynotrestrainedbyamoralprinciplefrominjuringthoseof
theirownspecies.Toabstainfrominjuringothers,isaccordinglythe
primarylawofsociety,inforcedbythemostvigoroussanctions:every
culpabletransgressionofthatlawsubjectsthewrongdoertoreparationand
everyintentionaltransgressionsubjectshim,notonlytoreparation,butalso
topunishment.
Page57
Themoralprincipleofabstainingfrominjuringothers,naturallytakesthe
leadineveryinstituteoflawandastheinforcingthatprinciplehasbeena
capitalobjectinestablishingcourtsofjustice,itispropertocommencea
treatiseofequitywithexamininginwhatcasestheinterpositionofacourtof
equityisrequiredtomakeiteffectualwhichcanonlybewherenoremedy
isprovidedatcommonlaw.
Thewaysareendlessbywhichmenmaybehurtintheirpersonsandintheir
propertybutitissupposed,thatthereareveryfewcasesbutwhatmaybe

broughtunderoneorotherofthefollowingclasses.First,Harmdonein
prosecutingone'sownrightorprivilege.Second,Harmdonewithout
intendingtoprosecuteanyrightorprivilege.Third,Undueinfluence
employ'dfortemptingoroverawingotherstosacrificeknowinglytheirown
interest.Fourth,Fraud,deceit,orotherartificialmeans,employ'dtomake
othersactunknowinglyagainsttheirinterest.
SECTIONI.Harmdonebyamaninprosecutingarightorprivilege.

THEsocialstate,which,ontheonehand,ishighlybeneficialbythe
opportunityitaffordsformutualaidandsupport,is,ontheother,attended
withsomeinconveniencies,asinthoseparticularcaseswhereaman
cannothavethefreeexerciseofarightorprivilegewithoutharming
others.Howfarsuchexercisemaybeindulgedbythelawofournature,
isaquestionofnicediscussion.Thatmenareborninastateoffreedom
andindependency,isanestablishedtruthbutwhetherthatfreedomand
independencymaynotadmitofsomelimitationfromthecollisionof
oppositerightsandprivileges,deservestobeexamined.Ifthefree
exerciseofmyrightsbeindulgedmewithoutregardingtheharmthatmay
ensuetoanother,thatotherissofarundermypower,andhisinterestso
farsubjectedtomine.Ontheotherside,ifIberestrainedfromthe
exerciseofmyrightsandprivilegesineverycasewhereharmmayensue
toanother,Iamsofardependentuponthatother,andmyinterestsofar
subjectedtohis.Hereisathreateningappearanceforcivilsociety,that
seemstoadmitnoresourcebutforceandviolence.Casestherecertainly
arethatadmitnootherresourceaswhereinashipwrecktwopersonslay
holdofthesameplank,one
Page58
ofwhommustbethrustoffthatbothmaynotgotothebottom.Butupon
thepresentsupposition,wearenotreducedtothatdeplorabledilemma
fornaturehastemper'dtheseoppositeinterestsbyarulenotlessbeautiful
thansalutary.Thisruleconsistsoftwobranches:thefirstis,Thateventhe
prosecutionofmyownrightwillnotjustifymeindoinganyactionthat
directlyharmsanotherandsofarmyinterestyieldstohis:thesecondis,
ThatinprosecutingmyrightIamnotconcernedwithanyindirector
consequentialdamagethatanothermaysufferandsofartheinterestof
othersyieldstomine:Iamsorryifmyneighbourhappenthustosuffer
butIfeelnocheckofconscienceonthataccount.Thefirstbranch
resolvesintoaprincipleinculcatedinthepreliminarydiscourse,viz.That
nointerestofmine,noteventhepreservationoflifeitself,authorisesme
todoanymischieftoaninnocentperson.Theotherbranchisfoundedon
expediencyinoppositiontojusticeforifthepossibilityofharming
others,whetherforeseenornotforeseen,weresufficienttorestrainme
fromprosecutingmyownrightsandprivileges,menwouldbetoomuch
crampedinaction,orratherwouldbereducedtoastateofabsolute
inactivity.
Thisrule,whichisfarfrombeingsimpleorobviousinitsapplication,
requirestheillustrationofvariousexamples.Ibeginwithexamplesof
thefirstbranch.Howeverprofitableitmaybetopurgemysuperiorfield
ofwater,yetitisuniversallyadmitted,thatIcannotlegallyopenanew
passageforitintomyneighbour'sgroundbecausethisisadirectdamage
tohim:

"Sicenimdeberequemmelioremagrumsuumfacerenevicinideteriorem
faciat*."
Whereariverisinterjectedbetweenmypropertyandthatofmyneighbour,itis
notlawfulformetoalteritsnaturalcourse,whetherbythrowingituponmy
neighbour'sground,orbydeprivinghimofitbecausetheseacts,bothofthem,
aredirectincroachmentsuponmyneighbour'sproperty.Neratiusputsthecaseof
alakewhichinarainyseasonoverflowstheneighbouringgrounds,toprevent
whichononesideabulwarkiserected.Andhegiveshisopinion,thatifthis
bulwarkhavetheeffect,inarainyseason,tothrowagreaterquantityofwater
thanusualupontheoppositegrounds,itoughttobedemolished.Thisopinionis
undoubtedlywellfoundedatcommonlawbecausebythesuppositionthe
bulwarkisdirectlyprejudicialtotheneighbouringproprietor.Butthisrule
strictlyfollowedwouldbarmanyimprovementsandforthatreasonthereisroom
fortheinterpositionofacourtofequitytomitigatethecommonlaw
Page59
upontheprincipleofutility.Itwillindulgemetoraiseafencewithinmyown
property,topreventmygroundfrombeingoverslow'dbyariverwheninflood,
orbyalake:ifthisworktendattimestothrowagreaterweightofwateruponmy
neighbour,hemayfencehisgroundasIdid.
Theforegoingexamples,beingallofthesamekind,aregovernedbya
practicalrule,Thatwemustnotthrowanythingintoourneighbour's
ground,Neimmittasinalienum,asexpressedintheRomanlaw.Butthe
principlegoesagreatwayfurther,obligingustoabstainfromevery
operationthathasdirectlytheeffecttomakeourneighbour'sproperty
uselessorincomfortabletohim.
"Itseemsthebetteropinion,thatabrewhouse,glasshouse,chandler'sshop,
orstieforswine,setupinsuchinconvenientpartsofatownthattheycannot
butgreatlyincommodetheneighbourhood,arecommonnuisances*."
Neighboursinatownmustsubmittoinconveniencesfromeachotherbutthey
mustbeprotectedfromextraordinarydisturbancesthatrendertheirpropertyina
greatmeasureuselesstothem.Uponthisprinciplethecourtwasofopinion,that
theworkingintheupperstoryofalargetenementwithweightyhammersupon
ananvil,isanuisanceanditwasdecreedthattheblacksmithshouldremoveat
thenextterm.
Nowastothesecondbranchoftherule:Itisagreedbyall,thatwheremy
propertyliesuponthesideofariverthatisgraduallyincroachingupon
me,Imayfencemybankinordertopreventfurtherincroachmentsfor
thisworkdoesnottendtoproduceevenindirectorconsequential
damage:alltheeffectitcanoperateis,topreventmyneighbourfrom
gaininggroundonhisside.Amuchnarrowercaseisdeterminedinthe
Romanlaw,ThatImaylawfullydigapitinmyownlandforgathering
watertomycattle,thoughithappenstointerceptaspringthatrununder
groundintomyneighbour'sfield,andfurnishedhimwithwater.Forin
thiscasethelosstomyneighbourisconsequentialonlybyinterceptinga
benefitfromhim.Forthesamereason,Imaybuildahouseuponmy

marchthoughitinterceptthelightfrommyneighbour'shouseandadry
summerwillnotrestrainmefromtheaccustomeduseofarillrunning
throughmyground,thoughitmaybringitsolowastobeofnoserviceto
myneighbour.
Butwithregardtothisbranchoftherule,thereisalimitation
Page60
foundedentirelyuponequitywhichis,Thathoweverlawfulitmaybefor
amantoexercisehisrightforhisownbenefitwheretheharmthatensues
isonlyconsequentialyetthattheexerciseisunlawfulifitbedone
intentionallytodistressothers,withoutanyviewofbenefitinghimself.
Rightsandprivilegesarebestow'donusforourowngoodbutbyno
meansforhurtingourneighbours.Malevolenceiscondemnedbyall
laws,naturalandmunicipal:amalevolentactofthekindmentionedis
condemnedbytheactorhimselfinhissedatemomentsandhefinds
himselfinconscienceboundtorepairthemischiefhehasthusdone.The
commonlaw,itistrue,overlooksintention,consideringtheactinno
otherviewbutasalegalexerciseofaright.Butequityholdsintentionto
bethecapitalpart,beingthatwhichdeterminesanactiontoberightor
wrongandaffordsreparationaccordingly.Henceageneralruleinequity,
Thatjusticewillnotpermitamantoexercisehisrightwherehisintention
issolelytohurtanotherwhichinlawlanguageistermedtheactingin
aemulationemvicini.Inallcasesofthisnature,acourtofequitywillgive
redressbyvoidingtheact,ifthatcanbedoneotherwisebyawardinga
suminnameofdamages.Weproceedtoexamples.
Amanmaylawfullydigapitinhisownfieldinordertointerceptavein
ofwaterthatrunsbelowthesurfaceintohisneighbour'sproperty,
providedhispurposebetohavewaterforhisownuse:butifhispurpose
betohurthisneighbourwithoutanyviewtobenefithimself,theactis
unlawful,asproceedingfromamalevolentintentionandacourtof
equitywillrestrainhimfromthisoperation*.
Uponthesameprincipleisfoundedthenotedpractice,inacourtof
equity,ofrefusingtosustainanactionatlawunlesstheplaintiffcanshow
aninterestforifhecantakenobenefitbytheaction,thepresumption
mustbe,thatitiscalculatedtodistressthedefendant,anddonein
aemulationemvicini.
Inordertoestablishthejuscreditiinanassignee,andtotallytodivestthe
cedentorassignor,thelawofScotlandrequires,thatnotificationofthe
assignmentbemadetothedebtor,verifiedbyaninstrumentunderthe
handofanotarytermedanintimation.Beforeintimationthelegalrightis
inthecedent,andtheassigneehasaclaiminequityonly.Inthiscase,
paymentmadetothecedentbythedebtorignorantoftheassignment,is
inallrespectsthesameasiftherewerenoassignment:itispaymentmade
tothecreditor,which,inlaw,must
Page61
extinguishthedebt.Butwhatifthedebtor,whenhemakespaymentto
thecedentbeforeintimation,beintheknowledgeoftheassignment?The

commonlawknowsnocreditorbuthimwhoislegallyvestedintheright
andtherefore,disregardingthedebtor'sknowledgeoftheassignment,it
willsustainthepaymentmadetothecedentasmadetothelegalcreditor.
Butequityteachesadifferentdoctrine.Itwaswronginthecedenttotake
paymentafterheconvey'dhisrighttotheassignee:andthoughthedebtor
wasonlyexercisinghisownrightinmakingpaymenttothecedent,who
isstillthecreditoryetbeingintheknowledgeoftheassignment,the
paymentmusthavebeenmadeintentionallytodistresstheassignee,
withoutbenefitinghimself.Acourtofequity,therefore,correctingthe
injusticeofcommonlaw,willholdasnothingthepaymentwrongously
madetothecedent,andwillobligethedebtortomakepaymenttothe
assignee.
Withrespecttothismatter,thereisawidedifferencebetweenthe
solemnitiesthatmayberequisiteforvestinginanassigneeacomplete
righttothesubject,andwhataresufficienttobarthedebtorfrommaking
paymenttothecedent.Intheformerview,aregularintimationin
necessary,orsomesolemnactequivalenttoaregularintimation,a
processforexample.Inthelatterview,theprivateknowledgeofthe
debtorissufficientandhenceitis,thatapromiseofpaymentmadetothe
assignee,thoughnotequivalenttoaregularintimation,isyetsufficientto
barthedebtorfrommakingpaymenttothecedent.Thecourtwent
farther:theywereofopinion,thattheassigneehavingshownhis
assignmenttothedebtor,thoughwithoutintimatingthesamebyanotary,
thedebtorwastherebyputinmalafide,andcouldnotthereaftermake
paymenttothecedent*.Buthistoricalknowledgeofanassignment,
whereitfallsshortofocularevidence,willscarcebesustainedtoputthe
debtorinmalaside.Andthisruleisfoundedonutility:adebtoroughtnot
tobefurnishedwithpretextsagainstpaymentandifprivateconvictionof
anassignment,withoutcertainknowledge,weresufficient,private
convictionwouldoftenbeaffected,togaintime,andtodelaypayment.
Page62
SECT.II.Harmdonebyapersonwhohasnotinviewtoprosecuteanyrightorprivilege.

INtracingthehistoryofcourtsoflawwithrespecttothisbranch,one
beforehandwouldconjecture,thatcommonlawshouldregardnoacts
injuringothersintheirrightsandprivileges,butwheremischiefis
intendedneglectingactsthatareculpableonly,ashavingafoundation
tooslightforthatlaw.Butuponexaminationwediscoveraverydifferent
plansodifferentasthatdamageoccasionedevenbytheslightestfaultis,
andalwayswasrepairedincourtsofcommonlaw.Noroughtwetobe
surprisedatthisextensionofcommonlaw,whichwasnosubtile
refinement,butratherthecontrary.Inthecriminallaw,verylittle
distinctionwasoriginallymadebetweenacriminalandaculpableact,
evenwithrespecttopunishment*,nottotalkofreparation.Andthis
practice,sogrossinrealityaswellasinappearance,wasconformableto
themannersofthosetimesthepassionofresentment,inafierceand
lawlesspeople,beingrousedbytheslightestharm,andbeingtooviolent
foranydeliberatedistinctionbetweenintentionalandculpablewrongs.
Infact,bothwereequallysubjectedtopunishment,evenafterthepower
ofpunishmentwastransferredtothemagistrate.Andofthiswehavea
notableexampleinthelexAquiliaamongtheRomans:

"Quiservumalienum,quadrupedemautpecudem,injuriaoccideritquanti
idineoannoplurimifuit,tantumaesdaredominodamnasesto."
Herethewordinjuriaisinterpreted,
"quodnonjurefactumesti.e.siculpaquisocciderit."
Theretrospectheremayhappentobeagreatpunishmentfortheobligingaman
whokillsalamehorsenotworthfiftyshillings,topayfiftypoundsbecausethe
horsewasofthatvaluesomemonthsbefore,isevidentlyapunishment.Andas
evenaculpalevissimasubjectsamantothelexAquilia,itisclearthatthe
slightestfaultbywhichdamageensuesispunishablebythatlaw.ThelexAquilia
wasaccordinglyheldbyalltobepenalandforthatreasonnoactionuponitwas
sustainedagainsttheheir**.Theonlythingsuprisingis,tofindthislaw
continuinginforce,withoutalterationorimprovement,downtothereignofthe
EmperorJustinian.TheRomanlawwascultivatedbymenofthe
Page63
greatestgenius,andwascelebratedallovertheworldforitsequitabledecisions:
isitnotamazing,thatinanenlightenedagesuchgrossinjusticeshouldprevail,as
tomakeeventheslightestfaultagroundforpunishment?
WhensuchwasthecommonlawoftheRomanswithregardto
punishment,therecanbenodifficultytoassignareasonwhythatlawwas
extendedtoreparationevenfortheslightestfaultandaslittle,toassigna
reasonwhythesameobtainsinthecommonlawofmostEuropean
nations,theprinciplesofwhichareborrowedfromtheRomanlaw.The
penalbranch,itistrue,ofwrongsthatareculpableonly,andnotcriminal,
hasbeenlongabolishedhavinggivenwaytothegradualimprovementof
themoralsense,whichdictates,thatwherethereisnointentiontodo
mischief,thereoughttobenopunishmentandthatthepersonwhoishurt
byafaultonly,notbyacrime,cannotjustlydemandmorethan
reparation.Andasthisisthepresentpracticeofallcivilizednations,itis
clearthatthereparationofdamageoccasionedbyactsofviolencecomes
undercourtsofcommonlaw,whichconsequentlyissofarabartoacourt
ofequity.
Andconsidering,thatregulationsrestrainingindividualsfrominjuring
othersandcompellingthemtoperformtheirengagements,composed
originallythebulkofcommonlaw*,itwillnotbesurprising,thatcourts
ofcommonlawtookearlyundertheircognisanceeveryculpableactthat
occasionsmischiefwhichwasthemorenecessary,inrespectthat,
punishmentbeinglaidaside,reparationistheonlymeanleftfor
repressingaculpableact.Thuswefindampleprovisionmadebycommon
law,notonlyagainstintentionalmischief,butalsoagainstmischiefthat
isonlyforeseen,notintended.Andsofarthereisnooccasionforacourt
ofequity.
Butitisnotsufficientforthesecurityofindividualsinsociety,thataman
himselfbeprohibitedfromdoingmischief:heoughtoverandabovetobe
carefulandvigilant,thatpersons,animals,andthings,underhispower,do
nomischiefandifheneglectthisbranchofhisduty,heisliabletorepair
themischiefthatensues,equallyasifithadproceededfromhisownact.

1st,Withrespecttoservants,itisthemaster'sbusinesstomakearight
choice,andtokeepthemunderproperdisciplineandtherefore,iftheydo
anymischiefthatmighthavebeenforeseenandprevented,heisliable.
Thus,ifapassengerbehurtbymyservant'sthrowingastoneoutofa
windowinmyhouse,orhavehiscloathssulliedbydirtywaterpoured
Page64
downuponhim,thedamagemustberepairedbymeatthefirstinstance
reservingtomereliefagainstmyservant.Butifamanbekilledor
woundedbymyservantinascuffle,Iamnotliableunlessitcanbe
specified,thatIknewhimtobequarrelsome,andconsequentlymight
haveforeseenthemischief.2d,Withrespecttoanimals,itisthe
proprietor'sdutytoguardthemfromdoingharmandifharmensuethat
mighthavebeenforeseen,heisboundtorepairthedamage:as,for
example,wherehesuffershiscattletopastureinhisneighbour'sfieldor
wherethemischiefisdonebyabeastofaviciouskindorevenbyanox
orahorse,which,contrarytoitsnature,heknowstobemischievous*.
3d,Astothings,itisalsothedutyoftheproprietortokeepthemfrom
doingharm.Thusbothfiarandliferenterweremadeliabletorepairthe
mischiefoccasionedtoaneighbouringtenementbythefalloftheirhouse

.Itisthedutyofamanwhocarriesstonesinawaggonalongthe
highway,topackthemneatly,inordertopreventharmandif,bycareless
package,astonedropoutandbruiseapassenger,themanisliable.Butas
tocasesofthiskind,itisagooddefenceagainstaclaimofreparation,
thattheclaimantsufferedbyhisownfault:
"Siquisaliquemevitans,magistratumforte,intabernaproximase
immisisset,ibiqueacaneferocelaesusesset,nonposseagicanisnomine
quidamputant:atsisolutusfuisset,contra."
Ifafiercebullofminegetloose,andwoundaperson,Iamliable:butifaman
breakdownmyfence,andishurtbythebullinmyinclosure,Iamnotliablefor,
byanunlawfulact,hehimselfwastheoccasionofthehurthesuffered.
Thus,withrespecttomattersfallingunderthepresentsection,itappears,
thatfaultscomeundercommonlawaswellascrimes,andomissionsas
wellascommissionsandthereforesofarthecommonlawappears
complete,leavingnogleaningstoacourtofequity.
SECT.III.Undueinfluenceemploy'dfortemptingoroverawingpersonstoactknowinglyagainsttheir
interest.

THEimperfectionsofmanarenotconfinedtohiscorporealpart:hehas
weaknessesofmindaswellasofbodyandifthetaking
Page65
advantageofthelatter,todistressapersonbyactsofviolence,beamoral
wrong,intitlingthesufferertoreparationitisnotlesssototake
advantageoftheformer.Societycouldnotsubsistwithoutsuch
prohibitionandhappyitisformanasasocialbeing,thattheprohibition
withrespecttobotharticlesmakesabranchofhisnature.

Forthesakeofperspicuity,thissectionshallbesplitintotwoparts:the
first,whereaman,sway'dbyaviolenttemptation,actstohisown
prejudiceandthenext,whereheisoveraw'dtoacttohisownprejudice.
ARTICLEI.Whereaman,yieldingtoatemptation,actsknowinglyagainsthisowninterest.

JEANMACKIE,heiressofMaidland,havingdisponedseveralparcels
oflandlyingaboutthetownofWigton,topersonswhoweremostly
innkeepersthere,areductionwasbrought,upontheheadoffraudand
circumvention,byhersister,nextheirinvirtueofasettlement.Itcame
outuponproof,1st,ThatJeanMackiewasahabitualdrunkardthat
shesoldherverycloathstopurchasedrink,scarceleavingherselfarag
tocoverhernakednessandthat,bytemptingherwithafewshillings,
itwasinthepowerofanyonetomakeheracceptabillforalargesum,
ortomakeherdisponeanypartofherland.2dly,Thatthedispositions
challengedweregrantedfornoadequatecause.Thecourtaccordingly
voidedthesedispositions*.Uponthiscaseitoughttobeobserved,that
thoughfraudandcircumventionwerespecifiedasthefoundationof
thisreduction,whichisacommonbutslovenlypracticeinprocesses
ofthatsortyettherewasnottheleastevidence,thatJeanwas
imposeduponorcircumvenedinanymanner.Norwasthereany
necessityforrecurringtosuchartifice:alittledrink,orafewshillings
topurchaseit,wouldhavetemptedheratanytime,drunkorsober,to
disponeanyofhersubjects.Andsheherself,beingcalledasawitness,
deponed,thatshegrantedthesedispositionsfreely,knowingwellwhat
shedid.Where,then,liesthegroundofreduction?Plainlyhere:Itis
undoubtedlyanimmoralact,totakeadvantageofweakpersonswho
areincapabletoresistcertaintemptations,therebytostripthemoftheir
goods.Tojustifysuchanact,theconsentofthepersoninjuredcan
havenoauthority,morethantheconsentof
Page66
achild.Withrespecttotheend,itisnotlessperniciousthantheftor
robbery.
ART.II.Whereamanisoveraw'dtoactknowinglyagainsthisowninterest.

IFitbeamoralwrongtotemptaweakmantoactagainsthisinterest,
extortionisawrongstillmoreflagrant,byitsnearerapproachtoopen
violence.What,therefore,onlyremainsuponthisarticle,istoillustrate
itbyexamples.
Everybenefittakenindirectlybyacreditor,forthegrantingofwhich
noimpulsivecauseappearsbutthemoneylent,willbevoidedas
extorted.Thusanassignmenttoaleasewasvoided,beinggrantedof
thesamedatewithabondofborrowedmoney,andacknowledgedto
havehadnoothercause*.Atthetimeofgrantinganheritablebondof
corroboration,thedebtorengagedhimselfbyaseparatewriting,That
incaseheshouldhaveoccasiontoselltheland,thecreditorshould
haveitforapricenamed.Thepriceappearedtobeequalandyetthe
pactionwasvoided,asobtainedbyextortion.Uponthesameground,
abondforasumtakenfromtheprincipaldebtorbyhiscautioner,asa
rewardforlendinghiscredit,wasvoided.

Rigorouscreditorsgosometimesdifferentlytowork.Iftheydarenot
ventureupongreaterprofitdirectlythanispermittedbylaw,theyaim
atitindirectly,bystipulatingsevereirritanciesuponfailureofpayment.
Onestipulationofthatsortwhichmakesagreatfigureinourlaw,is,
Thatifthesumlentuponawadsetorpledgebenotrepaidattheterm
covenanted,thepropertyofthewadsetorpledgeshall,ipsofacto,be
transferredtothecreditorinsatisfactionofthedebt.Itisthatpaction,
whichintheRomanlawisnamedlexcommissoriainpignoribus,and
whichinthatlawseemstobetotallyreprobated.Withusitmustbe
effectualatcommonlaw,becausethereisnostatuteagainstit.But
then,asitisahardandrigorouscondition,extortedfromanecessitous
debtor,acourtofequitywillinterposetogiverelief.Andthiscanbe
donebyfollowingageneralrulethatisapplicabletoallcasesofthe
kindwhichis,toadmitthedebtortoredeemhispledgebypayment,at
anytime,untiladeclaratorbebroughtbythecreditor,signifyinghis
willtoholdthepledge
Page67
inplaceofhismoney.Thisprocessaffordsthedebtoranopportunity
topurgehisfailurebypaymentwhichisallthatinfairdealingthe
creditorcandemand.Andthusthedeclaratorservesadoublepurpose:
itdeclaresthecreditor'soptiontotakethelandinplaceofhismoney
anditrelievesthedebtorfromthehardshipofapenalirritancy,by
furnishinghimanopportunitytopaythedebt.
Henceitfollows,thatthepowerofredeemingthewadsetorpledge
belongstothedebtor,inallcases,whetherthebargainbelucrativeor
not.Adeclaratorbeingnecessary,thepropertycannottherebybe
transferredtothecreditor,unlessthedebtordeclinetoredeemhis
pledge:andthisoptionhemusthave,whetherthecreditorhavemade
profitornotbypossessionofthepledge.Supposingaproperwadset
granted,bywhichthecreditormakesmorethantheinterestofhis
moneyjusticerequires,thatthedebtorhaveapowertoredeemeven
afterthetermlimited,untiltheequityofredemptionbeforeclosedbya
declaratorandifadeclaratorbenecessary,asisproved,thedebtor
musthavethesameprivilege,evenwherethecreditorhasdrawnless
thanhisinterest.
Inequity,however,amaterialdifferencewillbeobservedbetweena
properwadsetwithapactumlegiscommissoriae,andaproperwadset
wherethetermofredemptionisnotlimited.Inthelattercase,the
partiesstanduponanequalfooting:thecreditormaydemandhis
moneywhenhepleasesandhehasnoclaimforinterest,becauseofhis
agreementtoaccepttherentsinsteadofinterest:thedebtor,onthe
otherhand,mayredeemhislandwhenhepleases,uponrepaymentof
thesumborrowed,withoutbeingliabletoanyinterest,becauseofthe
saidagreement.Butthematterturnsoutdifferentlyinequity,wherethe
powerofredemptionisbypactionlimitedtoacertainterm.There
beingnolimitationuponthecreditor,hemaydemandhismoneywhen
hepleasesandhehasnoclaimforinterest,eventhoughtherentshave
fallenshortoftheinterest.Butifthedebtorinsistupontheequityof
redemptionafterthetermtowhichtheredemptionislimitedhemust,
besiderepayingthesumborrowed,makegoodtheinterest,sofaras
therentofthelandhasproveddeficient.Forimpartialityisessentialto

acourtofequity:iftheonepartyberelievedagainsttherigourofa
covenant,theotherhasthesameclaim:aftertakingthelandfromthe
creditorcontrarytopaction,itwouldbegrossinjusticetoholdthe
pactiongoodagainsthim,bylimitinghimtolessinterestthanheis
intitledtobylawuponanordinaryloan*.
Page68
Fromwhatissaiditwillbeclear,thatapowerofredeemingwithina
limitedtimeannexedtoapropersaleforanadequateprice,cannotbe
exercisedafterthetermlimitedfortheredemptionispast.The
purchaser,towhomthepropertywastransferredfromthebeginning,
hasnooccasionforadeclaratornordothequityrequirethetimefor
redemptiontobeenlargedcontrarytopaction,inacasewherean
adequatepriceisgivenforthesubject.
MANYotherhardandoppressiveconditionsinbondsofborrowed
money,inventedbyrigorouscreditorsfortheirownconveniency,
withouttheleastregardtohumanityorequity,wererepressedbythe
act140.parl.1592.And,bytheauthorityofthatstatute,suchpactions
maybebroughtunderchallengeincourtsofcommonlaw,against
whichotherwisenoremedycouldbeaffordedexceptinacourtof
equity.
Itwasperhapsthestatutenowmentionedwhichmisledthecourtof
sessionintoanopinion,thatitbelongstothelegislaturesolelyto
represssuchrigorousconditionsinagreementsasarestatedabove.One
thingiscertain,thatimmediatelyafterthestatutethereisanactof
sederunt,November27.1592,inwhichthecourtdeclares,
"That,intimecoming,theywilljudgeanddecideuponclausesirritant
containedincontracts,tacks,infeftments,bonds,andobligations,
preciselyaccordingtothewordsandmeaningofthesame."
Sucharesolution,properforacourtofcommonlaw,isinconsistentwiththe
natureofacourtofequity.Themistakewassoondiscovered:theactof
sederuntworeoutofobservanceandnow,foralongtime,thecourtofsession
hasactedasacourtofequityinthisaswellasinothermatters.
ITisusurybystatutetobargainwithadebtorformorethanthelegal
interestbutitisnotusurytotakeaproperwadset,evenwheretherent
ofthelandexceedstheinterestofthemoney.Forthecreditorwho
acceptstherentinsteadofinterest,takesuponhimselftheinsolvencyof
thetenantsandthehazardofthisinsolvency,howeversmall,saves
fromusurywhichconsistsinstipulatingayearlysumcertainabovethe
legalinterest.Butthoughsuchabargain,wheretherentexceedsthe
legalinterest,isnot,strictlyspeaking,usuryitisrigorousand
oppressive,andplainlyspeaksoutthewantofcreditinthepersonwho
submitstoituponwhichaccount,itmightbethoughtapropersubject
forequity,didwenotreflectthatallwadsetsarenotlucrative.When
suchisthecase,whatshallbe
Page69

thejudge'sconduct?Musthegiveanopinionuponeverywadset
accordingtoitspeculiarcircumstances?oroughthetofollowsome
rulethatisapplicabletoallcasesofthekind?Theformeropensadoor
toarbitraryproceedings:thelatterfetteringajudge,forceshimoftento
dowhatismateriallyunjust.Hereequity,regardingindividuals,weighs
againstutility,regardingthewholesociety.Thelatterbeingbyfarthe
moreweightyconsideration,mustpreponderate:andforthatreason
onlyarewadsetstolerated,eventhemostlucrativeforitisnotsafeto
giveanyredressinequity.
Thisdoctrinemaybeillustratedbyadifferentcase.Adebtorstanding
personallyboundforpaymentofthelegalinterest,iscompelledto
giveanadditionalrealsecurity,byinfeftingthecreditorincertain
lands,therentofwhichispaidincorn,withthisproviso,
"Thatthecreditor,ifhechusetolevytherentsforhispayment,shallnot
besubjectedtoanaccount,butshallholdtherentsinlieuofhisinterest."
This,fromwhatisobservedabove,isnotusurybecausethevalueofthecorn,
howevermuchabovetheinterestincommonyears,maypossiblyfallbelowit.
Butasthecreditorisinalleventssecureofhisinterestbyhavinghisdebtor
boundpersonally,andmayoftendrawmorethanhisinterestbylevyingthe
rentwhencornsellshighequitywillrelieveagainsttheinequalityofthis
bargain.Forherethecourtmayfollowageneralrule,applicabletoallcasesof
thekind,affordingaremedyequallycompleteineverysinglecasewhichis,to
obligethecreditortoaccountforeveryfarthinghereceivesmorethanhis
interest,andtoimputethesameintohiscapital.Inthecaseofaproperwadset
thisrulewouldbeunjust,becausethecreditorhasachanceofgettinglessthan
hisinterest,whichoughttobecompensatedwithsomebenefitbeyondthe
ordinaryprofitofmoney:andifthedoorbeonceopenedtoanextraordinary
benefit,apreciseboundarycannotbeascertainedbetweenmoreandless.But
thecovenantnowmentionedisinitsveryconceptionoppressiveandthe
creditormayjustlybedeprivedoftheextraordinarybenefithedrawsfromit,
whenheis,inallevents,secureofthelegalinterest.
Pactacontrasidemtabularumnuptialiumbelongtothisarticle.Such
privatepactionsbetweenthebridegroomandhisfather,contrarytothe
faithofthepublictreatyofmarriage,arefraudulentastothewifeand
children,whowillberelievedupontheheadoffraud.Butthehusband
cannotberelieveduponthathead,becauseastohimthereisnofraud:
heisrelievedupontheheadofextortion.
Page70
Everysuchprivatepactionis,byconstructionoflaw,extortedfrom
him:andtheconstructionisjust,consideringhisdependentsituation
forthefearoflosinghisbride,leaveshimnotatlibertytorefuseany
hardtermsthatmaybeimposedbyhisfather,whosettlestheestate
uponhim.Thereliefgrantedtothewifeandchildrenupontheheadof
fraud,comesproperlyunderthefollowingsectionbutforthesakeof
connectionisintroducedhere.Inacontractofmarriagetheestatewas
settleduponthebridegroombyhisfatherandthebride'sportionwas
takenpayabletothefather,whichheacceptedforsatisfactionofthe
debtsheowed,andforprovisionstohisyoungerchildren.Theson
thereafterhavingprivatelybeforethemarriagegrantedbondfora

certainsumtothefather,itwasvoidedatthewife'sinstance,ascontra
fidemtabularumnuptialium*.HughCampbellofCalder,inthe
marriagearticlesofhissonSirAlexander,becameboundtoprovide
thefamilyestatetohimandtheheirsmaleofthemarriage,
"freeofallchargeandburden."
Heatthesametimeprivatelyobtainedfromhissonapromisetogranthima
facultyofburdeningtheestatewithL.2000Sterlingtohisyoungerchildren
whichpromiseSirAlexanderfulfilledafterthemarriage,bygrantingthe
facultyuponanarrative
"ofthepromise,andthatthemarriagearticleswereincompliancewith
thebride'sfriends,thattheremightbenostoptothemarriage."
Inasuitagainsttheheirsofthemarriageforpaymentofthesaidsum,atthe
instanceofHugh'syoungerchildren,inwhosefavourthefacultywasexerted,
thedefendantswereassoilzied,thedeedgrantingthefacultybeinginfraudem
pactorumnuptialium.Thefollowingcasesrelatetotheotherbranch,viz.
oppression,intitlingthehusbandtoreducedeedsgrantedbyhimself.Aman,
aftersettlinghisestateuponhiseldestsoninthatson'scontractofmarriage,
warrantingittobeworth8000merksofyearlyrent,did,beforethemarriage,
takeadischargefromhissonofthesaidobligation.Theestatesettledonthe
sonfallingshortoftherentwarranted,heinsistedinaprocessagainsthis
father'sotherrepresentativesforvoidingthedischargeandthesame
accordinglywasvoided,ascontrafidem.Adischargeofpartoftheportion
beforethemarriagewassolemnized,wasvoidedascontrafidem,atthe
instanceofthegranterhimself,becauseitwastakenfromhimprivately,
withouttheconcurrenceofthefriendswhomhehadengagedtoassisthimin
the
Page71
marriagetreaty*.InEnglandthesameruleofequityobtainsanditisheld,
thatwheretheson,withoutprivityofthefatherorparent,treatingthematch,
givesabondtorefundanypartoftheportion,itisvoidable.Thusthe
bridegroom'smothersurrenderspartofherjointuretoenablehersontomakea
settlementuponthebride,andthebride'sfatheragreestogiveL.3000portion.
Thebridegroom,withoutprivityofhismother,givesabondtothebride's
father,topaybackL.1000oftheportionattheendofsevenyears.Decreed,
Thatthebondshallbedeliveredup,asobtainedinfraudofthemarriage
agreement.OnthemarriageofSirHenryChancey'ssonwithSirRichard
Butler'sdaughter,itwasagreed,thattheyoungcoupleshouldhavesomuchfor
presentmaintenance.Thesonprivatelyagreeswithhisfathertoreleasepart.
Theagreementwassetaside,thoughtheson,aswasurged,gavenothingbut
hisown,andmightdisposeofhispresentmaintenanceashethoughtfit.
Ipromiseamanasumnottorobme.Equitywillrelieveme,by
denyingactionforpaymentandbyaffordingmeanactionforrecalling
themoney,ifpaid.Thelatteractionis,intheRomanlaw,styled,
Condictioobinjustamcausam.TotakemoneyfordoingwhatIam
boundtodowithoutit,mustbeextortion:Iholdthemoneysinejusta
causa,andoughtinconsciencetorestoreit.Thusitisextortionfora

tutortotakeasumfromhispupil'smotherforgrantingafactorytoher
**
.Anditwasfoundextortioninamantotakeabondfromonewhose
curatorhehadbeen,beforehewoulddeliverupthefamilywritings.
Abargainofhazardwithayoungheir,tohavedoubleortreblethesum
lent,afterthedeathofhisfatherorothercontingency,isnotalwaysset
asideinequityforatthatrateitwouldbedifficulttodealwithanheir
duringthelifeofhisancestor.Butifsuchbargainappearvery
unreasonable,itissetaside,uponpaymentofwhatwasreallylent,with
interest.Oneintitledtoanestateafterthedeathoftwotenantsfor
life,takesL.350topayL.700whenthelivesshouldfall,and
mortgagestheestateasasecurity.Thoughboththetenantsforlifedied
withintwoyears,yetthebargainbeingequal,
Page72
noreliefwasgivenagainstit*.Ayoungman,presumptiveheirtoan
estatetailofL.800yearly,beingcastoffbyhisfather,anddestituteof
allmeansoflivelihood,madeanabsoluteconveyanceofhisremainder
intailtoI.S.andhisheirs,uponconsiderationofL.30paidhimin
money,andasecurityforL.20yearlyduringthejointlivesofhimand
hisfather.Thoughthefatherlivedtenyearsafterthistransaction,and
thoughI.S.wouldhavelosthismoneyhadtheheirdiedduringhis
father'slife,yettheheirwasrelievedagainsttheconveyance.The
plaintiff,ayoungman,whohadanarrowallowancefromhisfatheron
whosedeathagreatestatewastodescendtohimintail,having,inthe
year1675,borrowedL.1000fromthedefendant,becamebound,in
casehesurvivedhisfather,topaythedefendantL.5000withina
monthafterhisfather'sdeath,withinterestthereafterbutthat,ifhedid
notoutlivehisfather,themoneyshouldnotberepaid.Afterthefather's
death,whichhappenedanno1679,theplaintiffbroughthisbillupon
theheadoffraudandextortion,toberelievedofthisbargain,upon
repaymentofthesumborrowed,withinterest.Thecausecamefirst
beforetheLordNottinghame,whodecreedthebargaintobeeffectual.
But,uponarehearingbeforeLordChancellorJeffreys,itwasinsisted,
Thattheclausefreeingtheplaintifffromthedebtifhediedbeforehis
father,didnotinreasondifferencethecasefromanyotherbargain
madebyanheirofentail,tobeperformedatthedeathofthetenantin
tailforinallsuchcasesthedebtislostofcourse,uponpredeceaseof
theheirofentailandthereforethatthisclause,evidentlycontrivedto
colourabargainwhichtothedefendanthimselfmusthaveappeared
unconscionable,wasinrealityacircumstanceagainsthim.Thoughin
thiscasetherewasnoproofoffraud,norofanypracticeusedtodraw
theplaintiffintothebargainyet,becauseoftheunconscionablenessof
thebargain,theplaintiffwasrelievedagainstit.Intheyear1730,the
EarlofPeterborough,thenLordMordaunt,grantedbondatLondon
aftertheEnglishform,toDrWilliamAbercromby,bearing,
"ThatL.210wasthenadvancedtohisLordshipandthat,ifheshould
happentosurvivetheEarlofPeterboroughhisgrandfather,hewastopay
L.840totheDoctor,twomonthsaftertheEarl'sdeathandifhe,theLord
Mordaunt,diedinthelifetimeoftheEarl,theobligationwastobevoid."
UponthedeathoftheEarlofPeterborough,

Page73
whichhappenedaboutfiveyearsafterthedateofthebond,anactionwas
broughtinthecourtofsessionagainsttheLordMordaunt,nowEarlof
Peterborough,forpaymentandthecourt,uponauthorityofthecase
immediatelyforegoing,unanimouslyjudged,thatthebondshouldonlysubsist
forthesumactuallyborrowed,withtheinterest*.
SECT.IV.Fraud,deceit,orotherartificialmeans,employ'dformakingamanactunknowinglyagainst
hisinterest.

ITisthought,thatacourtofcommonlawseldominterposesinanyofthe
casesthatcomeunderthesectionimmediatelyforegoingandthereason
is,thatwhetheramanbeledagainsthisowninterestbyaviolent
temptationorbyextortion,thereisstilllefttohiminappearanceafree
choice.Butwithrespecttothemattersthatbelongtothepresentsection,a
manisledblindlyagainsthisowninterest,andhasnochoice.This
speciesofwrong,therefore,beingmoreflagrant,isnotneglectedby
courtsofcommonlaw.Itisaccordinglylaiddownasageneralruleinthe
Englishlaw,
"Thatwithouttheexpressprovisionofanyactofparliament,alldeceitful
practicesindefraudinganotherofhisknownright,bymeansofsomeartful
device,contrarytotheplainrulesofcommonhonesty,arecondemnedbythe
commonlaw,andpunishedaccordingtotheheinousnessoftheoffence."
Thusthecausinganilliteratepersontoexecuteadeedtohisprejudice,by
readingittohiminwordsdifferentfromthoseinthedeed,isafraud,whicha
courtofcommonlawwillredress,bysettingthedeedaside.Thesamewherea
womanisdeceivedtosubscribeawarrantofattorneyforconfessingajudgement,
understandingthewritingtobeofadifferentimport.Insellingahouse,itbeing
alietoaffirmthattherentisL.30insteadofL.20,bywhichthepurchaseris
movedtogiveagreaterpricethanthehouseisworththislosswillberepairedby
acourtofcommonlaw,thoughthepurchaser,bybeingmorecircumspect,might
havepreventedtheloss.
Page74
Ingeneral,everycovenantprocuredbyfraudwillbesetasideinacourt
ofcommonlaw.Butwithregardtocovenantsoragreementsdisregarded
atcommonlaw,therecanbenoreliefbutinacourtofequity.Thusa
policyofinsurancewassetasideuponfraudbyabillinchancery*.
Wenextproceedtoinquire,whethereverydeceitfulpracticetoimpose
uponotherscomesundercommonlaw.Fraudconsistsinmypersuadinga
manwhohasconfidenceinme,todoanactasforhisowninterest,which
Iknowwillhavethecontraryeffect.Butinwhatevermanneramanbe
deceivedormissed,yetifhewasnotdeceivedbyrelyinguponthe
friendshipandintegrityofanother,itisnotafraud.Fraudtherefore
impliestreachery,withoutwhichnoartificenordoubledealingcanbe
termedfraudinapropersense.Buttherearedoublefac'dcircumstances
withoutnumber,andotherartfulmeans,calculatedtodeceive,whichdo
notinvolveanydegreeoftreachery:whenamansuffershimselftobe
deceivedbysuchartifice,itmustinsomemeasurebehisownfault,and

bystandersaremoreapttomakehimtheobjectoftheirridiculethanof
theirsorrowforwhichreasonfraudsofthisinferiornaturehavebeen
overlookedbycommonlaw.Butaseveryattempttodeceiveanotherto
hisprejudiceiscriminalinconscience,itisthedutyofacourtofequityto
represssuchdeceit,byawardingreparationtothepersonwhosuffers.
Andutilitypleadsforreparationaswellasequityforiflawwerenot
attentivetorepressdeceitinitsbud,corruptionwouldgainground,and
eventhegrossestfraudswouldbecometoostubbornforlaw.Itisthis
speciesofdeceit,excludingtreachery,thatLordCokeprobablyhadinhis
eye,whenhelaysdownthefollowingdoctrine,Thatallcovins,frauds,
anddeceits,forwhichthereisnoremedyatcommonlaw,areandwere
alwaysredressedinthecourtofchancery.
Itismentionedabove,thatacovenantprocuredbyfraudwillbesetaside
inacourtofcommonlawandInowgiveinstanceswhereacovenant
procuredbydeceitthatamountsnottofraud,issetasideinacourtof
equity.Amanhavingfailedinhistrade,compoundedwithhiscreditors
atsomuchperpound,tobepaidatatimecertain.Someofthecreditors
refusingtofulfiltheagreement,abillwasbroughtbythebankruptto
compelaspecificperformance.Butitappearingthathehadunderhand
agreedwithsomeofhiscreditorstopaytheirwholedebts,inorderthat
theymightdrawintherest
Page75
toacomposition,thecourtwouldnotdecreetheagreement,butdismissed
thebill*.Apurchasemadebyamerchantinthecourseofcommercewill
beeffectual,howeversoonhisbankruptcyfollow,provideditwashis
intentionbycontinuingintradetopaytheprice.Butifhehadbankruptcy
inview,andnoprospecttopaytheprice,thebargain,broughtaboutbya
palpablecheat,willbereducedinacourtofequity,andthesubjectbe
restoredtothevender.Theonlythornypointis,todetecttheanimusof
thepurchasertodefraudthevender.InthecaseofJosephCave,the
presumptivefraudwasconfinedtothreedaysbeforethecessiobonorum
butinthatcaseCavethepurchaserwasingoodcredit,tillhedemandeda
meetingofhiscreditorsinordertosurrenderhiseffectstothem.There
mayhoweverbeothercircumstancesconcurringwithinsolvencyto
enlargethatperiod.GilbertBarclaymerchantinCromartywasin
labouringcircumstances,andowedmuchmorethanhewasworth,when
hemadeapurchaseofsalmonfromMackayofBighouseandbefore
delivery,severalofhiscreditorsproceededtoexecutionagainsthim.Ina
fewdaysafterdeliveryhemadeoverthesalmontoWilliamForsyth,
anothermerchantofthesametown,inpartpaymentofadebtdueto
ForsythwhowasintheknowledgethatBarclaywasinlabouring
circumstances,andthatthepriceofthesalmonwasnotpaid.Execution
thickenedmoreandmoreuponhim,andhebrokeintendaysora
fortnightafterthesalmonwasdeliveredtoForsyth.Fromthese
circumstancesthecourtpresumedanintentioninBarclaytodefraud
Bighouse:andconsideringthatForsyth'spurchasewasnotmadebona
fide,theyfoundhimliabletopaytoBighousethevalueofthesalmon.
Nextofothertransactionsbroughtaboutbydeceitfulmeans.Bya
marriagesettlementAistenantforlifeofcertainmills,remaindertohis
firstsonintail.Theson,knowingofthesettlement,encouragesaperson,
aftertakingathirtyyearsleaseofthesemills,tolayoutaconsiderable

suminnewbuildings,andotherimprovements,intendingtotakethe
benefitafterhisfather'sdeath.Thisisadeceitwhichequity
discountenancesandthereforeitwasdecreed,thatthelesseeshould
enjoyfortheresidueofthetermthatwascurrentatthefather'sdeath.
Thedefendantonatreatyofmarriage
Page76
forhisdaughterwiththeplaintiff,signedawritingcomprisingtheterms
oftheagreement.Designingafterwardtogetloosefromtheagreement,
heorderedhisdaughtertoenticetheplaintifftodeliverupthewriting,
andthentomarryhim.Sheobey'dandthedefendantstoodatthecorner
ofthestreettoseethemgoalongtobemarried.Theplaintiffwasrelieved
onthepointofdeceit.Amanhavingagreedtobeboundforcertain
provisionsinhisson'scontractofmarriage,uponapromisefromtheson
todischargethesame,whichaccordinglywasdonebeforethemarriage
andafterthemarriagemoneyhavingbeenlenttotheson,uponthefaith
ofthesaidprovisionsinhiscontractthedischargewassetasideatthe
instanceofthecreditors,asbeingadeceitfulcontrivancebetweenfather
andsontoentrapthem*.Inasuitbytheindorseeofanoteorticket,the
debtorpleadedcompensationuponanotefortheequivalentsum,granted
himbytheindorser,bearingthesamedatewiththatuponwhichthe
processwasfounded.Thecourtdeemedthisadeceitfulcontrivanceto
furnishtheindorsercreditandthereforerefusedtosustainthe
compensation.
Ahavinganincumbranceuponanestate,iswitnesstoasubsequent
mortgage,butconcealshisownincumbrance.Forthiswronghis
incumbranceshallbepostponed.Asasecurityforborrowedmoney,to
mortgagelandasfreewhenthereisanincumbranceuponit,isacheatin
theborrower,towhichcheattheincumbrancerisaccessoryby
countenancingthemortgage,andsubscribingitasawitness.Thehurt
thusdonetothelenderbyputtinghimoffwithalamesecurity,was
properlyrepairedbypreferringhimbeforetheincumbrancer.The
followingcasesareofthesamekind.Amanlendshismortgagedeedto
themortgager,toenablehimtoborrowmoremoney.Themortgagee
beingthusincombinationwiththemortgagertodeceivethelender,is
accessorytothefraud.Andthehurttherebydonewasproperlyrepaired
bypostponinghismortgagetotheincumbrancewhichthelendergotfor
hismoney.AcounselhavingastatutefromAwhichheconceals,
advisesBtolendAL.1000onamortgageanddrawsthemortgagewith
acovenantagainstincumbrances.Thestatutewaspostponedtothe
mortgage**.AbeingabouttolendmoneytoBonamortgage,
Page77
sendstoinquireofD,whohadapriormortgage,whetherhehadany
incumbranceonB'sestate.IfitbeprovedthatDdeniedhehadany
incumbrance,hismortgagewillbepostponed*.Anestatebeingsettledby
marriagearticlesuponthechildrenofthemarriage,whichestatedidnot
belongtothehusband,buttohismotheryetshewascompelledinequity
tomakegoodthesettlementbecauseshewaspresentwhentheson
declaredthattheestatewastocometohimafterherdeath,andbecause

shewasalsooneoftheinstrumentarywitnesses.
SECT.V.Reparationtowhichpersonsareintitledwhoareharmedintheirrightsorprivileges.

INordertoclearwhatneedtheremaybeofacourtofequitywithrespect
tothesubjectunderconsideration,itispropertobepromised,that
regulationsforpreventingharmcannotbeotherbutprohibitoryand
consequentlycannotaffordopportunityfortheinterpositionofanycourt
oflawtillthewrongbecommitted.Torestorethepartyinjuredtohis
formersituation,wherethatmethodispracticable,willbepreferredas
themostcompletereparation.Thusgoodsstolenarerestoredtothe
ownerandadispositionoflandprocuredbyfear,orundueinfluence,is
voided,inorderthatthedisponermayberestoredtohisproperty.Butit
seldomhappensthatthereisplaceforaremedysocomplete:itholds
commonly,asexpressedintheRomanlaw,thatfactuminfectumfieri
nequitandwhenthatisthecase,thepersoninjured,insteadofbeing
restoredtohisformersituation,mustbecontentedwithanequivalentin
money.
Thefirstquestionthatoccursuponthissubjectis,Whether,inaclaimfor
reparation,consequentialdamagecanbestated.Consequentialdamageis
sometimescertain,sometimesuncertain.Ahouseofminerentedbya
tenant,isunlawfullydemolished:thedirectdamageisthelossofthe
house:theconsequentialdamageisthelossoftherentwhichinthiscase
iscertain,becausetheunlawfulactnecessarilyrelievesthetenantfrom
payingrent.Again,amanrobsmeofmyhorse:thedirectdamageisthe
horselosttome:theconsequentialdamageisthebeingpreventedfrom
makingprofitby
Page78
himwhichisnotcertain,becausetheopportunityofmakingprofitmight
havefailedme,andpossiblymighthavebeenneglectedthoughithad
offered.Inthecasefirstmentioned,thelossoftherent,beingcertain,
comesproperlyundertheestimationofactualdamageandconsequently
willneverbeexcludedbyacourtofcommonlaw.Butconsequential
damagethatisuncertain,isnotalwaystakenintotheaccount.Andthe
reasonfollows:Itisnaturallyincumbentuponthemanwhoclaims
reparation,toprovetheextentofthedamagehehassustainedwhich
cannotbedonewithrespecttoconsequentialdamage,asfarasuncertain.
Butasitisundoubtedlyaprejudicetobedeprivedofprofitthatprobably
mighthavebeenmadetheclaimantisinequityrelievedofthisproof,
wherethedirectdamageistheeffectofacriminalact:everypresumption
isturnedagainstthedelinquentandheischargedwitheveryprobable
articleofprofit,unlesshecangiveconvincingevidencethattheprofit
claimedcouldnothavebeenmade.Andthisisconformabletotherules
ofequityforastheprofitsarerendereduncertainbyacriminalact,the
consequencesofthisuncertaintyoughttoaffectthedelinquent,andnot
hispartywhoisinnocent.Hereisafairopportunityfortheinterposition
ofequity.Acourtofcommonlawcannotlistentoanyproofbutwhatis
complete,andcannotawarddamagesexceptasfarasrenderedcertainby
evidence.Acourtofequity,withrespecttocriminalacts,turnsthe
uncertaintyagainstthedelinquentandbythatmeansaffordscomplete
reparationtothepersoninjured.Thus,inaspuilzie,whichisaclaimfor
damagesinacivilcourt,foundedontheviolentabstractionofmoveable

goods,theprofitthatmighthavebeenmadebythecattleorhorsescarried
off,termedviolentprofits,makesalwaysanarticleintheestimationof
damage.Theruleisdifferentwherethedamageisoccasionedbya
culpableactonlyforasthereisnothingheretovarytheruleoflaw,
Quodaffirmantiincumbitprobatio,noarticleofprofitwillbesustained
butwhatcanberenderedcertainbyevidence.This,itistrue,may
possiblybeprejudicialtothepersonwhoishurtbytheculpableact:but
humanumesterrareanditismoreexpedientthathesuffersome
prejudice,thanthatmenshouldbeterrifiedfromindustryandactivity,by
arigorousandvagueclaima.Thisdoctrine
Page79
isespousedbyUlpian*:
"ItemLabeoscribit,sicumviventorumnavisimpulsaessetinfunes
anchorarumalterius,etnautaefunespraecidissent,sinulloaliomodo,nisi
praecisisfunibusexplicaresepotuit,nullamactionemdandam.Idemque
Labeo,etProculus,etcircaretiapiscatorum,inquaenavisinciderat,
aestimarunt.Plane,siculpanautarumidfactumesset,legeAquilia
agendum.Sedubidamniinjuriaagitur,obretia,nonpiscium,quicaptinon
sunt,fieriaestimationemcumincertumfuerit,ancaperentur.Idemqueetin
venatoribus,etinaucupibusprobandum."
Thefollowinginstanceisanaptillustrationofthisdoctrine.TheDukeofArgyle's
rightofadmiraltyreachesoverthewesternislandsonthecoastofwhicha
wreckedshipfloatingwithoutalivingcreatureinit,waslaidholdofandsoldby
authorityoftheDuke'sdeputetooneRobertson,whorefittedtheshipata
considerablecharge,andprovidedacrewtocarryhertoClyde.SirLudovick
Grant,whohadadeputationfromtheAdmiralofScotland,misapprehendingthe
boundsofhisjurisdiction,gaveordersforseizingtheshipashispropertyand
theseorderswereputinexecutionaftertheshipwasrefittedbyRobertson.As
soonasthemistakewasdiscovered,theshipwasredelivered.ButRobertson,
wholostconsiderablybythedelay,broughtaprocessagainstSirLudovickfor
damages,andobtainedadecreeforalargesum,towhichthedirectdamage
amounted.Itwasconsidered,thatthedefendant'serrorwasculpableinacting
rashlywithoutdulyexaminingthelimitsofhisjurisdiction,ofwhichhemightbe
easilyascertainedbyinspectingtheDuke'stitleonrecord.Butastothe
consequentialdamage,viz.theprofitsRobertsoncouldhavemadebytheship,
hadhenotbeenunjustlydeprivedofthepossession,whichmustbeinagreat
measureuncertain,thecourtunanimouslyrejectedthisbranchoftheclaim.
Thenextquestionis,Whetherinestimatingdamagetherebegroundin
anycaseforadmittingthepretiumaffectionis.Paulusanswers,Thatthere
isnot:
"Siservummeumoccidisti,nonaffectionesaestimandasesseputo,(velutisi
filiumtuumnaturalemquisocciderit,quemtumagnoemptumvelles),sed
quantiomnibusvaleret.SextusquoquePediusait,pretiarerum,nonex
assectione,necutilitatesingulorum,sedcommunitersungi.Itaqueeum,qui
filiumnaturalempossidet,noneolocupletioremesse,quodeumplurimo,si
aliuspossideret,redempturusfuit:necillum,quisiliumalienum

Page80
possideat,tantumhabere,quantieumpatrivendereposset:inlegeenim
Aquilia(damnum)consequimur,etamisissedicemur,quodautconsequi
potuimus,auterogarecogimur*."
Asthisresponseisgiveningeneralterms,withoutdistinctionofcases,it
mustbeconsideredasdeclaratoryofthecommonlaw.Thesamerule
mustobtaininequitywherethewrongisculpableonly.Butinrepairing
mischiefdoneintentionally,thepretiumaffectionisoughtinequitytobe
admittedbecauseotherwisethepersonwhosuffersobtainsnoadequate
reparation,andalsobecausethatotherwisethereisnoproperdistinction
madebetweenacrimeandafault.
CHAP.II.PowersofaCourtofEquitytoremedywhatisimperfectincommonlaw,withrespectto
protectingtheweakofmindfromharmingthemselvesbyunequalbargainsandirrationaldeeds.

THEweaknessandimbecillityofsomemenmakethemafitpreyforthe
craftyanddesigning.Butaseverydeed,covenant,ortransaction,procured
byundueinfluence,comesundertheforegoingchapter,thepresentchapter
isconfinedtocaseswhereequityprotectsindividualsfromhurting
themselvesbytheirownweaknessandimbecillity,withouttheintervention
ofanycraftorundueinfluence.Andhere,though,forthesakeof
commerce,utilitywillnotlistentoacomplaintofinequalityamongmajores,
scientes,etprudentesyettheweakofmindoughttobeexceptedbecause
suchpersonsoughttoberemovedfromcommerce,andtheirtransactions
beconfinedtowhatisstrictlynecessaryfortheirsubsistenceandwellbeing.
Andthisisjustlyconfiningtotheweakofmindaruleagainstinequalityin
bargains,whichtheRomans,ignorantofcommerce,madegeneralwith
respecttoeveryperson.
Ibeginwithdeedsgrantedbypersonsunderage,whocannotbesupposed
matureinjudgement.Areductionupontheheadofminorityandlesion,
unknowninthecommonlaw,isanactionsustainedbyacourtofequityfor
settingasideanyunequaltransactiondone
Page81
duringnonage.Butinequalityoughtnottoberegardedinadeedthat
proceedsfromavirtuousandrationalmotive,whichwouldbealaudable
deedinoneoffullage.Igivethefollowingexamples.Ayoungmanunder
age,havingnomeansofhisown,isalimentedandeducatedbyanear
relation,tillhehappenstosucceedtoanopulentfortune.Fullofgratitude,
hegrantstohisbenefactoraremuneratorybondforamoderatesum,and
dieswithoutarrivingtofullage.Acourtofequitywillnevergive
countenancetotheheirinattemptingtoreducethisbondforgratitudeisa
moralduty,andtheyoungmanwasinconscienceboundtomakeagrateful
return.Acourtofequity,itistrue,hasnotmanyopportunitiestoinforcethe
dutyofgratitude,becauseitcanseldombebroughtunderageneralrulebut
hereacourtofequitymaysafelyinterposetosupportagratefulreturn,the
extentofwhichisascertainedbytheyoungmanhimself.Iputanothercase.
Amanofanopulentfortunediessuddenlywithoutmakingprovisionsfor
hisyoungerchildren.Hiseldestsonandheirsuppliesthisomissionby
givingsuitableprovisions,anddiesunderage.Athirdcasemaybe

supposed,wheretherationalmotiveisnotaltogethersocogent.Amanofan
opulentfortunediessuddenlyleavinganumerousfamilyofchildren,allof
thefemalesex,withoutmakingprovisionsforthem.Acollateralheirmale
succeeds,whosuppliesthisomissionbygivingsuitableprovisions,butdies
underage.Acourtofequitywoulddeviatefromthespiritofitsinstitution,
ifitshouldauthoriseareductionofsuchprovisionsbythegranter'sheir,
upontheheadofminorityandlesion.Forarationalandlaudabledeednever
canbelesioninanypropersense.
Thesamedoctrineisapplicabletothosewhohaveanaturalimbecillity
whichcontinuesforlife.Atransactionmadebysuchapersonisnotvoided
byacourtofequity,unlessitappearirrationalandtheeffectofimbecillity.
Wherethisisthecase,itbecomesindeednecessarythatacourtofequity
interpose,thoughtherecanbenogeneralrulefordirection.
Theprotectionaffordedbyequitytotheweakinmind,isextendedtosave
themfromhurtingthemselvesbyirrationalsettlements.Theopinionsof
menwithrespecttothemanagementofaffairs,andtheexercisingactsof
property,arenotlessvariousthantheirfaces:andastheworldisseldom
agreedaboutwhatisrightandwronginsuchmatters,therecanbenorule
forrestrainingthesettlementsofthosewhoarenotremarkablyweak,unless
suchsettlementsbenotonlyirrationalbutabsurd.Butastheweakandfacile
are
Page82
protectedfromunequalbargains,thereisthesamereasonforprotecting
themfromabsurdsettlements.Takethefollowingexample.Inaprocessat
theinstanceofabrothernextofkin,forvoidingatestamentmadebyhis
deceasedsisterinfavourofastranger,itcameoutuponproof,that,some
timebeforemakingthetestament,thetestatrix,beingseizedwithmadness,
waslockedupandthatnotlongaftermakingthetestamenthermadness
recurred,andcontinuedtillherdeaththatatthetimeofthetestamentshe
wasinawaveringstate,sometimesbetter,sometimesworseinsome
particularsrational,inotherslittlebetterthandelirious,neverperfectly
soundofmind.Inparticular,itappearedfromtheproof,thatwheninbetter
health,sheexpressedmuchaffectionforherbrotherthepursuerbutthat,
whenthediseasewasmoreuponher,sheappearedtohavesomegrudgeor
resentmentathimwithoutanycause.Thetestamentwasholographandthe
scrollshecopiedwasfurnishedbythedefendant,inwhosefavourthe
testamentwasmade,whohadreadyaccesstoheratalltimes,whileher
brotherlivedatadistance.Inreasoninguponthiscaseitwasyielded,that
thewomanwascapableofmakingatestament,andthatthetestament
challengedmightbeeffectualatcommonlaw.Butthenitwasurged,That
thoughatestamentmadeintheconditionofmindabovedescribed,
preferringonerelationbeforeanother,asonbeforeafather,orasister
beforeabrother,mightbesupportedinequityaswellasatcommonlawyet
thatthetestamentinquestion,proceedingnotfromrationalviews,butfrom
adiseasedmindoccasioningacauselessresentmentagainstthepursuer,
oughtnottobesupportedinequity,beingadeedwhichthetestatrixherself
musthavebeenashamedofhadsherecoveredherhealth.Weightalsowas
laiduponthefollowingcircumstance,Thatthetestamentwasmaderemotis
arbitris,andkeptadeadsecretwhichshowedthedefendant's
consciousness,thathadtherebeenaccesstothetestatrix,shewouldhave
beeneasilydivertedfrommakingsoirrationalasettlement.Inthisview,it

wasconsideredasawronginhimtotakefromher,inthesecircumstances,
suchanirrationaldeedandconsequently,thatheoughttoberestrainedin
equityfromtakinganybenefitbyit.Thetestamentwasvoided*.
Atemporaryweaknessought,forthetimeofitsendurance,tohavethesame
effectinlawwithonethatisperpetual:forwhichreasonadischarge
obtainedfromawomanduringthepainsofchildbirthwasreduced
Fountainhall,7thDecember1686.
Page83
CHAP.III.Powersofacourtofequitytoremedywhatisimperfectincommonlaw,withrespectto
thenaturaldutyofbenevolence.

INtheintroductiontherewasoccasiontoobserve,thatthevirtueof
benevolenceisbyvariousconnectionsconvertedintoadutyandthatduties
ofthiskind,beingneglectedbythecommonlaw,areinforcedbyacourtof
equity.Thisopensawidefieldofequity,boundlessinappearanceand
whichwouldbesoinrealityaswellasinappearance,wereitnotforone
circumstance,Thatthedutyofbenevolenceismuchmorelimitedthanthe
virtue.Thevirtueofbenevolencemaybeexercisedbyagreatvarietyof
goodoffices:ittendsoftentomakeadditionstothepositivehappinessof
others,aswellastorelievethemfromdistressorwant.Butabstractingfrom
positiveengagement,thedutyofbenevolenceis,withrespecttopecuniary
interest,confinedtothelatter.Noconnection,nosituation,nor
circumstance,makesitmydutytoincreasethestockofanypersonwhohas
alreadyasufficiency,ortomakehimlocupletior,astermedintheRoman
law.Foreveninthestrictestofallconnections,thatofparentandchild,I
feelnotthatIaminconscienceorindutybound,todomorethantomake
mychildrenindependent,soastopreservethemfromwanta:allbeyondis
leftuponparentalaffection.Neitherdothgratitudemakeitmydutyto
enrichmybenefactor,butonlytoaidandsupporthimwhenanysortof
distressorwantcallsforhelp.Afavourisindeedscarcefelttobesuch,but
whenitpreventsorrelievesfromharmandafavournaturallyisreturnedin
kind.
Page84
Hereisaclearcircumscriptionofequity,asfarasconcernsthepresent
chapter.Acourtofequitycannotforceoneman,whetherbyhislabouror
money,toaddtotherichesofanotherbecause,abstractingfromapromise,
noconnectionevermakesthisaduty.Whatthenisleftforacourtofequity,
is,incertaincircumstances,tocompelpersonstosavefrommischiefthose
theyareconnectedwith,ortorelievethemfromwantordistress.
Benevolence,inthiscase,isastrongimpulsetoaffordreliefand,inthis
case,benevolence,assumingthenameofpityorcompassion,is,byalawin
ournature,madeapositiveduty.Inallothercasesbenevolenceisavirtue
only,notaduty:theexerciseislefttoourownchoiceandtheneglectisnot
punished,thoughthepracticeishighlyrewardedbythesatisfactionit
affords.Inthisbranchofournature,abeautifulfinalcauseisvisible:the
benevolenceofman,bywantofability,isconfinedwithinnarrowbounds
andinordertomakethemostofthatslenderpowerhehasofdoinggood,it
iswiselydirectedwhereitisthemostuseful,viz.torelieveothersfrom
distress.

Itappearsthen,thatequity,sofarasconcernsthedutyofservingothers,is
notextendedbeyondpityorcompassion.Butitiscircumscribedwithinstill
narrowerboundsforcompassion,thoughanaturalduty,isnotadoptedinits
utmostextentbycourtsofequity.Inmanycases,thisdutyistoovagueand
undeterminedtobereachedbyhumanlawsandacourtofequitypretends
nottointerpose,butwheretheduty,beingclearandprecise,canbebrought
undergeneralrules*.Someoftheconnectionsthatoccasiondutysoprecise
Ishallproceedtohandle,confiningmyselftothosethatareinsomemeasure
involvedincircumstancesforthemoresimpleconnections,suchasthatof
parentandchild,requirelittleornoelucidation.Thoughallthedutiesofthis
kindthatareinforcedbyacourtofequity,belongtotheprincipleofjustice
theymayhoweverbedividedintodifferentclasses.Thepresentchapteris
accordinglydivided
Page85
intotwosections.Inthefirstarehandledconnectionsthatmakebenevolence
adutywhennotprejudicialtoourinterest.Inthesecondarehandled
connectionsthatmakebenevolenceadutyevenagainstourinterest.These
connectionsaredistinguishablefromeachothersoclearly,astopreventany
confusionofideasandtheforegoingorderischosen,thatwemaypass
graduallyfromtheslightertothemoreintimateconnections.Toprompta
mantoservethosewithwhomheisconnected,requiresnotany
extraordinarymotive,whenthegoodofficethwartsnothisowninterest:any
slightconnectionissufficienttomakethisaduty,andthereforesuch
connectionsarefirstdiscussed.Itrequiresamuchstrongerconnection,to
makeitourdutytobestowuponanotheranypartofoursubstance.Self
interestisnottobeovercomebutbyconnectionsofthemostintimatekind,
whichthereforeareplacedlastinorder.
SECT.I.Connectionsthatmakebenevolenceadutywhennotprejudicialtoourinterest.

THEconnectionIshallfirsttakeunderconsideration,isthatwhich
subsistsbetweenacreditorandacautioner.Thenatureofthis
engagement,whenpunctuallyfulfilled,demandssomegratitudefromthe
creditor.Thecautioner,whenhepaysthedebt,sufferslossbytheactof
thecreditor,thoughnotbyhisfaultanditisthedutyofthecreditor,as
farasconsistentwithhisowninterest,toassistthecautionerinoperating
hisreliefagainsttheprincipaldebtor.Heought,inparticular,toconveyto
thecautioner,thebondwiththeexecutiondoneuponit,inorderthatthe
cautionermaythemorespeedilycompeltheprincipaldebtortorelieve
him.Thelaw,favouringthismoralact,considersthemoneydeliveredto
thecreditor,notaspayment,butasavaluableconsiderationforassigning
hisdebtandexecutiontothecautioner.Icannotexplainthisbetterthanin
thewordsofPapinian,themosteminentofallthewritersuponthe
Romanlaw:
"Cumpossessorunus,expediendinegotiicausa,tributorumjure
convenireturadversuscaeteros,quorumaequepraediatenentur,ei,qui
conventusest,actionesafiscopraestantur:scilicetutomnespromodo
praediorumpecuniamtributiconferant:necinutiliteractionespraestantur
tametsifiscuspecuniamsuamreciperaverit,quianominumvenditorum
pretium

Page86
acceptumvidetur*."
Fromwhichconsiderationitevidentlyfollows,thatthisassignmentmaybe
demandedandgrantedexpostfacto,iftheprecautionbeomittedwhenthemoney
ispaid.
Fromthesameprincipleitalsofollows,thatthecreditorisboundto
conveytothecautionereveryseparatesecurityhehasforthedebtand
consequently,thatifthecreditordischargeorpassfromhisseparate
security,thecautioner,sofarashesuffersthereby,hathanexceptionin
equityagainstpayment.
Imustobservehistorically,thattherearemanydecisionsofthecourtof
session,declaringthecreditornotboundtogranttheassignmentfirst
mentioned.Thesedecisions,remoteinpointoftime,willnotbemuch
regardedbecausetherulesofequitylayformerlyingreaterobscurity
thanatpresent.Andthereisanadditionalreasonfordisregardingthem,
thattheyarenotconsistentwithothersrelatingtothesamesubject.Ifit
belaiddownasarule,Thatthecreditorisnotboundtoassignhisbond
andexecution,howeverbeneficialsuchassignmentmaybebygivingthe
cautionerreadyexecutionagainsttheprincipaldebtoritoughttofollow,
thatneitherisheboundtoassignanyseparatesecurity:ifitbenothis
dutytoservethecautionerintheonecase,itcannotbehisdutytoserve
himintheother.Andyetitisaruleestablishedinthiscourt,Thatthe
cautioner,makingpaymentofthedebt,isintitledtoeveryseparate
securityofwhichthecreditorispossessed.Oneisatnolosstodiscover
thecauseofthisdiscrepancy:whenthequestionisaboutaseparate
securityuponwhichthecautioner'sreliefmaywhollydepend,the
principleofequitymakesastrongimpression:itsimpressionisslighter
whenthequestionisonlyaboutassigningthebond,whichhasnoother
effectbuttosaveaformalprocess.
Itisofthegreaterconsequencetosettlewithprecisiontheequitablerule
thatgovernsquestionsbetweenthecreditorandcautioner,becauseuponit
dependswholly,inmyapprehension,themutualreliefbetweenco
cautioners.Oftwocautionersboundforthesamedebtatdifferenttimes,
andindifferentdeeds,onepaysthedebtuponadischargewithoutan
assignment:whereisthelegalfoundationthatintitlesthismantoclaim
thehalffromhisfellowcautioner?Thebeingboundindifferentdeeds
affordsnoplaceforsupposinganimpliedstipulationofmutualrelief:
nay,supposingthemboundinthesamedeed,wearenotfromthatsingle
circumstancetoimplyamutualconsentforrelief,butratherthecontrary
whentheclauseofmutualreliefisomittedfor,ingeneral,whenan
obvious
Page87
clauseisleftoutofadeed,itisnaturaltoascribetheomissiontodesign
ratherthantoforgetfulness.Theprincipaldebtorisexmandatoboundto
relieveallhiscautioners:butthereisnomediumatcommonlaw,by
whichonecautionercandemandrelieffromanother.Andwithrespectto
equity,theconnectionofbeingboundforpaymentofthesamedebt,istoo

slighttointitlethatcautionerwhopaysthewholedebt,tobeindemnified
inpartoutofthegoodsofhisfellow.Itappearsthen,thattheclaimof
mutualreliefamongcocautioners,canhavenofoundationotherthanthe
obligationuponthecreditortoassignuponpayment.Thisassignmentin
thecaseofasinglecautionermustbetotalinthecaseofseveralmustbe
proratabecausethecreditorisequallyconnectedwitheachofthem.The
onlydifficultyis,thatatthisrate,thereisnomutualreliefunlessan
assignmentbeactuallygiven.Butthisdifficultyiseasilysurmounted.We
haveseenabove,thatsuchassignmentmaybegrantedexpostfacto:
henceitisthedutyofthecreditortogranttheassignmentatwhatever
timedemandedandifthecreditorproverefractory,thelawwill
interposetoholdanassignmentasgranted,becauseitoughttobegranted.
Andthissuppletoryorimpliedlegalassignment,isthetruefoundationof
themutualreliefamongcocautioners,whichobtainsbothinScotland
andEngland.
Utilityalsoconcurstosupportthisequitableclaim:nosituationwith
regardtolawwouldbeattendedwithmoreperniciousconsequences,
thantopermitacreditortooppressonecautionerandrelieveothers:
judgesoughttobejealousofsucharbitrarypowers,whichwillgenerally
bedirectedbybadmotivesoftenbyresentment,and,whichisstill
worse,moreoftenbyavarice.Itishappythereforeformankind,thattwo
differentprinciplescoincideinmattersofthiskind,toputthemupona
justandsalutaryfooting.
Thecreditor,ashasbeensaid,beingboundtoallthecautionersequally,
cannotlegallygiveanassignmenttooneoftheminsuchtermsasto
intitlehimtoclaimthewholefromtheothercautioners.Inwhatterms
thenoughttheassignmenttobegranted?orwhengrantedwithout
limitation,whateffectoughtittohaveinequity?Thisisaquestionof
somesubtilty.Topermittheassigneetodemandthewholefromany
singlecocautioner,deductingonlyhisownpartofthedebt,isunequal
becauseitevidentlygivestheassigneeanadvantageoverhisfellow
cautioners.Ontheotherhand,theassigneeisinaworsesituationthan
anyotherofthecautioners,ifhemustsubmittotakefromeachofthem
separatelyhisproportion
Page88
ofthedebt:uponthisplan,thecautionerwhopaysthedebt,isforc'dto
runthecircuitofallhiscocautionersandifoneortwoproveinsolvent,
hemustrenewthesuitagainsttherest,tomakeuptheproportionsof
thosewhoaredeficient.Topreservethereforearealequalityamongthe
cautioners,everyoneofthemagainstwhomreliefisclaimed,oughtto
bearanequalproportionwiththeassagnee.Toexplainthisrule,I
supposesixcautionersboundinabondforsixhundredpounds.Thefirst
payingthedebtisintitledtoclaimthehalffromthesecond,whooughtto
beequallyburdenedwiththefirst.Whenthefirstandsecondagainattack
thethird,theyhaveaclaimagainsthimeachforahundredpoundswhich
resolvesinlayingtheburdenoftwohundredpoundsuponeachandso
ontillthewholecautionersbediscussed.Thismethodnotonlypreserves
equality,butavoidsafterreckoningsincaseofinsolvency.
Sofarclearwhenreliefcanbedirectlyobtained.Butwhatiftheassignee
beputtothetroubleofadjudgingforhisrelief?Inthatcase,the

assignmentisalegaltitletoleadanadjudicationforthewholedebt.
Equityissatisfied,if,byvirtueoftheadjudication,nomorebeactually
drawnoutoftheestateofanyofthecocautioners,thanthatcocautioner
isboundtocontributeasabove.Andinleadingtheadjudication,noteven
theadjudger'sownproportionofthedebtoughttobededucted:itisa
benefittotheothercautionersthatthesecuritybeasextensiveas
possibleforitintitlestheadjudgertoagreaterproportionofthesubject
orprice,incompetitionwithextraneouscreditors.
Thesameprinciplesandconclusionsareequallyapplicabletocorrei
debendi,whereanumberofdebtorsareboundconjunctlyandseverally
toonecreditor.Equityrequirestheutmostimpartialityinhimtohis
debtors:ifforhisowneasehetakethewholefromone,heisboundto
grantanassignmentpreciselyasinthecaseofcocautioners.Utilityjoins
withequitytoinforcethisimpartiality.Anditmakesnodifference
whetherthecorreidebendibeboundforacivildebtorbeboundex
delictoforinbothcasesequallyitisthedutyofthecreditortoact
impartially,andinbothcasesequallyutilityrequiresimpartiality.
Anotherconnection,ofthesamenaturewiththeformer,isthatbetween
onecreditorwhoisinfeftintwodifferenttenementsforhissecurity,and
anothercreditorwhohathaninfeftmentononeofthetenements,ofalater
date.Herethetwocreditorsareconnected,
Page89
byhavingthesamedebtor,andasecurityuponthesamesubject.Henceit
follows,asintheformercase,thatifthepreferablecreditorchuse
arbitrarilytodrawhiswholepaymentoutofthatsubjectinwhichthe
othercreditorisinfeft,thelatterforhisreliefisintitledtohavethe
preferablesecurityassignedtohim:whichcanbedoneuponthe
constructionabovementionedforthesumrecoveredbythepreferable
creditoroutofthesubjectonwhichtheothercreditorisalsoinfeft,is
justlyunderstoodtobeadvancedbythelatter,beingasumwhichhewas
intitledto,andmusthavedrawnhadnotthepreferablecreditor
interposedandthissumisheldtobethepurchasemoneyofthesaid
conveyance.Thisconstruction,preservingthepreferabledebtentirein
thepersonofthesecondcreditor,intitleshimtodrawpaymentofthat
debtoutoftheothertenementandbythisequitableconstruction,matters
arerestoredtothesamestateasifthefirstcreditorhaddrawnhispayment
outoftheseparatesubject,leavingtheotherentireforpaymentofthe
secondcreditor.Utilityalso,assaidabove,concurstosupportthis
equitableclaim.
Itisscarcenecessaryheretoobserve,thatasupposedconveyance,which
maybesufficient,asabovementioned,tofoundaclaimofreliefamong
cocautioners,willnotanswerinthepresentcase.Inordertofoundan
executionagainstland,theremustbeaninfeftmentandthisinfeftment
mustbeconvey'dtothepersonwhodemandsexecution.Anyjustor
equitableconsiderationmaybesufficienttofoundapersonalactionbut
evenpersonalexecutioncannotproceedwithoutaformalwarrant,and
stilllessrealexecution.
Butnow,admittingittobethedutyofthepreferablecreditortograntan
assignment,thequestionis,Towhatextent?Whetheroughtthe

assignmenttohaveatotaleffect,oronlytorestorethedisappointed
creditortothatsituationhewouldhavebeenin,hadthepreferable
creditordrawnhispaymentproportionallyoutofbothsubjects?Itwillbe
madeappearbyandby,thattheassignmentmustbeconfinedtothelatter
effectinthecaseoftwosecondarycreditors.Butthereisnoequityto
limittheassignmentinthismanner,wherethereisnointerestin
oppositionbutthatofthedebtor.Hehasnoequitableinteresttoopposea
totalassignmentandthesecondcreditorhasanequitableclaimtoallthe
aidthefirstcreditorcanaffordhim.
Therulesofequitymustbethesameineverycountrywherelawis
cultivated.BythepracticeofEngland*ifthecreditorssweep
Page90
awaythepersonalestate,therealestatewillbechargedforpaymentof
thelegacies.Inthiscase,thelegateesneednoassignmenttofoundtheir
equitableclaimagainsttheheirwhosucceedstotherealestate.
Weproceedtoanotherconnection,whichisthatbetweenthepreferable
creditorinfeftonbothtenements,andtwosecondarycreditors,oneinfeft
inoneofthetenements,andoneintheother.Thedutyofthepreferableor
catholiccreditor,withrelationtothesesecondarycreditors,cannotbe
doubtful,consideringwhatissaidabove.Equityaswellasexpediency
barshimfromarbitrarymeasures.Heisequallyconnectedwithhistwo
fellowcreditors,andhemustactimpartiallybetweenthem.Theregular
methodis,thathedrawhispaymentproportionallyoutofbothtenements
butif,forhisowneaseorconveniency,hechusetodrawthewholeoutof
one,thepostponedcreditorisintitledtoanassignmentnotindeedtotal,
whichwouldbeanarbitraryact,butproportional,soastointitlethe
assigneetodrawthesamesumoutoftheothersubject,whichhewould
havedrawnoutofhisown,hadthepreferablecreditorcontentedhimself
withaproportionaldraughtoutofbothsubjects.Ineedscarcemention,
thatthesamerulewhichobtainsinthecaseofsecondarycreditors,must
equallyobtainamongpurchasersofdifferentparcelsofland,which
beforethepurchasewereallincumuloburdenedwithaninfeftmentof
annualrent.ThesameruleofequityisacknowledgedinEngland.Aman
grantsarentchargeoutofallhislands,andafterwardsellsthemby
parcelstodiversepersons:thegranteeoftherentchargelevieshiswhole
rentfromoneofthesepurchasers:thispurchasershallbeeasedinequity
byacontributionfromtherestofthepurchasers*.
Acaseconnectedwiththatlasthandledmustnotbeoverlooked,because
itwillthrowlightuponthepresentsubject.Letitbesupposed,thatthe
catholicorpreferablecreditorpurchasesoneofthesecondarydebtswill
thisvarytheruleofequity?Thispurchaseinitselflawful,isnot
prohibitedbyanystatute,andthereforemusthaveitseffect.The
connectionherebetweenthecreditorsisbynomeanssointimate,asto
obligeanyoneofthem,attheexpenceofhisowninterest,toservethe
others.Thereisnoruleinequitytobarthecatholiccreditorfromdrawing
fullpaymentofthesecondarydebtoutofthetenementwhichitburdens,
reservinghiscatholicdebttobemadeeffectualoutoftheothertenement
thoughofconsequencethesecondarycreditoruponthattenementis
totallydisappointed.

Page91
Thissecondarycreditorhasnoclaimforanassignment,totalorpartial,
whentheinterestofthecatholiccreditorstandsinopposition.Buthere
theconnectionamongthepartiesmust,inmyapprehension,havethe
followingequitableoperation,thatthecatholiccreditor,byvirtueofhis
purchase,cannotdrawmorethanthesumhepaidforit.Equityinthis
casewillnotallowtheonetoprofitbytheother'sloss.Butahinthere
mustsufficebecausethepointbelongsmoreproperlytoanotherhead*.
Thefollowingcaseproceedsupontheprincipleabovelaiddown.The
husband,onthemarriage,chargedthelandswitharentchargefora
jointuretohiswife,andafterwarddevisedpartoftheselandstothewife.
Afterthehusband'sdeaththeheirprayedthatthelandsdevisedtothe
wifemightbeartheirproportionoftherentcharge:thebillwas
dismissed,becausethegranteeoftherentchargemaydistraininallor
anypartofthelandsforherrentandthereisnoequitytoabridgeher
remedy.
Ifthecatholiccreditor,aftertheexistenceofbothsecondarydebts,
renouncehisinfeftmentwithrespecttooneofthetenements,which
makesaclearfundforthesecondarycreditorsecureduponthat
tenementsuchrenunciationoughttohavenoeffectinequityagainstthe
othersecondarycreditor,becauseitisanarbitrarydeed,andadirect
breachofthatimpartialitywhichthecatholiccreditorisboundtoobserve
withrelationtothesecondarycreditors.Itisineffectthesamewith
grantingatotalassignmenttooneofthesecondarycreditorsagainstthe
other.
Ineveryoneofthecasesabovementioned,thecatholiccreditorisequally
connectedwitheachofthesecondarycreditors,anduponthataccountis
boundtoactimpartiallybetweenthem.Butthisruleofequitycannottake
placewheretheconnectionsareunequal.Itholdshereasamongblood
relationsthosewhoarenearesttomeareintitledtoapreferenceinmy
favour.Thefollowingcasewillbeasufficientillustration.Amantakesa
bondofborrowedmoneywithacautionerobtainsafterwardan
infeftmentfromtheprincipaldebtorasanadditionalsecurityandlastof
all,anothercreditorforhissecurityobtainsinfeftmentuponthesame
subject.Herethefirstmentionedcreditorhastwodifferentmeansfor
obtainingpayment:hemayapplytothecautioner,orhemayapplytothe
landinwhichheisinfeft.Heproceedstoexecutionagainsttheland,by
whichhecutsoutthesecondcreditor.Isheboundtograntanassignment
Page92
tothesecondcreditoragainstthecautioner,totalorpartial?Thesecond
creditorisinthiscasenotintitledtodemandanassignment:onthe
contrary,thepreferablecreditor,takingpaymentfromthecautioner,is
boundtogivehimatotalassignmentbecauseheismoreintimately
connectedwiththecautionerthanwiththesecondcreditor.Acautionary
engagementisanactofpurebenevolenceandwhenacreditorlayshold
ofthisengagementtoobligeonemantopayanother'sdebt,this
connectionmakesitevidentlythedutyofthecreditortoaidthecautioner
withanassignment,inordertorepairhislossanditproceedsfromthe

sameintimacyofconnection,that,asabovementioned,heisobligedto
includeinthisassignmenteveryseparatesecurityhehasforthedebt.Itis
hisdutyaccordinglytoconveytothecautionertherealsecurityhegot
fromtheprincipaldebtor.Noristheinterestofthesecondcreditor
regardedinoppositionforheisnootherwayconnectedwiththe
preferablecreditor,butthatbothofthemarecreditorstothesameperson,
andthatbothofthemareinfeftonthesamesubjectforsecurity.
Aquestionofgreatimportancethathasfrequentlybeencanvassedinthe
courtofsession,appearstodependupontheprinciplesabovesetforth.
Thequestionisthis,Whetheratenantintailbeboundtoextinguishthe
annualburdensarisingduringhispossession,soastotransmittotheheirs
ofentailtheestateinasgoodconditionaswhenhereceivedit?Totreat
thisquestionaccurately,wemustbeginwithconsideringhowthe
commonlawstands.Inthefirstplace,feuduties,cess,andteind,are
debitafructuum,andatcommonlawaffordanactionforpaymentagainst
everypersonwholeviestherents,andagainstatenantintailinparticular.
Withrespectthentotheforegoingarticles,thereisnooccasionforequity:
thecommonlawburdenseverytenantintailwithwhatofthembecome
dueduringhispossession.
Theentailer'spersonaldebtsarenotaburdenuponthefruits,butonly
upontheheirsofentailpersonallyandthereforetheforegoingmedium
formakingthetenantintailliabletorelievetheheirsofentailofthe
currentinterest,failshereandthequestionis,Whethertherebeanyother
mediumsubjectinghimatcommonlaw?Wemustseparatefromthis
question,thedivisionofburdensbetweenheirandexecutor.Ifatenantin
tailleaveanymoveableestate,itwillnodoubtbechargedatcommonlaw
withthearrearsofinterest,andwitheverymoveablesum,principalor
interest.Butsupposingthatnomoveableestateisleft,andthatthetenant
intaildies,leaving
Page93
alandestateofhisown,descendingtoadifferentseriesofheirswhodo
notrepresenttheentailer:inthiscase,thearrearsofinterestarisingfrom
theentailer'sdebts,must,withtheprincipal,remainadebtuponthe
entailedestateatcommonlawunlessitcanbemadeout,thatthetenant
intailbecameboundtorelievetheheirsofentailofthesearrears,in
whichcasethearrearswillbeachargeuponhisownestate.
Anheirinafeesimpleisnodoubt,liabletothedebtsofhis
predecessor,andeveryheirissoliablesuccessively.Butthisobligation
respectsthecreditorsonly,andaffordsnorelieftooneheiragainst
anothereitherforprincipalorinterest.Doesanentailmakeadifference
atcommonlaw?Atenantintailpossessestherents:buttheserentsarehis
ownpropertyjustasmuchasiftheestatewereafeesimpleandthe
consumingrentsbelongingtohimselfcannotsubjecthimastenantintail
morethanifhisestatewereafeesimple.Henceitappearsclear,thatat
commonlawatenantintailisnotboundtorelievetheheirsofentailof
anygrowingburden,unlesswhatisadebitumfructuum.
Acourtofequity,lessconfinedthanacourtofcommonlaw,findsthat
thiscaseisresolvableintooneabovedetermined,viz.thatofcorrei
debendi,whereseveraldebtorsareconjunctlyboundforpaymentofone
debt.Thereisnootherdifferencebetweenthiscaseandheirsofentail,

butthattheformerareallofthemliableatthesametime,whereasthe
latterareonlyliablesuccessivelyforpaymentoftheentailer'sdebts,one
afteranotherwhichmakesnodifferenceeitherinequityorin
expediency,thesameimpartialitybeingrequiredofthecreditorwith
respecttoboth.Whilethedebtsubsists,thecreditorisboundtolaythe
burdenofhisinterestuponeachheirequallyandconsequentlyeachheir
isboundtopaytheinterestthatarisesduringhistime.Andiftheprincipal
bedemanded,theheirwhopaysisonlyintitledtoanassignmentofthe
principalsum,andoftheinterestthatshallariseafterhisowndeath.This
ruleaccordinglyobtainsinEngland,aswhereaproprietorofland,after
chargingitwithasumofmoney,devisesittooneforlife,remainderto
anotherinfee.Equitywillcompelthetenantforlifetopaythearrears
dueontherentcharge,thatallmaynotfallupontheremainderman*.
Atenantbycurtesyis,likeatenantintail,boundtoextinguishthecurrent
burdens.Thecurtesyisestablishedbycustomarylawandacourtof
equityisintitledtosupplyanydefectinlaw,whetherwritten
Page94
orcustomary,inordertomakethelawrational.Thelaw,byauthorising
thehusband'spossessionofthewife'sestate,intendsnomorebuttogive
himtheenjoymentofitforlife,withoutwaste,confininghimtoactlike
abonuspaterfamilias*.
Thefollowingcaseseemstorequiretheinterpositionofacourtofequity
andyetwhetheritspowersreachsofarisdoubtful.Amanassignstoa
relationofhisL.500containedinabond,withoutpowerofrevocation,
reservingonlyhisownliferent.Manyyearsafter,forgettingthe
assignment,hemakesawill,namingthissamerelationhisexecutorand
residuarylegatee,bequeathinginthetestamenttheforesaidbondofL.
500toanotherrelation.Thetestator'seffects,abstractingfromthebond,
notexceedinginvalueL.500,itbecomestotheexecutornominatea
matterindifferent,whetherheacceptthetestament,orbetakehimselfto
hisownbond.Butitisnotindifferenttoothersforifheundertakethe
officeofexecutor,hemustconveythebondtothespeciallegateeifhe
clingtothebond,rejectingtheoffice,thetestamentfallstotheground,
andthenextofkinwilltaketheeffects,leavingnothingtothespecial
legatee.Theinterestofothersoughtnottodependonthearbitrarywillof
theexecutornominateandyet,asfarasappears,thereisnoplacehere
fortheinterpositionofequity.Theprivilegeofacceptingorrejectinga
rightnomancanbedeprivedofand,admittingthisprivilege,the
consequencesthatfollowseemtobeoutofthereachofequity.
Landestatesthatareconterminous,formsuchaconnectionbetweenthe
proprietors,astomakecertainactsofbenevolencetheirduty,which
belongtothepresentsubject.Tosavemygroundfromwaterflowing
uponitfromaneighbouringfield,acourtofequitywillintitlemeto
repairabulwarkwithinthatfield,providedthereparationdamagenotthe
proprietor.Thefollowingisasimilarcase.Thecourseofarivuletwhich
servesmymillhappenstobediverted,atorrenthavingfilledwithstones
ormudthechannelinmyneighbour'sgroundabove.Iwillbepermitted
toremovetheobstructionthoughinmyneighbour'sproperty,inorderto
restoretherivulettoitsnaturalchannel.Myneighbourisboundtosuffer

thisoperation,becauseitrelievesmefromdamagewithoutharminghis
property.
Butinordertoprocureanyactualprofit,ortomakemyselflocupletior,
equitywillnotinterposeorintitlemetomakeanyalteration
Page95
inmyneighbour'sproperty,evenwherehecannotspecifyanyprejudice
bythealteration.Thereasonisgivenabove,Thatequityneverobliges
anyman,whetherbyactingorsuffering,toincreasetherichesofanother.
ThustheEarlofEglintonhavingbuiltamillupontheriverofIrvine,and
stretchedadamdikecrossthechannel,whichoccasionedarestagnation
totheprejudiceofasuperiormill,Fairlytheproprietorofthismill
broughtaprocess,complainingthathismillwashurtbythebackwater,
andconcludingthattheEarl'sdamdikebedemolished,orsoalteredasto
giveafreecoursetotheriver.Therestagnationbeingacknowledged,the
Earlproposedtoraisethepursuer'smillwheelteninches,whichwould
makethemillgoaswellasformerlyofferingsecurityatthesametime
againstallfuturedamageandurged,thattorefusesubmittingtothis
alterationwouldbeactinginaemulationemvicini,whichthelawdoth
notindulge.Thecourtjudgedthedefendant'sdamdiketobean
incroachmentonthepursuer'sproperty,andordainedthesametobe
removedortakendownasfarasitoccasionedtherestagnation*.
SECT.II.Connectionsthatmakebenevolenceadutyevenagainstourinterest.

THeseconnectionsmustbeveryintimatefor,asobservedinthe
beginningofthepresentchapter,itrequiresamuchstrongerconnectionto
obligeustobestowuponanotheranyportionofoursubstance,than
merelytodoagoodofficewhichtakesnothingfromus.Thebulkofthese
connections,thoughextremelyvarious,may,Iimagine,bebroughtunder
thefollowingheads.1stConnectionsthatintitleamantohavehisloss
madeupoutofourgain.2d,Connectionsthatintitleamanwhoisnot,
properlyspeaking,aloser,topartakeofourgain.3d,Connectionsthat
intitleonewhoisalosertoarecompencefromonewhoisnotagainer.
ART.I.Connectionsthatintitleamantohavehislossmadeupoutofourgain.

Nopersonalconnection,howeverintimate,supposingeventhatof
parentandchild,canmakeitanactofjustice,thatonewho
Page96
isagainershouldrepairthelosssustainedbyanother,unlesstherebe
alsosomeconnectionbetweenthelossandgainandthisconnectionis
acapitalcircumstanceinthepresentspeculation.Theconnections
hithertomentionedrelatetopersonsthisrelatestothings.If,for
example,IlayoutmymoneyformelioratingasubjectwhichIconsider
tobemyown,butwhichisafterwarddiscoveredtobethepropertyof
anothermylossinthiscaseisintimatelyconnectedwithhisgain,
becauseineffectmymoneycomesintohispocket.
Theconnectionbetweenthelossandgainmaybemoreorless

intimate:anditsdifferentdegreesofintimacyoughttobecarefully
notedbecauseitisreasonabletopresume,whatwillbefoundtrueby
induction,thatwhereeveritbecomesaman'sdutytoapplyhisgainfor
repairinganother'sloss,theremustbeanintimateconnectionbetween
lossandgain.Whenthisconnectionisfoundinthehighestdegree,
thereisscarcerequisiteanyothercircumstancetofoundtheduty:inits
lowerdegreesnodutyarises,unlessthepersonsbeotherwisestrongly
connected.Proceedingthentotracethesedegrees,thelowestIshall
haveoccasiontomention,iswherethelossandgainareconnectedby
theirrelationtothesamesubject.Forexample,amanpurchasesata
lowrateoneofthepreferabledebtsuponabankruptestateandupona
saleoftheestatedrawsmorethanthetransactedsum:hegainswhile
hisfellowcreditorsloseconsiderably.Thenextdegreegoingupward,
iswheremygainistheoccasionofanother'sloss.Forexample,a
merchantforeseeingascarcity,purchasesallthecornhecanfindinthe
neighbourhood,withaviewtomakegreatprofit:beforeheopenshis
granaries,Iimportalargecargofromabroad,parcellingitoutata
moderateprice,underwhatmybrothermerchantpaidforhiscargoby
whichmeanshelosesconsiderably.Thethird,prettymuchuponalevel
withtheformer,iswhereanother'slossistheoccasionofmygain.For
example,myshiploadedwithcornproceeds,incompanywithanother,
toaportwherethereisascarcity:theothershipbeingfounderedina
storm,andthecargolost,mycargobythatmeansdrawsabetterprice.
Thefourthconnectionismoreintimate,thelossandthegain
proceedingfromthesamecause.Inthecaselastmentioned,suppose
theweakervessel,dashedagainsttheotherinastorm,issunk:herethe
samecausebywhichtheoneproprietorloses,provesbeneficialtothe
other.ThelastconnectionIshallmention,andthecompletest,iswhere
thatwhichislostbytheoneisgainedbytheotheror,inotherwords,
wherethemoneyof
Page97
whichtheoneisdeprivedisconvertedtotheother'sbenefit.Thisisthe
casefirstofallmentioned,ofmoneylaidoutbyabonafidepossessor,
inmelioratingasubjectwhichisafterwardclaimedbytheproprietor.
Themoneythattheformerlosesisgainedbythelatter.
AfamousmaximoftheRomanlaw,Quodnemodebetlocupletari
alienajactura,belongstothisarticle:andinordertoascertain,ifitcan
bedone,whataretheconnectionsthatmakeitthedutyofonemanto
partwithhisgainforrepairinganother'sloss,Ishallbeginwitha
commentaryuponthatmaxim.Thefirstobservationis,Thatitis
expressedabstractly,asholdingtrueingeneral,withoutdistinctionof
personsandthereforethatthedutyitestablishesmustbefoundedupon
arealconnection,independentaltogetherofpersonalconnections.
Whichleadsustoexaminewhatthatrealconnectionmustbe.Nemo
debetlocupletarialienajactura,or,Nopersonoughttoprofitby
another'sloss,impliesaconnectionbetweenthelossandthegain:it
impliesthatthegainarisesbytheloss,orbymeansoftheloss.Taking
thereforethemaximliterally,itoughttotakeplacewhereeverthegain
isoccasionedbytheloss,orperhapsoccasionsthelosswhich
certainlyisnotgoodlaw.Myshiploadedwithcornproceeds,along
withanother,toaportwherethereisascarcity.Theothershipbeing
lostinastorm,mycargobythatmeansdrawsabetterprice:Iam

benefitedbyanother'sloss.Again,twovesselsloadedwithcornare
dashedagainsteachotherinastorm,andtheweakerissunkbywhich
meansthecargointheothersellsatahigherprice.Inbothexamples,
thesamecausethatdestroystheonemerchantisprofitabletotheother:
yetnomanwhoinsuchcircumstancesmakesprofit,findshimself
boundinconsciencetobestowhisprofituponrepairingtheother'sloss.
Itappearsthenthatthismaxim,likemostgeneralmaxims,isaptto
misleadbybeingtoocomprehensive.Reflectinguponthissubject,we
find,thatnothingwhichamanacquiresbyhisownmeans,orby
accident,howeverconnectedwiththelosssustainedbyanother,will
ever,independentofsomepersonalconnection,bindhimtomakeup
thatlossoutofhisgain.Theonlyrealconnectionthatsinglybindshim,
iswhereanother'smoneyisconvertedtohisuse.Thiscircumstance,
thoughwithoutanyintentiontobenefithim,willbindhimin
consciencetomakeupthatother'slossasfarashehimselfisagainer.
Herethemaxim,Quodnemodebetlocupletarialienajactura,takenin
itsstrictestsense,isapplicableandthesinglecase,sofarasI
understand,whereitisapplicable.Themostnotedcaseofthiskindis
wherethepossessorofasubjectwhichhebonasideconsiderstobe
Page98
hisown,laysouthismoneyonreparationsandmeliorations,intending
nothingbuthisownbenefit:thetrueproprietorclaimsthesubjectina
process,andprevails:heprofitsbythemeliorations,andthemoney
bestowedonthesemeliorationsisconvertedtohisuse.Everyonein
thatcasemustbesensibleofahardshipthatrequiresaremedyandit
mustbethewishofeverydisinterestedperson,thatthebonafide
possessorberelievedfromthishardship.Thatthecommonlawaffords
norelief,willbeevidentatfirstsight:thelabourandmoneyofthe
bonafidepossessorissunkinthesubject,andhasnolongerany
separateexistenceuponwhichtofoundareivindicatio:theproprietor
atthesametime,inclaimingthesubject,doesnomorebutexercisehis
ownright,whichcannotsubjecthimpersonallytoanydemandatthe
instanceofthebonafidepossessor.Ifthentherebearemedy,itcan
havenootherfoundationbutequityandthatthereisaremedyin
equitywillappearfromthefollowingconsiderations.Manbeinga
falliblecreature,societywouldbeanuncomfortablestatewere
individualsdisposedineverycasetotakeadvantageofthemistakes
anderrorsofothers.Buttheauthorofournaturehasmore
harmoniouslyadjusteditsdifferentbranchestoeachother.Tomakeit
alawinournature,nevertotakeadvantageoferrorinanycase,would
begivingtoomuchindulgencetoindolenceandremissionofmind,
tendingtomakeusneglecttheimprovementofourrationalfaculties.
Ontheotherhand,tomakeitlawfultotakeadvantageoferrorinevery
case,wouldbetoorigorous,consideringhowdifficultitisforamanto
bealwaysuponhisguard.Theauthorofournaturehashappily
mouldeditsoastoavoidtheseextremes.Nomanisconsciousof
wrongwhenhetakesadvantageofanerrorcommittedbyanotherto
savehimselffromloss:iftheremustbealoss,naturaljusticedictates,
thatitoughttorestuponthepersonwhohascommittedanerror,
howeverinnocently,ratherthanuponhimwhohasbeencarefulto
avoidallerror.Butinlucrocaptando,themoralsenseteachesa
differentlesson:everyoneisconsciousofwrong,whenanerrorislaid

holdoftomakegainbyit.Theconsciousnessofinjustice,whensuch
advantageistaken,isindeedinferiorindegree,butthesameinkind
withtheinjusticeofrobbinganinnocentpersonofhisgoodsorofhis
reputation.Thisdoctrineissupportedbyutilityaswellasbyjustice.
Industryoughttobeencouragedandchanceasmuchaspossibleought
tobeexcludedfromalldealings,inorderthatindividualsmaypromise
tothemselvesthefruitsoftheirownindustry.Thisaffordsafresh
instanceofthatbeautifulharmonywhichsubsistsbetweentheinternal
Page99
andexternalconstitutionofman.Aregularchainofcausesandeffects,
leavinglittleornothingtoaccident,isadvantageousexternallyby
promotingindustry,andisnotlesssointernallybythedelightit
affordsthehumanmind.Nosceneismoredisgustfulthantoseeall
thingsgoingonbychance,withoutorderorconnection.Whenacourt
ofequitythereforepreservestoeveryman,asmuchaspossible,the
fruitsofhisownindustrysuchproceeding,byrectifyingthedisorders
ofchance,isauthorisedbyutilityaswellasbyjustice.Andhenceitis
aprincipleofmorality,foundedbothonthenatureofmanandonthe
interestsofsociety,Thatweoughtnottomakegainbyanother'serror.
Thisprincipleisdirectlyapplicabletothecaseabovementioned.The
titlesoflandpropertybeingintricate,andoftenuncertain,instances
arefrequent,whereamaninpossessionofland,thepropertyof
another,isledbyunavoidableerrortoconsideritasbelongingto
himself:hismoneyisbestow'dwithouthesitationinrepairingand
melioratingthesubject.Equitywillnotpermitthetrueownertoprofit
bysuchmistake,andineffecttopocketthemoneyoftheinnocent
possessorandacourtofequityinterposestoobligetheownertomake
upthelossasfarasheislocupletior.Thusthepossessorofatenement,
having,uponthefaithandbeliefofitsbeinghisown,made
considerablemeliorations,was,aftervoidinghistitle,foundintitledto
claimfromtheproprietortheexpenceofsuchmeliorationsaswere
profitabletohimbyraisingtherentofhistenement*.Inallcasesof
thiskind,itcanbequalifiedinthestrictestmanner,thatwhatislostto
theoneaccruestotheother.Themaximthenmustbeunderstoodinthis
limitedsensefornoconnectionbetweenthelossandgaininferiorin
degreetothis,will,independentofpersonalconnections,beasufficient
foundationforaclaiminequityagainstthepersonwhogains,tomake
uptheother'sloss.
Butsupposingthesubjectmelioratedtohaveperishedbeforebringing
theaction,istheproprietornotwithstandingliable?Ianswer,That
whereequitymakesbenevolenceadutytothosewhobenefitus
withoutintendingit,itisnotsufficientthattherehasbeengainone
timeorother:itisimpliedinthenatureoftheclaim,thattheremustbe
gainatthetimeofthedemandforiftherebenogainatpresent,there
isnosubjectoutofwhichthelosscanbemadeup.
Itwillnotbethoughtanunnecessarydigressiontoobservea
peculiarityintheRomanlawwithrespecttothismatter.Asthatlaw
Page100

stoodoriginally,thebonafidepossessorhadnoclaimforhisexpences.
Thisdidnotproceedfromignoranceofequity,butfromwantofa
formulatoauthorisetheactionforatfirstwhenbrievesorformsof
actionwereinvented*,thisclaimwasnotthoughtof.Butan
exceptionwassoonthoughtoftointitlethebonafidepossessorto
retainthesubject,tillhegotpaymentofhisexpence:andthisexception
thejudgescouldhavenodifficultytosustain,becauseexceptionswere
notsubjectedtoanyformula.Theinconvenientrestraintofthese
formulaewasintimebrokethrough,andactionesinfactum,orupon
thecase,wereintroduced,whichwerenotconfinedtoanyformula.
Afterthisinnovation,thesameequitythatgaveanexception,
producedalsoanactioinfactumandthebonafidepossessorwas
madesecureastohisexpencesinallcases,viz.byanexceptionwhile
heremainedinpossession,andbyanactionifhehappenedtolosethe
possession.
Anothercase,differingnothingfromtheformerineffectthough
considerablyinitscircumstances,iswhere,uponafictitiousmandate,
onepurchasesmygoods,orborrowsmymoney,fortheuseofanother.
Thatotherisnotliableexmandato,becausehegavenocommission:
butifIcanprovethatthemoneyorgoodswereactuallyappliedforhis
use,equityaffordsmeaclaimagainsthim,asfarasheisagainer.
Thus,inanactionforpaymentofmerchantgoodspurchasedinname
ofthedefendant,andappliedtohisuse,thedefendantinsisted,thathe
hadgivennocommissionandthatifhisnamewasusedwithouthis
authority,hecouldnotbeliable.
"Itwasdecreed,Thatthegoodsbeingappliedtothedefendant'suse,he
wasliable,unlesshecouldprovethathepaidthepricetothepersonwho
bespokethegoods."
Thiscase,liketheformer,restsentirelyupontherealconnectionbetweenthe
lossandgain,independentofwhichtherewasnoconnectionbetweenthe
parties.Andinthepresentcase,perhapsmoreclearlythanintheformer,every
onemustbesensible,thatthemanwhoreapsthebenefitisindutyboundto
repairtheother'sloss.Andhencetheactiondeinremverso,thenameofwhich
weborrowfromtheRomans.Inacasepreciselysimilar,thecourtinclinedto
sustainitrelevanttoassoilzieoracquitthedefendant,thatthegoodswere
giftedtohimbythepersonwhopurchasedtheminhisname.Butasdonationis
notpresumed,hewasfoundliable,becausehecouldnotbringevidenceofthe
alledgeddonation.Uponthesupposition
Page101
ofagift,itcouldnotwellbespecifiedthatthedesendantwaslocupletior:a
manwillspendliberallywhatheconsidersasapresent,thoughhewouldnot
layouthismoneyuponthepurchase.
Havingendeavouredtoascertain,withallpossibleaccuracy,that
degreeofconnectionbetweenthelossandgain,whichisrequisiteto
affordareliefinequity,byobligingthepersonwhogainstomakeup
theother'sloss,Iproceedtoascertaintheprecisemeaningoflossand
gainasunderstoodinthemaxim.Andthefirstdoubtthatoccursis,
Whetherthetermlocupletiorcomprehendeveryrealbenefit,

preventionoflossaswellasapositiveincreaseoffortuneorwhether
itbeconfinedtothelatter.Iexplainmyselfbyexamples.Whenabona
fidepossessorrearsanewedificeuponanotherman'sground,thisisa
positiveaccessiontothesubject,whichmakestheproprietor
locupletiorinthestrictestsenseoftheword.Butitmayhappenthatthe
moneylaidoutbythebonafidepossessorisdirectedtopreventlossas
wherehefortifiesthebankofariveragainstitsincroachments,where
hesupportsatotteringedifice,orwherehetransactsaclaimthat
threatenedtocarryofftheproperty.Isthemaximapplicabletocasesof
thisnature,wherelossisonlypreventedwithoutanypositiveincrease
ofwealthorfortune?Whenaworkisdonethatpreventsloss,the
subjectistherebyimprovedandmadeofgreatervalue.Abulwarkthat
preventstheincroachmentsofariver,makesthelandsellatahigher
priceandarealaccession,suchasahousebuilt,orlandinclosed,will
notdomore.Theonlydifferenceis,thatapositiveaccessionmakesa
manricherthanheformerlywasaworkdonetopreventlossmakes
himonlyricherthanhewouldhavebeenhadtheworkbeenleft
undone.Thisdifferenceistooslighttohaveanyeffectinequity.The
proprietorgainsbybothequallyandinbothcasesequallyhewillfeel
himselfboundinjusticetomakeupthelossoutofhisgain.Abona
fidepossessorwhoclaimsmoneylaidoutbyhimtosupportatottering
edifice,iscertansdedamnoevitando,aswellaswhereheclaims
moneylaidoutuponmeliorationsandtheproprietorclaimingthe
subject,iscertansdelucrocaptandointheonecaseaswellasinthe
other.Butinthiscompetition,equitypreferstheclaimofhimwhois
certansdedamnoevitandofor,asobservedabove,thereisinhuman
natureaclearsenseofwrong,whereamanavailshimselfofanerrorto
makeprofitatanother'sexpence.Nordoestheprincipleofutilitymake
anydistinction.Itisagreatobjectinsociety,torectifythedisordersof
chance,andtopreservetoeveryman,asmuchaspossible,thefruitsof
hisownindustryinwhichview,itmakesno
Page102
difference,whetheraman'sindustryhasbeenappliedtopreventloss,
ortomakearealaccessiontohisfortune.Inthecasesaccordinglythat
haveoccurred,Ifindnodistinctionmadeandinthosewhichfollow
therewasnobenefitbutwhatarosefrompreventingloss.Ashipbeing
ransomedfromaprivateer,everypersonbenefitedmustcontributea
proportionoftheransom*.Awrittentestamentbeingvoidedfor
informality,theexecutornominatewasallowedtheexpenceof
confirmingthetestament,becausetotheexecutrixquanextinkin,
pursuerofthereduction,itwasprofitablebysavinghertheexpenceof
aconfirmation.
Fromwhatissaid,itmaypossiblybethought,thattheforegoingruleof
equityisapplicablewhereeveritcanbesubsumed,thattheloss
sustainedbyonehasaccruedtothebenefitofanother.Butthiswillbe
foundarashconclusion,whenitisconsidered,thatonemaybe
benefitedwithoutbeinginanypropersenselocupletior,oragainer
uponthewhole.Igiveanexample.Amanerectingalargetenementin
aborough,becomesbankruptbyoverstretchinghiscredit.Thisnew
tenement,beingthechiefpartofhissubstance,isadjudgedbyhis
creditorsforsumsbeyondthevalue.Inthemeantime,thetradesmen
andthefurnishersofmaterialsforthebuilding,trustingtoaclaimin

equity,forbeartoadjudge.Theyareloserstotheextentoftheirwork
andfurnishingsandtheadjudgersareinonesenselocupletiores,asby
meansofthetenementtheywilldrawperhapstenshillingsinthepound
insteadoffive.Aretheadjudgersthen,intermsofthemaxim,bound
toyieldthisprofit,inordertopaytheworkmenandfurnishers?Byno
means.Forherethebenefitispartialonly,andproducethnotuponthe
wholeactualprofit:onthecontrary,theadjudgers,evenafterthis
benefit,areequallywiththeircompetitorscertantesdedamno
evitando.Thecourtofsessionaccordinglyrefusedtosustaintheclaim
ofthetradesmenandfurnishers.Henceappearsaremarkable
differencebetweenpropertyandobligation.Moneylaidoutupona
subjectbythebonafidepossessor,whetherformeliorationorto
preserveitfromdamage,makestheproprietorlocupletior,anda
captatorlucriexalienajactura.Butthoughacreditorbebenefitedby
another'sloss,soasbythatmeanstodrawagreaterproportionofhis
debt,heisnot,however,againeruponthewhole,butisstillcertansde
damnoevitando.Andwhenthepartiesarethusinparicasu,acourtof
equitycannotinterpose,butmustleavethemtothecommonlaw.
Page103
Iaddanotherlimitation,whichisnotpeculiartothemaximunder
consideration,butarisesfromtheveryconstitutionofacourtofequity.
Itisnotsufficientthattherebegain,eveninthestrictestsense:itis
necessarythatthegainbeclearandcertainforotherwiseacourtof
equitymustnotundertaketorepairthelossoutofthatgain.The
principleofutility,inordertopreventarbitraryproceedings,prohibits
acourtofequitytotakeunderconsiderationaconjecturallossora
conjecturalgain,becausesuchlossorgaincanneverbebroughtunder
ageneralrule.Igivethefollowingillustrations.Twoheritorshaving
eachofthemasalmonfishinginthesamepartofariver,areinuseto
exercisetheirrightsalternately.Oneisinterruptedforsometimebya
suitattheinstanceofathirdparty:theotherbythismeanshasmore
capturethanusual,thoughhevariesnothismanneroffishing.What
theonelosesbytheinterruptionisprobablygainedbytheother,at
leastinsomemeasure.Butaswhatisheretransferredfromtheoneto
theothercannotbeascertainedwithanydegreeofcertainty,acourtof
equitymustnotinterpose.Again,atenantuponthefaithofalong
lease,laysoutconsiderablesumsuponimprovinghisland,andreaps
thebenefitafewyears.Butthelandlord,whoholdsthelandbya
militarytenure,diessuddenlyintheflowerofhisage,leavinganinfant
heir:thelandbythismeanscomesintothesuperior'shand,andthe
leaseissupersededduringtheward.Hereagreatpartofthe
extraordinarymeliorationswhichthelesseeintendedforhisown
benefit,areconvertedtotheuseofthesuperior.Yetequitycannot
interpose,becausenogeneralrulecanbelaiddownforascertainingthe
gainmadebythesuperior.Ihaveonecasetoquotewhichconfirmsthis
doctrine.Inanactionatatercer'sinstanceforathirdoftherentslevied
bythefiar,thecourtrefusedtosustainadeductionclaimedbythe
defendant,viz.athirdofthefactorfeepaidbyhimforlevyingthe
rents,thoughitwasurged,thatthepursuercouldnothaveleviedher
thirdwithlessexpence*.Thelossherewasnotascertained,andwas
scarcecapableofbeingascertainedfornoonecouldsaywhatlessthe
factorwouldhaveacceptedforlevyingtwothirdsoftherentthanfor

levyingthewhole.Neitherwastheprofitcapabletobeascertained:the
ladyherselfmighthaveupliftedhershare,orhavegotafriendtoserve
hergratis.
Ishallclosewithonefurtherlimitation,whichregardsnotonlythe
presentsubject,buteveryclaimthatcanbefoundedonequity.Courts
ofequityareintroducedineverycountrytoinforcenatural
Page104
justice,andbynomeanstogiveaidtoanywrong.Whenceitfollows,
thatnomancanbeintitledtotheaidofacourtofequity,whenthataid
becomesnecessarybyhisownfault.Forthisreason,whenthe
proprietorismadeliablefortheexpenceofprofitablemeliorations,
thiscanonlybewhenthemeliorationsweremadebonafidebya
personreasonablyintendinghisownprofit,andnotsuspectingany
hazard.ItislaiddownhoweverintheRomanlaw,Thatthenecessary
expencelaidoutinupholdingthesubject,maybeclaimedbythemala
sidepossessor*.Ifsuchreparationsbemadewhiletheproprietoris
ignorantofhisright,andtheruinoftheedificebetherebyprevented,
therepossiblymaybeafoundationinutilityfortheclaim:butIdeny
therecanbeanyfoundationinjustice.Andtherefore,ifatenant,after
beingejectedbylegalexecution,shallobstinatelypersisttoplowand
sow,heoughttohavenoclaimforhisseednorhislabour.Theclaimin
thesecircumstanceshathnofoundationeitherinjusticeorutility:yet
theclaimwassustained.
Buttherearemanypersonalconnectionsjoinedwithamuchslighter
realconnectionthanthatabovementioned,whichintitleamantohave
hislossmadeupoutofourgain.Ofwhichtakethefollowing
examples.
Therearethreecreditorsconnected,firstbytheirrelationtothesame
debtorwhoisabankruptandnext,bytheirrelationtotwolandestates
AandBbelongingtothedebtor,thefirstcreditorbeingpreferably
securedonbothestates,oneofthesecondarycreditorsbeingsecured
uponA,theotheruponB.Thecatholiccreditorpurchasesoneofthe
secondarydebtsunderitsvalue,bywhichheisagainerforbyhis
preferabledebthecutsouttheothersecondarycreditor,andbythat
meansdrawsthewholepriceofthetwosubjects.Thequestionis,
Whetherequitywillsufferhimtoretainhisgainagainsttheother
secondarycreditor,whoisthuscutoutofhissecurity?Itcannotindeed
bespecifiedhere,asinthecaseofthebonaesidcipossessorrei
alienae,thatmoneygivenoutbytheoneisconvertedtotheuseofthe
other:butthenthelossandgainarenecessarilyconnectedbyhavinga
commoncause,viz.thepurchasemadebythecatholiccreditor.This
connectionbetweenlossandgain,joinedwiththepersonalconnections
abovementioned,makeitthedutyofthecatholiccreditorto
communicatehisprofit,inordertomakeupthelossthattheother
creditorsustains.Andonemaywithconfidencedeliverthisopinion,
whenthefollowingcircumstance
Page105

isadded,thatthelosswasoccasionedbythecatholiccreditor,in
makingapurchasethathewassensiblewouldruinhisfellowcreditor.
Thenextcaseinorder,isoftwoassigneestothesamebond,ignorant
ofeachother.Thecedentorassignorcontrivestodrawthepurchase
moneyfromboth,andwalksoffinastateofbankruptcy.Thelatter
assignment,beingfirstintimated,willbepreferred.Buttowhatextent?
Willitbepreferredforthewholesuminthebond,oronlyforthe
transactedsum?Thecircumstancesofthiscasefavourthepostponed
assignee,thoughtheyhavenotthesameweightwiththoseinthe
former:thematerialdifferenceis,thattheassigneepreferredmadehis
purchasewithoutknowingofhiscompetitor,andconsequentlywithout
anythoughtofdistressinghim.Thepersonalconnectionhowever,
joinedwiththenecessaryconnectionbetweenthelossandgain,
appearssufficienttodeprivethelastassigneeofhisgain,inorderto
makeupthelosssustainedbythefirst.Thecasewouldbemore
doubtful,hadthefirstassignmentbeenfirstcompletedbecauseitmay
appearhard,thattheinterventionofasecondpurchasershoulddeprive
thefirstofaprofitablebargain.Ileavethispointtoberipenedbytime
andmaturedeliberation.Theprogressofequityisslow,though
constant,towardthemoredelicatearticlesofnaturaljustice.Ifthere
appearanydifficultyaboutextendingequitytothiscase,thedifficulty
probablywillvanishincourseoftime.
Onethingiscertain,thatintheEnglishcourtofchancerytherewould
benohesitationtoapplyequitytothiscase.Thatcourtextendsits
poweragreatwayfartherfartherindeedthanseemsjust.Astranger,
forexample,whopurchasesapriorincumbrance,candrawnomore
fromtheotherincumbrancersthanthesumhereallypaid*:andto
justifythisextraordinaryopinion,itissaid,
"Thatthetakingawayoneman'sgaintomakeupanother'sloss,ismaking
thembothequal."
Thisargument,ifitproveanything,provestoomuch,beingapplicabletoany
twopersonsindifferentlywhohavenotthesmallestconnection,supposingonly
theonetohavemadeaprofitable,theotheralosingbargain.Thereoughttobe
someconnectiontofoundsuchademand:thepersonsoughttobeconnected
byacommonconcernandthelossandgainoughttobeconnected,soatleast
asthattheonebeoccasionedbytheother.Thefirstconnectiononlyisfoundin
thiscase:astrangerwhopurchasesapriorincumbranceisindeed,bya
commonsubject,connected
Page106
withtheotherincumbrancers:butthispurchasedoesnotharmtheother
incumbrancersforwhenthepurchaserclaimsthedebtinitsutmostextent,itis
nomorethanwhathisauthorwasintitledtodo.Theruleofchancery,inthis
view,appearsalittlewhimsical:itdeprivesmeofalucrativebargain,thefruit
ofmyownindustry,tobestowit,notuponanypersonwhoishurtbythe
bargain,butuponthosewhoareinnoworseconditionthanbeforethebargain
wasmade.NeitheramIclear,thatthisrulecanbesupporteduponaprinciple
ofutility:forthoughitispreventiveofhardandunequalbargainsyetasno
prudentmanwillpurchaseanincumbranceuponsuchacondition,itisin
effectaprohibitionofsuchpurchases,whichwouldproveagreat

inconveniencytomanywhosefundsarelockedupbythebankruptcyoftheir
debtors.
Thatanheiracquiringanincumbranceshouldbeallowednomorebut
whathereallypaid,or,whichcomestothesame,thatheshouldbe
boundtocommunicateeases,isapropositionmoreagreeabletothe
principlesofequity.ThisisthelawofEngland*,anditisthelawof
Scotlandwithregardtoheirswhotakethebenefitofinventory.Butthe
caseofanheirisverydifferentfromthatofastranger.Hehathinhis
handthefundforpaymentofthecreditors,whichheoughtfaithfullyto
accountforandthereforeheisnotpermittedtostateanyarticlefor
exhaustingthatfundbeyondwhathehathactuallyexpended:ifa
creditoracceptlessthanhisproportion,thefundfortheothercreditors
issomuchthelarger.
Acautioneruponmakingpaymentobtaininganease,must
communicatethesametotheprincipaldebtor,uponaplaingroundin
commonlaw,thatbeingsecureofhisrelieffromtheprincipaldebtor,
hecanhavenoclaimbuttobekeptindemnis.Butsupposingthe
principaldebtorbankrupt,Idiscovernogroundotherthanpaction,that
canbindonecautionertocommunicateeasestoanother:andyetitis
theprevailing,Imaysaytheestablished,opinion,Thatacautionerwho
obtainsaneasemustcommunicatethebenefittohiscocautioner.Iam
awareofthereasoncommonlyassigned,Thatcautionersforthesame
debtaretobeconsideredasinasociety,obligedtobeartheloss
equally.Butthis,Idoubt,isarguinginacircle:theyresembleasociety,
becausethelossmustbeequalandthelossmustbeequal,because
theyresembleasociety.Wemustthereforegomoreaccuratelytowork.
Inthefirstplace,letusexaminewhetheranobligationformutual
reliefoughttobeimplied.Thisimplication,atbestdoubtful,supposes
thecautionerstohavesubscribed
Page107
inabody.Andtherefore,toleavenoroomforanimpliedobligation,
weneedbutsuppose,thattwopersons,ignorantofeachother,become
cautionersatdifferenttimes,andindifferentdeeds.Itappears,then,
thatcommonlawaffordsnotanobligationformutualrelief.The
matterisstillmoreclearwithregardtoequity:fortheconnection
betweentwocautionerscanneverbesointimate,astoobligetheone
whoisnotagainertomakeuptheother'slosswhichisthecaseofthe
cautionerwhoobtainsanease,supposingthateasetobelessthanthat
proportionofthedebtwhichhestandsboundtopay.Uponthewhole,
mynotionis,thatifacautioner,uponaccountofobjectionsagainstthe
debt,oruponaccountofanycircumstancethatregardstheprincipal
debtor,obtainanease,heisboundtocommunicatethateasetohis
fellowcautioner,uponthefollowingrationalprinciple,Thatboth
cautionersoughtequallytopartakeofanease,themotivetowhich
respectsthemequally.Thisclearlyenoughappearstobetheratio
decidendiinthecasereportedbyStair,July27.1672,Brodiecontra
Keith.Butifuponpromptpaymentbyonecautionerafterthefailureof
others,oruponanyconsiderationpersonaltothecautioner,aneasebe
givenequity,Ithink,obligesnotthecautionertocommunicatethe
benefittohisfellowcautioners.Andthiswasdecreed,Stair,July8.

1664,NisbetcontraLessie.
Thereisonecircumstancethat,withoutmuchconnectionrealor
personal,extendstomanycasesthemaxim,Quodnemodebet
locupletarialienajacturaandthatisfraud,deceit,oranysortof
wrong.Ifbymeansofathirdperson'sfraudonegainsandanother
loses,acourtofequitywillinterposetomakeupthelossoutofthe
gain.Andthisresolvesintoageneralrule,
"Thatnoman,howeverinnocent,oughttotakeadvantageofatortiousact
bywhichanotherishurt."
Takethefollowingexample.Aseconddispositionofland,thoughgratuitous,
withthefirstinfeftment,ispreferredincommonlawbeforethefirst
dispositionwithoutinfeftment,thoughforavaluableconsideration.Butasthe
gratuitousdisponeeisthusbenefitedbyamoralwrongdonebyhisauthor,he
oughtnot,howeverinnocent,totakeadvantageofthatmoralwrongtohurtthe
firstdisponee.Thiscircumstancemakestheruleapplicable,Quodnondebet
locupletarialicnajacturaandthereforeacourtofequitywillcompelhim,
eithertogiveuphisrighttotheland,ortorepairthelossthefirstdisponeehas
sufferedbybeingdeprivedofhispurchase.
Thefollowingcasesrestuponthesameprinciple.Adispositionbya
merchantofhiswholeestatetohisinfantson,withoutareserved
Page108
liferentorpowertoburden,wasdeemedfraudulent,inordertocheat
hiscorrespondents,foreignmerchants,whohadtradedwithhim
beforethealienation,andcontinuedtheirdealingswithhimuponthe
beliefthathewasstillproprietorandtheirclaims,thoughposteriorto
thedisposition,wereadmittedtoaffecttheestate*.
Whereatutoractingtothebestofhisskillforthegoodofhispupil,
happens,intheordinarycourseofadministration,toconverta
moveabledebtintoonethatisheritable,oranheritabledebtintoone
thatismoveablesuchanact,afterthepupil'sdeath,willhaveitsfull
effectwithrespecttothepupil'ssuccession,bypreferringhisheiror
executor,asiftheacthadbeendonebyaproprietoroffullage.But
wherethetutoractsinthismannerunnecessarily,withthesole
intentiontoprefertheheirortheexecutor,thisisatortiousact,
contrarytothedutyheoweshispupil,whichwillaffecttheheiror
executor,thoughtheyhadnoaccessiontothewrong.Incommonlaw
thesuccessionwilltakeplaceaccordingtothetutor'sact,whetherdone
witharightorawrongintentionbutthiswillbecorrectedinequity,
upontheprinciple,Thatnopersonoughttotakeadvantageofatortious
actthatharmsanother.
Adonationintervirumetuxoremisrevocablebutnotadonationtothe
husbandorwife'schildren,ortoanyotherrelation.Awifemakesa
donationofherlandestatetoherhusbandwhoafterward,inorderto
barrevocation,givesupthedispositiongrantedtohim,andinsteadofit
takesadispositiontohiseldestson.Willthisdispositionberevocable?
Whereawifeoutofaffectiontoherhusband'seldestsonmakesadeed
inhisfavour,itisnotrevocable,becauseitisnotadonatiointervirum

etuxorem.Butinthiscaseitisclear,thatthedonationwasreally
intendedforthehusband,andthatthesolepurposeofthedispositionto
thesonwastobarrevocationwhichwasanunlawfulcontrivanceto
eludethelaw.Itwouldbewrongthereforeintheson,however
innocent,totakeadvantageofhisfather'stortiousact,calculatedto
deprivethewomanofherprivilegeandthereforethedispositionto
himwillberevocableinequity,asthattothefatherwasatcommon
law.
ART.II.Connectionsthatintitleamanwhoisnotaloser,topartakeofourgain.

FORthesakeofperspicuity,thisarticleshallbedividedintotwo
branches:1st,Wherethegainistheoperationofthemanwho
Page109
claimstopartakeofit.2d,Wherehehasnotcontributedtothegain.
Iintroducethefirstbranchwithacasewhichwillbeakeytothe
severalmattersthatcomeunderit.Twoheirsportioners,oringeneral
twoproprietorsofalandestateproindiviso,getforafarm,havinga
lakeinit,arentofeightypoundsyearly,withanofferoftenpounds
additionalrentiftheywilldrainthelake.AiswillingbutBrefuses,
judgingittobeimpracticable,oratleasttooexpensive.Ahowever
proceedsathisownriskandforthesumofL.100drainsthelake.He
cannotspecifyanylossbythisundertakingbecausethesumhelaid
outismorethancompensatedbythefivepoundadditionalrent
accruingtohim:andthereforethemaxim,Quodnemodebet
locupletarialienajuctura,isnotapplicabletohiscase.ButBisa
profiter,notonlybyA'sadvancingthemoney,butathisriskforifthe
undertakinghadprovedabortive,Awouldhavelostbothhislabourand
money.Isitagreeabletotherulesofjustice,thatBshouldbepermitted
tolayholdofanadditionalrentofL.5,withoutdefrayinganypartof
theexpencelaidoutupontheacquisition?Hecannotjustifythistohis
ownconscience,nortoanyhumanbeing.Themoralsensedictates,
thatwhereexpenceislaidoutinimprovingorrepairingacommon
subject,nooneoughttolayholdofthebenefit,withoutrefundinga
partoftheexpenceinproportiontothebenefitreceived.
Thisleadstoageneralrule,Thatexpencelaidoutuponacommon
subject,oughttobeaburdenuponthebenefitprocured.Andthisrule
willholdevenagainstthedissentofanyofthepartiesconcernedfor
theycannotinconsciencetakethebenefitwithouttheburden.Adissent
cannothaveanyeffectinequity,butonlytofreethepersondissenting
fromanyrisk.
Thefollowingcases,beingofthesamekindwiththatabovestared,
comeclearlyunderthegeneralrule.Oneofthreejointproprietorsofa
mill,havingraisedadeclaratorofthirlage,and,notwithstandinga
disclamationbytheothers,havinginsistedintheprocesstillhe
obtainedadecreetheotherswhoreapedtheprofitequallywithhim,
weremadeliablefortheirshareoftheexpence*.Andoneofmanyco
creditorshavingobtainedajudgementagainstthedebtor'srelict,
findingherliabletopayherhusband'sdebtstheothercreditorswho
sharedthebenefitweredecreedtocontributetotheexpence.Forthe

samereason,whereatenementdestroyed
Page110
byfirewasrebuiltbyaliferenter,theproprietor,aftertheliferenter's
death,wasmadeliablefortheexpenceofrebuilding,asfarashewas
lucratusthereby*.Andifrebuiltbytheproprietor,theliferenterwill
beliablefortheinterestofthesumexpendedasfarasheislucratus.
Actionwassustainedattheinstanceofawadsetterfordeclaring,that
hisintendedreparationofaharbourinthewadsetlands,wouldbe
profitabletothereverserandthatthereverser,uponredemption,
shouldbeboundtorepaytheexpencethereof.Uponthesame
principle,ifalesseeerectanybuildingsbywhichtheproprietoris
evidentlylucratusattheendofthelease,thereisaclaiminequityfor
theexpenceofthemeliorations.Butreparations,thoughextensive,will
scarcebeallowedwherethelesseeisboundtoupholdthehouses
becausealesseewhobestowssuchreparationwithouthislandlord's
consent,isunderstoodtolayouthismoneyinordertofulfilhis
obligation,withoutanyprospectofretribution.Thepresentminister
wasfoundnotliableforthemeliorationsoftheglebemadebyhis
predecessor**.Butwhatifmeliorationsbemade,inclosing,draining,
stoning,&c.whichareclearlyprofitabletoallfuturepossessors?Ifthe
expenceofthese,inproportiontothebenefit,benotinsomeway
refunded,glebeswillrestintheiroriginalstateforever.Idonotsay,
thattheministerimmediatelysucceedingoughttobeliableforthe
wholeofthisexpence:forasthebenefitissupposedtobeperpetual,
theburdenoughttobeequallyso:whichsuggeststhefollowing
opinion,Thatthesumtotaloftheexpenceoughttobeconvertedintoa
perpetualannuity,tobepaidbytheministersofthisparishfortheonly
equitablemethodis,tomakeeachcontributeinproportiontothe
benefithereceives.
Thefollowingcasebelongsundoubtedlytothemaximofequityunder
considerationandyetwasjudgedbycommonlaw,neglectingthe
equitableremedy.Inashipwreck,partofthecargobeingfishedoutof
theseaandsaved,wasdeliveredtotheownersforpaymentofthe
salvage.Theproprietoroftheshipclaimingthefreightofthegoods
saved,prorataitineris,thefreightersadmittedtheclaimbutinsisted,
thatasthesalvagewasbeneficialtohimonaccountofhisfreight,as
wellastothemonaccountoftheirgoods,heought
Page111
topayaproportionofthesalvage.Hisanswerwassustainedtofree
himfromanypart,viz.Thattheexpencewaswhollylaidouton
recoveringthefreighter'sgoodsandthereforethattheyonlyoughtto
beliable*.Theanswerheresustainedresolvesintothefollowing
proposition,Thatheonlyisliablewhosebenefitisintended:whichis
certainlynotgoodinequityforatthatrate,thebonafidepossessor,
whoinmelioratingthesubjectintendshisownbenefitsolely,hasno
claimagainsttheproprietor.Herethefreightersandtheproprietorof
theshipwereconnectedbyacommoninterest:therecoveringthe

goodsfromshipwreckwasbeneficialtobothpartiestothefreighters,
becauseitputthemagaininpossessionoftheirgoodsandtothe
proprietoroftheship,becauseitgavehimaclaimforfreight.The
salvageaccordinglywastrulyinremversumofbothandforthat
reasonoughttobepaidbybothinproportiontothebenefitreceived.
Thiscasemaybeconsideredinadifferentlightthatwillscarceadmita
dispute.Supposethattheownersofthecargo,inrecoveringtheirgoods
totheextentofL.1000,havelaidoutL.100uponsalvage:theyhave
ineffectsavedorrecoveredbutL.900andbeyondthatsumthey
cannotbeliableforthefreight:whichinnumberswillbringouta
greatersumthanwhatresultsfromtheruleabovementioned.
Itwillnotescapethereader,thatequityisfurtherextendedinthis
branchthanintheformerandhewillalsodiscoverasolidreasonfor
thedifference.Withrespecttomatterscontainedintheformerbranch,
therealconnectionisonly,thatwhatislostbytheoneisgainedbythe
otherasinthecaseofabonafidepossessorreialienae.Butthereal
connectionofmattersinthepresentbranchissofarmoreintimate,that
everyacquisitionmustbenefitallequally,andeverylossburdenall
equally.
Itappears,thatabenefitaccruingtoanotherbymylabour,
occasionallyonlynotnecessarily,willnotintitlemetoaclaimwhereI
amnotaloser.Tomakethetruthofthisobservationevident,afew
exampleswillbesufficient.Adrainmadebymeinmyowngroundfor
myownbehoof,happenstodischargeaquantityofwaterthat
stagnatedinasuperiorfieldbelongingtoaneighbour.Justicedoesnot
intitlemetoclaimfromthisneighbouranyshareoftheexpencelaid
outuponthedrain.Thedrainhasansweredmyintention,andoverpays
thesumbestoweduponit:thereforemycasecomesnotunderthe
maxim,Quodnemodebetlocupletarialienajactura.NeithercanIhave
anyclaimupontherule,That
Page112
expencelaidoutuponacommonsubjectoughttobeaburdenuponthe
benefitprocuredforherethereisnocommonsubject,butonly
anotherpersonaccidentallyoroccasionallybenefitedbyanoperation
intendedsolelyformyownbenefit.AndProvidencehaswiselyordered
thatsuchaclaimshouldhavenosupportfromthemoralsenseforas
therecanbenopreciseruleforestimatingthebenefitthateachofus
receivesfromthedrain,thesubjectingmyneighbourtoaclaimwould
tendtocreateendlessdisputesbetweenus.Forthesamereason,ifmy
neighbourinmakinganinclosuretakeadvantageofamarchsence
builtbyme,hewillnotbeliabletoanypartoftheexpencebestowed
bymeuponitbecausethebenefit,asintheformercase,isoccasional
onlyorconsequential.
Fromthenatureoftheclaimhandledinthepresentbranch,itfollows,
thatifthepartyagainstwhomtheclaimislaid,renouncethebenefit,he
cannotbesubjectedtotheburden.
Withrespecttothebranchnowhandled,thecircumstancethatthe
benefitaccruingtoanotherwasoccasionedbymymeans,isthe
connectionthatintitlesmetoaproportionofthesumIlaidoutin
procuringthatbenefit.Butwithrespecttothesecondbranch,whichwe

arenexttoenterupon,itmustrequiresomepersonalrelationextremely
intimatetointitlemetopartakeofanotherman'sprofitwhenIhave
notcontributedtoit.Andthiswillbemadeevidentbythefollowing
examples.
Whenlandisheldward,andthesuperiorisunderage,agiftofhis
wardiseffectualagainsthisvassalaswellasagainsthimself.But
wherethegiftofwardwastakenforbehoofofthesuperior,itwasthe
opinionofthecourt,thatthevassalalsohadthebenefitthereofupon
payinghisproportionofthecomposition*.Againstthisopinionitwas
urged,Thatavassalmustlayhisaccountwithbeingliabletoallthe
casualtiesarisingfromthenatureofhisrightandthattherewasno
reasonforlimitingthesuperior'sclaim,morethanthatofanyother
donatar.Butitwasanswered,Thattherelationbetweensuperiorand
vassalissuch,asthatthesuperiorcannotbonasidetakeadvantage
againsthisvassalofacasualtyoccasionedbyhisownminority.The
samerulewasappliedtoagiftofmarriagetakenforbehoofofthe
superior.Anditappearingthatthesuperiorhadobtainedthisgiftfor
alledgedgoodservices,withoutpayinganycomposition,thebenefit
wascommunicatedtothevassalwithoutobliginghimtopayanysum

.
Page113
Ifapurchaserofland,discoveringadefectinthetitlederivedtohim
fromhisauthor,securehimselfbyacquiringthepreferabletitle,the
commonlawwillnotpermithimtofounduponthisnewacquiredtitle
asagroundofeviction,tomakehisauthor,boundinabsolute
warrandice,liableforthevalueofthesubject:forthepurchaserisnot
intitledtothevalueunlessthelandbeactuallyevictedfromhimand,
asthecasenowstands,thepurchasercannothaveanyclaimuponthe
warrandicebeyondthesumhepaidforthetitle.Thispointisstillmore
clearupontheprincipleofequityabovementioned.Theconnectionis
sointimatebetweenapurchaser,andavenderboundinabsolute
warrandice,thateverytransactionmadebyeither,withrelationtothe
subjectpurchased,isdeemedtobeforbehoofofboth.
Butnowsupposingseveralparcelsoflandtobecomprehendedunder
onetitledeed.Oneparcelissoldwithabsolutewarrandiceandthe
purchaser,discoveringthetitledeedtobeimperfect,acquiresfroma
thirdpartyapreferabletitletothewholeparcels.Heisnodoubtbound
tocommunicatethebenefitofthisacquisitiontothevender,asfaras
regardstheparcelhepurchased.Butthereisnothingatcommonlawto
barhimfromevictingtheotherparcelsfromthevender.Whethera
reliefcanbeaffordedinequity,isdoubtful.Theconnectionbetween
thepartiesisprettyintimate:thepurchaserisboundtocommunicateto
thevenderthebenefitofhisacquisitionwithrespecttooneparcel,and
itisnaturaltoextendthesameremedytothewhole.Onecaseofthis
natureoccurredinthecourtofsession.Amanhavingrighttoseveral
subjectscontainedinanadjudication,soldoneofthemwithabsolute
warrandiceandthepurchaserhavingacquiredatitlepreferabletohis
author'sadjudication,claimedthesubjectsthatwerenotdisponedto
him.Thecourtrestrictedtheclaimtothesumpaidforthepreferable
title*.Itisnotcertainwhetherthisdecreewaslaidupontheprinciple
abovementioned:forwhatmovedsomeofthejudgeswasthedanger

ofpermittingapurchaseracquaintedwiththetitledeedsofhisauthor,
totakeadvantageofhisknowledgebypickinguppreferabletitlesand
thatthis,asanunfairpractice,oughttobeprohibited.
ART.III.Connectionsthatintitleonewhoisalosertoarecompencefromonewhoisnotagainer.

CASESdailyoccur,where,byabsence,infancy,inadvertence,orother
circumstances,effectsrealandpersonalareleftwithoutproper
Page114
management,andwhereruinmustensue,ifnopersonactuatedwiththe
principleofbenevolencebemovedtointerpose.Herefriendshipand
goodwillhaveafavourableopportunitytoexertthemselves,andtodo
muchgood,perhapswithoutanyextraordinarylabourorgreatexpence.
Buttherecanbenomanagementwithoutlabourandexpencemoreor
lessandwhenaproprietorisbenefitedbysuchactsoffriendshipor
benevolence,justiceandgratitudeclaimfromtheproprietora
retribution,totheextentatleastofthebenefitreceived.Herethe
maximQuodnemodebetlocupletarialienajactura,isapplicableinthe
strictestsense.HencetheactionegotiorumgestorumintheRoman
law,whichforthereasongivenisadoptedbyallcivilizednations.
Butwhatifthisfriendlyman,afterbestowinghismoneyandlabour
withtheutmostprecaution,happentobeunsuccessful?Whatif,after
layingouthismoneyprofitablyuponrepairinghouses,orpurchasing
cattleformyuse,thebenefitbelosttomebythecasualdestructionof
thesubject?woulditbejustthatthisfriend,whohadnoviewbutfor
myinterest,shouldruntherisk?Astherewasnocontractbetweenus,a
claimwillnotbesustainedatcommonlawforthemoneyexpended.
Butequitypiercesdeeperintothenatureofthings,inordertofulfilthe
rulesofjustice.Serviceundertakenbyafrienduponanurgent
occasion,advancesgratitudefromavirtuetobeadutyandbindsmeto
recompensemyfriendasfarashehaslaidouthisownmoneyinorder
todomeservice.Themoralsenseteachesthislessonandnoperson,
howeverpartialinhisownconcern,butmustperceivethistobethe
dutyofothers.Utilityalsojoinswithjusticeinsupportofthisclaimof
recompence.Menoughttobeinvitedtoserveafriendintimeofneed:
butinsteadofinvitation,itwouldbeagreatdiscouragement,ifthe
moneyadvanceduponsuchservicewereupontheirownrisk,even
whenlaidoutwiththegreatestprudencea.Thisdoctrineislaiddown
byUlpianinclearterms:
"Isautem,quinegotiorumgestorumagit,nonsolumsieffectumhabuit
negotiumquodgessit,actioneitautetur:sedsufficit,siutilitergessit,etsi
effectumnonhabuitnegotium.Etideo,
Page115
siinsulamfulsit,velservumaegrumcuravit,etiamsiinsulaexustaest,vel
servusobiit,agetnegotiorumgestorum.IdqueetLabeoprobat*."

Fromwhatissaidaboveitisevident,thatthemanwhoundertakesmy
affairs,nottoserveme,buttoservehimself,isnotintitledtotheactio
negotiorumgestorum.Noreven,supposingmetobebenefitedbyhis
management,isheintitledtohavehislossrepairedoutofmygain:for
wrongcanneverfoundanyclaiminequity.YetJulianus,themostacute
oftheRomanwriters,answersthequestionintheaffirmative.Treating
ofonewhomalasidemeddlesinmyaffairs,hegivesthefollowing
opinion:
"Ipsetamen,sicircaresmeasaliquidimpenderit,noninidquodeiabest,
quiaimprobeadnegotiameaaccessit,sedinquodegolocupletiorfactus
sum,habetcontrameactionem."
Itappearsatthesametime,froml.ult.C.Denegot.gest.thatthisauthorwas
ofadifferentopinion,wherethemanagementofaman'saffairswascontinued
againsthiswillfortherenoactionwasgiven.This,inmyapprehension,is
establishingadistinctionwithoutadifference:fornomancanhopeformy
consenttocontinuethemanagementofmyaffairs,whenhebegunthat
management,nottoserveme,butwithaviewtohisowninterest.A
prohibitioninvolvedinthenatureofthething,isequivalenttoanexpress
prohibition.
Themasterofaship,oranyother,whoransomsthecargofroma
privateer,is,accordingtothedoctrineabovelaiddown,intitledto
claimfromtheownersofthecargothesumlaidoutupontheir
account:theyprofitbythetransaction,andtheyoughttoindemnify
him.Butwhatifthecargobeafterwardlostinastormatsea,orby
robberyatland?Theownersarenotnowprofitersbytheransom,and
thereforetheycannotbemadeliableuponthemaxim,Quodnemo
debetlocupletarialienajactura.Theyarehoweverliableuponthe
principlehereexplained.Themomentthetransactionwasfinishedthey
becamedebtorstotheransomerforthesumhelaidoutprofitablyupon
theiraccount.Hedidnotundertaketheriskofthe
Page116
cargoransomedandthereforethecasuallossofthecargocannothave
theeffecttodeprivehimofhisclaim.
ThelexRhodiadejactu,acelebratedmaritimeregulation,has
prevailedamongallcivilizednationsancientandmodern.Whenina
stormweightygoodsoflittlevaluearethrownoverboardtodisburden
theship,theownersoftheremainingcargomustcontributetomakeup
theloss.Thiscase,astotheobligationofretribution,isofthesame
naturewiththatnowmentioned,anddependsonthesameprinciple.
Thethrowingoverboardweightygoodsoflittlevalue,isextremely
beneficialtotheownersofthemorepreciousgoods,whichbythat
meansarepreservedand,accordingtotheforegoingdoctrine,these
ownersoughttocontributeformakingupthelossofthegoodsthrown
intothesea,preciselyasiftherehadbeenaformalcovenanttothat
effect.Butwhatifthewholecargobeafterwardlost,bywhich
eventuallythereisnobenefit?Iflostatseainthesamevoyage,the
ownerofthegoodsthrownoverboardhascertainlynoclaim,becauseat
anyratehewouldhavelosthisgoodsalongwiththerestofthecargo.

Butassoonasthecargoislaiduponland,theobligationforretribution
ispurifiedthevalueofthegoodsabandonedtothesea,isoroughtto
beinthepocketoftheownerandthedelayofpaymentwillnotafford
adefenceagainsthim,whateverbecomeofthecargoafteritislanded.
Itisaquestionofgreaterintricacy,Whetherthegoodssavedfromthe
seaoughttocontributeaccordingtotheirweightoraccordingtotheir
value.ThelatterruleisespousedintheRomanlaw:
"Cumineademnavevariamerciumgeneracompluresmercatores
coegissent,praetereaquemultivectores,serviliberiqueineanavigarent,
tempestategraviorta,necessariojacturafactaerat.Quaesitadeindesunt
haec:Anomnesjacturampraestareoporteat,etsiquitalesmerces
imposuissent,quibusnavisnononeraretur,velutgemmas,margaritas?et
quaeportiopraestandaest?Etanetiamproliberiscapitibusdarioporteat?
Etquaactioneearesexpediripossit?Placuit,omnes,quoruminterfuisset
jacturamfieri,conferreoportere,quiaidtributumobservataeresdeberent:
itaquedominumetiamnavisproportioneobligatumesse.Jacturae
summamprorerumpretiodistribuioportet.Corporumliberorum
aestimationemnullamfieriposse*."
ThisruleisadoptedbyallthecommercialnationsinEurope,withoutasingle
exception,asfarasIcanlearn.Andinpursuanceoftherule,adoctrinebegins
torelishwithjudges,Thattheowneroftheshipoughttocontribute,because'
bythrowingoverboard
Page117
thegoodsinquestion,whichpreventedashipwreck,hisclaimforfreightis
preservedtohim.Thus,if,instressofweather,orindangerandjustfearofan
enemy,goodsbethrownoverboard,inordertosavetheshipandtherestofthe
cargo,thatwhichissavedshallcontributetorepairthatwhichislost,andthe
ownersoftheshipshallcontributeinproportion*.
Theseauthoritiesnotwithstanding,towhich,Iamsensible,greatregard
isjustlydue,itisnotinmypowertobanishanimpressionIhave,That
theruleofcontributionoughttobeweight,notvalueandwhether,
afterall,theimpressionoughttobebanished,mustbedecidedby
reason,notauthority.Ineverycasewhereamangivesawayhismoney
orhisgoodsforbehoofofapluralityconnectedbyacommoninterest,
twothingsareevident:first,Thathisequitableclaimforarecompence
cannotexceedthelosshehassustainedandnext,Thateachindividual
isliabletomakeupthelossofthatpartwhichwasgivenawayonhis
account.Whenaransomispaidtoaprivateerfortheshipandcargo,a
shareofthemoneyisunderstoodtobeadvancedforeachproprietor,in
proportiontothevalueofhisgoodsandthatsharehemustcontribute,
beinglaidoutuponhisaccount,orforhisservice.Thatthesameruleis
applicablewhereashipissavedbyabandoningpartofitscargo,isfar
frombeingclear.Letusexaminethematterattentively,stepbystep.
Thecargoinaviolentstormisfoundtooweightyfortheship,which
mustbedisburdenedofpart,letussupposetheonehalf.Inwhat
manneristhistobedone?Theanswerwouldbeeasy,werethere
leisureandopportunityforaregularoperation:eachpersonwhohas
theweightofapoundaboard,oughttothrowthehalfintotheseafor

instrictjusticeonepersonisnotboundtoabandonagreaterproportion
thananother.Thismethod,however,isseldomorneverpracticable
becauseinahurrythegoodsathandmustbeheavedover:andwereit
practicable,itwouldnotbeforthecommoninterest,toabandongoods
oflittleweightandgreatvalue,alongwithgoodsofgreatweightand
littlevalue.Henceitcomestobethecommoninterest,and,without
askingquestions,thecommonpractice,toabandongoodsthevalueof
whichbearsnoproportiontotheirweight.This,asbeingdoneforthe
commoninterest,intitlestheproprietorofthesegoodstoarecompence
fromthoseforwhoseservicethegoodswereabandoned.Nowthe
servicedonetoeachproprietoris,insteadofhisvaluablegoods,to
Page118
haveothersthrownoverboardofameanerqualityandforsuch
servicealltherecompencethatcanbejustlyclaimedisthevalueofthe
goodsthrownoverboard.Letussupposewithrespecttoanyownerin
particular,thatregularlyhewasboundtothrowoverboardtwenty
ouncesofhisgoods:allthatheisboundtocontribute,isthevalueof
twentyouncesofthegoodsthatinplaceofhisownwereactually
thrownoverboard.Inaword,thisshorthandwayofthrowingintothe
seatheleastvaluablegoods,appearstomeinthesamelight,asifthe
severalownersofthemorevaluablepartofthecargo,hadeachofthem
purchasedaquantityofthemeangoodstobethrownintothesea
insteadoftheirown.
Icannothelpatthesametimeobserving,thatthedoctrineofthe
Romanlawappearsveryuncouthinsomeofitsconsequences.Jewels,
andImayaddbankbills,aremadetocontributetomakeuptheloss,
thoughtheycontributenotinanydegreetothedistressnorisasingle
ouncethrownoverboardupontheiraccount:nay,theshipitselfis
madetocontribute,thoughthejacturaismadenecessary,notbythe
weightoftheship,butbythatofthecargo.Ontheotherhand,
passengersareexemptedaltogetherfromcontributing,foravery
whimsicalreason,Thatthevalueofafreemancannotbeestimatedin
money:andyetpassengersfrequentlymakeagreatpartoftheload.If
theycontributetothenecessityofdisburdeningtheship,forwhatgood
reasonoughttheytobeexemptedfromcontributingtomakeuptheloss
ofthegoodswhichwerethrownintotheseaupontheiraccount?
CHAP.IV.Powersofacourtofequitytoremedywhatisimpersectincommonlaw,withrespectto
deedsandcovenants.

WEhaveseenabove,that,abstractingfromapositiveengagement,the
virtueofbenevolenceisnotaduty,excepttorelieveothersfromharm.Buta
mansinglyisthemosthelplessofallanimalsandunlesshecouldrelyupon
supportfromothers,hewouldinvainattemptanyoperationthatrequires
morethantwohands.Toperfectsocietybysecuringaidandassistancein
timeofneed,promisesandcovenantsareprovidedbynatureandtothese
accordinglymayjustlybeattributed,theprogressatleast,ifnotthe
commencementofeveryartandmanufacture.
Page119
Everypromiseandcovenantimpliesnecessarilytwopersons:onewhois

bound,termedtheobligorandonetowhomtheobligationisdirected,
termedtheobligee.
Thatparticularactofthewillwhichbindsuswhetherinpromisingorin
contracting,istermedconsent.Anditisalsothatveryactwhichmakesa
deedeffectualaswillthusappear.Adeedisoftwokinds:onewherethe
granterbindshimself,asinadisposition,orinacharterwhichbeingin
effectapromise,isobviouslybindinguponhimbyhisconsent:theother
kindiswherethegranterdeclareshiswillwithoutbeingbound,aswhereby
adeedheimposesburdensuponhisheir:itistheheir'sconsentwhichbinds
himinthatcase,aconsentimpliedfromhistakingupthesuccession.
Fewpersonspassmuchoftheirtimewithouthavingpurposestofulfiland
planstoexecute,fortheaccomplishingofwhichmeansareemploy'd.
Amongthesemeansdeedsandcovenantsmakeacapitalfigure:noman
bindshimselforothersforthesakemerelyofbinding,butinordertobring
aboutadesiredevent.Andthereforeeverydeedandcovenantmayjustlybe
consideredtobeameanemploy'dtobringaboutsomeendorevent.
Sometimesthedesiredeventismentionedinthedeedorcontract,and
expreslyagreedonorappointedtobeperformedinwhichcaseperformance
concludesthetransaction,becauseitbringstoafinalissueallthatwas
intendedbythepartiesconcerned.Abondforborrowedmoneyisaproper
example:whatisstipulatedinthebondtobeperformedisrepaymentofthe
money,beyondwhichthepartieshavenoviewandthatendisfully
accomplishedwhenthemoneyispaid.Alegacybequeathedinatestament
isanotherexampleofthesamekind:paymentofthelegacyistheonlyend
inviewandthatendisaccomplishedwhenthelegateereceivesthemoney.
Butinmanydeedsandcontractsthereisafurtherendinviewthanmerely
theperformanceofwhatisagreedorappointed.ThuswhenIbuyahorse
withaviewtopropagation,thecontractisperformedupondeliveryofthe
horsetome.Butthisperformanceisnotsufficienttofulfilmypurpose:I
hadafurtherendinview,whichwastobreedhorsesandunlessthehorse
befitforthatend,mypurposeincontractingisfrustrated.Ipurchasea
hogsheadofflaxseedforraisingacropofflax.Itisnotenoughthatthe
seedbedeliveredtome:ifitberotten,theendIhadinviewisdisappointed.
Thissuggestsadivisionofdeedsandcontractsintotwokinds.Adeedofthe
firstkindiswheretheperformanceofwhatisappointedfulfilstheintention
ofthegranter:andofthesecondkind,where
Page120
thatperformanceisintendedasameanonlytoafurtherend,whichinthat
respectmaybetermedultimate.Inlikemanner,acontractofthefirstkindis
wheretheperformancestipulatedisultimate,byfulfillingwhatwas
intendedbytheparties:ofthesecondkind,wherethatperformanceis
intendedasameanonlytoanultimateend.Inthislastkind,thecontractisa
meantobringabouttheimmediateendofperformingwhatwasstipulated
andthisimmediateendisameantobringabouttheultimateend.
Incontractswherethepeformanceofwhatisstipulatedisameanonlytoan
ultimateend,thereisplaceforjudginghowfarthemeansareproportioned
totheend:theymaybeinsufficienttobringabouttheend:theymaybe
morethansufficient:andtheymayhavenotendencytobringabouttheend.
Incasesofthisnaturethereisplacefortheinterpositionofequity,tovary

thesemeansinsomecases,soastoproportionthemmoreaccuratelytothe
ultimateendandinothercasestosetasidethecontractaltogether,as
insufficienttobringabouttheultimateend.Henceitisthatsuchcontracts
aretermedContractsbonaefideithatis,contractsinwhichequitymay
interposetocorrectinequalities,andtoadjustallmattersaccordingtothe
honestintentionoftheparties.Withrespecttocontractswherethe
performancestipulatedistheultimateend,thereisevidentlynoplaceforthe
interpositionofequityforwhatdefencecanamanhaveeitherinlaworin
equityagainstperforminghisengagement,whenitfulfilsallhehadinview
incontracting?Henceitis,thatcontractsofthiskindaretermedContracts
strictijuris.
Tothenoteddistinctionbetweencontractsbonaefideiandstrictijuris,great
attentionisgivenintheRomanlaw.Wearetold,thatequitymayinterpose
intheformer,andthatthelatterarelefttocommonlaw.Butastowhat
contractsarebonaefidei,andwhatstrictijuris,weareleftinthedarkby
Romanwriters.Someoftheircommentatorsindeedgiveuslistsor
cataloguesbuttheypretendnottolaydownanyrulebywhichtheonekind
maybedistinguishedfromtheother.Ihaveendeavouredtosupplythat
defect:itbelongstootherstojudgewhethermyendeavourshavebeen
successful.
Topreventmistakesintheapplicationoftheforegoingdoctrine,itis
necessarytobeobserved,thattheendhereunderstoodisnotthatwhichmay
besecretlyinviewoftheoneortheotherparty,butthatwhichisspokeout,
orunderstoodbythepartiesconcernedforathoughtretainedwithinthe
mind,cannothavetheeffecttoqualifyanobligationmorethantocreateit.
Theoverlookingthisdistinction
Page121
hasledPuffendorffintoagrosserror:whoputsthecase*,Thataman,upon
afalsereportofallhishorsesbeingdestroy'd,makesacontractforanew
cargoandhisopinionis,Thatinequitythepurchaserisnotbound.This
opinionfavourstoomuchofacollege,andofamanunacquaintedwiththe
worldanditscommerce.Weremistakesofthiskindindulgedwitharemedy,
therewouldbenoendoflawsuits.Atthisrate,ifIpurchaseaquantityof
bodyortablelinen,ignorantatthetimeofalegacyleftmeofsuchgoods,I
oughttoberelievedinequityagainstthepurchase,havingnownooccasion
forthesegoods.Andforthesamereason,ifIpurchaseahorseby
commissionforafriend,whohappenstobedeadatthetimeofthe
purchasetheremustbeareliefinequity,thoughImadethepurchaseinmy
ownname.Butthereisnofoundationforthisopinioninequitymorethanat
commonlaw.Ifasubjectanswerthepurposeforwhichitispurchased,the
venderhasnofartherconcern:heisintitledupondeliverytodemandthe
price,withoutregardinganyprivateorextrinsicmotivethatmighthaveled
hispartytomakethepurchase.Ingeneral,amanwhoexposeshisgoodsto
salemustanswerfortheirsufficiencybecausethereisnoobligationin
equitytopayapriceforgoodsthatanswernotthepurposeforwhichthey
aresoldbytheone,andboughtbytheother:butifapurchaserbeledintoan
errorormistakethatregardsnotthesubjectnorthevender,the
consequencesmustrestuponhimself.
Ishallonlyadduponthisgeneralhead,thattheendproposedtobebrought
aboutbyadeedorcovenantoughttobelawfulfortomakeeffectualan
unlawfulactisinconsistentwiththeverynatureofacourtoflaw.Thusa

bondgrantedbyawoman,bindinghertopayasumifsheshouldmarry,is
unlawful,astendingtobarpopulationandthereforewillberejectedeven
byacourtofcommonlaw.Andthesamefatewillattendeveryobligation
grantedobturpemcausamabond,forexample,grantedtoawomanasa
bribetocommitadulteryorfornication.Sofarthereisnooccasionfora
courtofequity.
Thischapter,consistingofamultitudeofparts,requiresmanydivisions
andinthedivisionsthatfollowperspicuityisstudied,whichoughttobethe
chiefobjectineveryarrangement.
Page122
SECT.I.Wherethewordsexpressingwillorconsentareimperfect.

INapplyingtherulesofequitytodeedsandcovenants,whatfirstpasses
underexaminationis,Whetherthewillorconsentbefullyorfairlytaken
downinthewriting.Aman,expressingevenhisownthoughts,isnot
alwayshappyinhisterms:errorsmaycreepin,whicharemultiplied
whenimproperwordsareusedinwriting.Thusclausesinwritingsare
sometimesambiguousorobscure,sometimestoolimited,andsometimes
tooextensive.Ascommonlawaffordsnoremedy,theimperfectionis
suppliedbyacourtofequity.Itadmitswordsandwritingtobeindeedthe
properevidenceofwillbutitdoesnotexcludeotherevidence.Sensible
thatwordsandwritingaresometimeserroneous,itendeavoursifpossible
toreachwill,whichistheonlysubstantialpartandif,fromtheendand
purposeoftheengagement,fromcollateralcircumstances,orother
satisfyingevidence,thewillcanbeascertained,itisjustlymadetherule
ofjudgement.Thesolepurposeofwordsistobeartestimonyofwilland
iftheirtestimonybefalse,theyarejustlydisregarded.Thisbranchof
equitablejurisdiction,whichobviouslyreachessingledeedsaswellas
covenants,isfoundedontheprincipleofjusticebecauseeverymanfeels
himselfboundbytheconsenthereallyinterposed,withoutrelationto
wordsorwriting,whichstandforevidenceonly.
Thissectionmaybedistinguishedintothreearticles.1st,Wherethe
wordsleaveusuncertainaboutwill.2d,Wheretheyfallshortofwill.
And,3d,Wheretheygobeyondit.
ART.I.Wherethewordsleaveusuncertainaboutwill.

THISimperfectionmaybeoccasionedbythefaultofthewriterin
usingimpropertermsorbythefaultoftheparties,whetherbywilling
indistinctly,orbyexpressingtheirwillobscurely.ButIpurposelyhave
neglectedthisdistinction,becauseinmostofthecasesthatoccur,itis
extremelydoubtfuluponwhomtheimperfectionistobecharged.Nor
willthisbreedtheleastconfusionorintricacyforwhateveroccasions
thequaestiovoluntatis,thereisbutonemethodforascertainingitand
thatis,fromthenatureofthedeedorcovenant,
Page123
andfromconcomitantcircumstances,toformthemostrational
conjecturewhattrulyisthewill.

Awifegivesasecurityuponherestatetoherhusband'screditorsbut
withwhatintentionisnotspecified.Ifadonationwasintended,she
hasnoclaimagainstherhusband:butindubio,acautionary
engagementmustbepresumed,whichwillaffordheraclaimforrelief
*
.Thoughingeneraltheintentionmustfirstbeascertainedbeforeit
canbepronouncedwhatistofollowfromityetitispresumed,thata
courtofcommonlawwouldhardlybebroughttosustainaclaimofthis
nature,wherethereisnoclauseinthedeeduponwhichitcanbe
founded.
Whereamanprovidesasumtohiscreditor,withoutdeclaringittobe
insatisfaction,thissumwillbesustainedasaseparateclaimat
commonlaw.Butasthegranterprobablyintendedthatsumtobein
satisfaction,accordingtotheprincipleQuoddebitornonpraesumitur
donare,acourtofequity,supplyingthedefectofwords,decreesthe
sumtobeinsatisfaction.Thus,amanbeingboundforL.10yearlyto
hisdaughter,gaveherathermarriageaportionofL.200.Decreed,
Thattheannuityshouldbeincludedintheportion.Butwhereaman
leavesalegacytohiscreditor,thiscannotbeconstructedas
satisfactionforinthatcaseitwouldnotbealegacyordonation.
AnthonyMurray,anno1738,madeasettlementofhisestateuponJohn
andThomasBelscheses,takingthembound,amongotherlegacies,to
payL.300SterlingtotheirsisterEmiliaathermarriage.Anthony
alteredthissettlementanno1740,infavourofhisheiratlawobliging
him,however,topaythelegaciescontainedintheformersettlement.In
theyear1744,AnthonyexecutedabondtoEmiliauponthenarrativeof
loveandfavour,bindinghimselftopaytoherinliferent,andtoher
childrennatietnascituriinfee,atthefirsttermafterhisdecease,the
sumofL.1200Sterling.Thedoubtwas,whetherbothsumsweredue
toEmilia,oronlythelatter.Itwasadmitted,thatbothsumswouldbe
dueatcommonlaw,whichlooksnofartherthanthewords:butthatthis
wasnottheintentionofthegranter,wasurgedfromthefollowing
circumstance,ThatinthebondfortheL.1200thereisnomention
madeoftheformerlegacy,norofanylegacy,whichclearlyshewsthat
Anthonyhadforgot
Page124
thefirstlegacyandconsequentlythatheintendednomoreforEmilia
butL.1200inwhole.Whichwasaccordinglydecreed*.
ART.II.Wherethewordsfallshortofwill.

INEnglandwhereestatesaresettledbywill,itisthepracticetosupply
anydefectinthewords,inordertosupportthewillofthedevisor.But
thenitisarule,Thatthewillmustbeclearlyascertainedforotherwise
thecourtmaybeinhazardofforfeitingtheheiratlaw,contrarytothe
willofhisancestor.Thuswhereamandeviseslandtohisheirafterthe
deathofhiswife,thisisagooddevisetothewifeforlifebynecessary
implication:forbythewordsofthewill,theheirisnottohaveit
duringherlife:andifshehaveitnot,noneelsecanfortheexecutors
cannotintermeddle.Butifamandevisehislandtoastrangerafterthe
deathofhiswife,thisdoesnotnecessarilyinferthatthewifeshould
havetheestateforlife:itisbutdeclaringatwhattimethestranger's

estateshallcommenceandinthemeantimetheheirshallhavethe
land.aAnexecutorbeingnamedwiththeusualpowerofintermeddling
withthewholemoneyandeffectsofthedeceased,thefollowingclause
subjoined,
"AndIherebydebarandsecludeallothersfromanyrightorinterestin
mysaidexecutry,"
washeldbythecourttoimportanuniversallegacyinfavouroftheexecutor.
Amanhavingtwonephewswhowerehisheirsatlaw,madeasettlementin
theirfavour,dividinghisparticularfarmsbetweenthem,intendingprobably
anequaldivision.Butintheenumerationoftheparticularlands,afarmwas
leftoutbytheomissionoftheclerk,which,asthescrivenerswore,was
intendedfortheplaintiff.Thecourtconsideringthatthesettlementwas
voluntaryorgratuitous,refusedtoamendthemistake,leavingthefarmto
descendequallybetweenthenephews**.Forhereitwasnotclearthatthe
makerofthedeedintendedanequaldivision.
Inthecasesabovementioned,writingindeedisnecessaryasevidence,
butnotasanessentialsolemnity:itisofnoconsequencewhatwordsbe
usedinthesettlementofalandestate,orinthenominationofan
executor,providedthewillofthemakerbesufficientlyascertained.
Butinseveraltransactions,writingnotonlystands
Page125
forevidence,butisbesideanindispensablesolemnity.Landcannotbe
convey'dwithoutaprocuratoryoraprecept,whichmustbeinaset
formofwords.Amanmaylendhismoneyuponaverbalpaction,but
hecannotproceeddirectlytoexecution,unlesshehaveaformalbond
containingaclauseofregistrationauthorisingexecution.Neithercan
suchabondbeconvey'dtoapurchaser,otherwisethanbyaformal
assignmentinwriting.Hereanewspeculationarises,Whatpowera
courtofequityhathoverawritingofthiskind.Inthiswritingnotless
thaninothers,thewordsmayhappenerroneouslytobemoreextensive
thanthewillofthegranterortheymayhappentobemorelimited.
Mustthewordsinallcasesbethesovereignrule?Bynomeans.
Thoughincertaintransactionswritisanessentialsolemnity,itfollows
notthatthewordssolelymustberegarded,withoutrelationtowillfor
tobindamanbywordswherehehathnotinterposedhisconsent,is
contradictorytothemostobviousprinciplesofjustice.Henceit
necessarilyfollows,thatadeedofthiskindmay,byacourtofequity,
belimitedtoanarrowereffectthanthewordsnaturallyimportandthat
thisoughttobedone,whenfromthecontext,fromtheintendmentof
thedeed,orfromotherconvincingcircumstances,itcanbecertainly
gathered,thatthewordsbymistakegobeyondthewill.Butthoughin
ordinarycases,suchasthoseabovementioned,thedefectofwords
maybesupplied,andforcegiventowill,supposingitclearly
ascertained,yetthiscannotbedoneinadeedtowhichwritisessential.
Thereasonis,thattomakewritanessentialsolemnity,isinother
wordstodeclare,Thatactionmustnotbesustainedexceptasfaras
authorisedbywrit.Howeverclearthereforewillmaybe,acourtof
equityhathnotauthoritytosustainactionuponit,independentofthe
wordswherethesearemadeessentialforthis,ineffect,wouldbeto

overturnthelaw,whichisbeyondthepowerofequity.Acasethat
reallyhappenedisanotableillustrationofthisdoctrine.Abondof
corroborationgrantedbythedebtorwithacautionerwasofthe
followingtenor.
"Andseeingtheforesaidprincipalsumof1000merks,andinterestsince
Martinmas1742,arerestingunpaidandthatAthecreditoriswillingto
supersedepaymenttillthetermaftermentioneduponBthedebtor's
grantingthepresentcorroborativesecuritywithChiscautionertherefore
BandCbindandobligethem,conjunctlyandseverally,&c.tocontent
andpaytoAinliferent,andtoherchildreninfee,equallyamongthem,
andfailinganyofthembydecease,tothesurvivors,theirheirsor
assignees,infee,andthatatWhitsunday1744,with200merksofpenalty,
together
Page126
withthedueandordinaryannualrentofthesaidprincipalsumfromthe
saidtermofMartinmas1742,"
&c.Heretheobligatoryclauseisimperfect,asitomitstomentionthe
principalsumcorroborated,viz.the1000merks,butonlytheinterest,apure
oversightofthewriter.Inasuituponthisbondofcorroborationagainstthe
heirofthecautioner,itwasobjected,Thatuponthisbondnoactioncouldlie
forpaymentoftheprincipalsum.Itwasobvioustothecourt,thatthebondin
question,thoughdefectiveinthemostessentialpart,affordedhoweverclear
evidenceofC'sconsenttobeboundascautioner.Butthenitoccurred,thata
cautionaryengagementisoneofthosedeedsthatrequirewriting,notonlyin
pointofevidence,butalsoinpointofsolemnity.Aformalbondof
corroborationfulfilsthelawinbothpoints.Butadefectivebond,likethe
present,whateverevidenceitmayafford,isasnothinginpointofsolemnity:it
isstilllessformalthanifitwantedanyoftherequisitesoftheact1681.
Actionaccordinglywasdeniedforactioncannotbesustaineduponconsent
alonewhereaformaldeedisessential*.
Thefollowingcaseconcerningaregistrablebond,or,astermedin
England,abondinjudgment,isanotherinstanceofrefusingtosupplya
defectinwords.Abondforasumofmoneyborethefollowingclause,
withinterestandpenalty,withoutspecifyinganysuminnameof
penalty.Thecreditormovedthecourttosupplytheomission,by
namingthefifthpartoftheprincipalsum,beingtheconstantruleasto
consensualpenalties.Therecouldbenodoubtofthegranter'sintention
andyetthecourtjustlythoughtthattheyhadnotpowertosupplythe
defect.
Butthoughadefectinawritthatisessentialinpointofsolemnity,
cannotbesuppliedsoastogiveitthefulleffectthatlawgivestosucha
deed,itmaynotwithstandingberegardedbyacourtofequityinpoint
ofevidence.Abondofborrowedmoney,forexample,nullbytheact
1681,becausethewriter'snameisneglected,may,inconjunctionwith
otherevidence,beproducedinanactionforpayment,inordertoprove
deliveryofthemoneyasaloan,andconsequentlytofoundadecreefor
repayment.

WalterRiddel,inhiscontractofmarriage1694,becameboundto
securehiswholelandestatetotheheirmaleofthemarriage.Inthe
year1727,purposingtofulfilthatobligation,hedisponedtohiseldest
sonRobertthelandsthereinspecified,burdenedwithhisdebts,
Page127
reservingtohimselfonlyanannuityof2000merks.Thelandsof
Stewarton,whichcameunderthesaidobligation,wereleftoutofthe
disposition1727.Butthattheywereomittedbytheoversightofthe
writerwithoutintention,wasmadeevidentfromthefollowing
circumstances.1mo,Thatthetitledeedsofthatfarmweredeliveredto
thesonalongwiththeothertitledeedsoftheestate.2do,Thathe
enteredintopossessionofthewhole.3tio,Thatasubsequentdeedby
thefather,anno1733,relativetotheformer,proceedsuponthis
narrative,
"Thatthewholelandsbelongingtohimwereconvey'dtohissonbythe
disposition1727."
ManyyearsthereafterthefatherhavingdiscoveredthatStewartonwasnot
comprehendedinthesaiddisposition,venturedtoconveythemtohissecond
son,whowasotherwisecompetentlyprovided.Inthiscaseitwasnotpretended
thatStewartonwasactuallyconveyedtotheson,whichcouldnotbewithouta
formaldisposition.Butastherewassufficientevidenceoftheagreementto
conveytheselandsaspartoftheestate,whichthefatherremainedstillbound
tofulfil,thecourtjudgedthisasufficientfoundationtovoidthegratuitous
dispositiontothesecondson*.
ART.III.Wherethewordsgobeyondwill.

ITisaruelindailypractice,thathoweverexpressthewordsmaybe,a
courtofequitygivesnoforcetoadeedbeyondthewillofthegranter.
Thisruleisfinelyillustratedbythefollowingcase.JohnCampbell
ProvostofEdinburgh,did,inJuly1734,makeasettlementofthe
wholeeffectsthatshouldbelongtohimatthetimeofhisdeath,to
Williamhiseldestson,withtheburdenofprovisionstohisother
children,Matthew,Daniel,andMargaret.Danielbeingatseaina
voyagefromtheEastIndies,madehiswillMay1739,inwhichhe
"givesandbequeathsallhisgoods,money,andeffects,toJohnCampbell
hisfatherandincaseofJohn'sdecease,tohisbelovedsisterMargaret."
ThetestatordiedatseainthesamemonthofMayandinJunefollowingJohn
thefatheralsodied,withouthearingofDaniel'sdeath,orofthewillmadeby
him.WilliambroughtanactionagainsthissisterMargaretandherhusband,
concluding,ThatDaniel'seffectsbeingvestedinthefather,wereconvey'dto
himthepursuerbythefather'ssettlementandthatthesubstitutioninfavourof
MargaretcontainedinDaniel'swillwastherebyaltered.Itwasanswered,That
nothingmorewasnorcouldbeintendedbytheProvost,thantosetasidehis
heirsabintestato,by
Page128

settlinghisproperestateuponhiseldestson,andbynomeanstoalterthe
substitutioninhissonDaniel'stestament,ofwhichhewasignorant:That
wordsarenotalone,withoutintention,sufficienttofoundaclaimand
therefore,thatthepresentactionoughtnottobesustained.
"Thecourtjudged,Thatthegeneraldispositionin1734,grantedbyJohn
Campbelltohissonthepursuer,severalyearsbeforeDaniel'swillhada
being,doesnotevacuatethesubstitutioninthesaidwill*."
Thesameruleisapplicabletogeneralclausesindischarges,
submissions,assignments,&c.whicharelimitedbyequity,whenthe
wordsevidentlyappeartobemoreextensivethanthewill.Thusa
generalsubmissionofallmattersdebatableisnotunderstoodtoreach
landorotherheritablerights:andageneralclauseinasubmission
wasnotextendedtomattersofgreaterconsequencethanthose
expressed.AhadajudgmentofL.6000againstB.BgaveAalegacy
ofL.5,anddied.A,onreceiptofthisL.5,gavetheexecutorofBa
releaseinthefollowingwords:
"IacknowledgetohavereceivedofCfivepoundsleftmeasalegacyby
B,anddoreleasetohimalldemandswhichIagainsthim,asexecutorof
B,canhaveforanymatterwhatever."
Itwasadjudged,Thatthegeneralityofthewordsalldemandsshouldbe
restrainedbytheparticularoccasionmentionedintheformerpartthereof,viz.
thereceiptoftheL.5legacy,andshouldnotbeadischargeofthejudgement.
Ifequitywillnotsustainadeedwherethewordsgoinadvertently
beyondtheintentionofthegranter,muchlesswillitsustainadeed
wherethewordsgocrosstointention.CharlesFarquharsonwriter,
beinginasicklycondition,andapprehensiveofdeath,executed,inthe
year1721,asettlementofalltheeffectsrealandpersonalthathe
shouldbepossessedofathisdeath,infavourofhiseldestbrother
PatrickFarquharsonofInverey,andhisheirsandassigneesreserving
apowertoalter,anddispensingwiththedelivery.Charleswasatthat
timeabachelor,anddiedso.Herecoveredhoweverhishealth,andnot
onlysurvivedhisbrotherPatrick,butalsohisbrother'stwosons,who
successivelyenjoyedtheestateofInverey.Patrickleftdaughtersbutas
theinvestituresoftheestateweretakentoheirsmale,Charles
succeeded,diedinpossessionoftheestate,andtransmittedthesameto
thenextheirmale.Againstthisheirmaleaprocesswasbroughtbythe
daughtersofPatrick,foundeduponthe
Page129
abovementionedsettlement1721subsuming,ThatCharlesthemaker
diedinfeftinthesaidestateofInvereyandthereforethatthisestate,by
forceofthesaidsettlement,andbytheexpresstenorofit,mustgoto
thepursuers,asbeingtheheirsofPatrickFarquharson.Itwasanswered
bytheheirmale,ThatCharles'sevidentpurposeandintention,in
makingthisdeed,wastoaugmentthefamilyestate,bysettlinghisown
acquisitionsuponPatrick,theheadofthefamilythatthispurposewas
fulfilledbythecoalitionofbothestatesinthedefendant,thepresent

headofthefamilythatthepursuersdemandofseparatingthetwo
estates,andoftakingfromtherepresentativeofthefamilythefamily
estateitself,wascontradictorytothesaidpurpose:andtherefore,
supposingtheactiontobefoundedonthewordsofthedeed,acourtof
equitywillnotsustainanactionthattendstogivewordsaneffectnot
onlywithoutintention,butevenincontradictiontoit.
"Thecourtjudged,Thatthepursuershadnoactionuponthedeed1721to
obligethedefendanttodenudeoftheestateofInverey*."
Acontractofmarriage,inwhichtheestatewasprovidedtotheheirs
maleofthemarriage,whomfailingtothehusband'sotherheirsmale,
containedthefollowingclause:
"AndseeingtheearldomofPerthistailziedtoheirsmale,sothatifthere
bedaughtersofthemarriagetheywillbeexcludedfromthesuccession
thereforethesaidJamesLordDrummondandhisheirsbecomeboundto
paytothesaiddaughters,attheirageofeighteenormarriage,thesums
following,viz.toanonlydaughter40,000merks,"
&c.Theestatebeingforfeitedfortreasoncommittedbytheheirmaleofthe
marriage,aclaimwasenteredbytheonlydaughterofthemarriageagainst
whichitwasobjected,Thattheprovisionnotbeingtoyoungerchildrenin
general,buttofemalesonly,upontheinductivecauseoftheestate'sbeing
entailedtoheirsmale,couldonlybeintendedtotakeeffectfailingissuemale
ofthemarriageandthathereinadvertentlythewordsaremoreextensivethan
thewill.Itcarriedhoweverbyanarrowpluralitytosustaintheclaim:Butthe
judgementwasreversedintheHouseofLords.
Page130
SECT.II.Operationofdeedsandcovenantsbeyondwhatisauthorisedbydeclaredwill.

TOunderstandadeedorcovenanttobenofurthereffectualthanasfaras
willisdeclaredorexpressed,isalameandimperfectnotionoftheselegal
acts.Manydeedsandmanycovenantshaveeffectsthatarenotexpressly
providedforwhichwillthusappear.Everyrationalmanwhowills
expresslytobestowaright,willsatthesametime,thoughnotexpressly,
tobestoweveryaccessoryorsubordinaterightthattendstomake
effectualtheprincipalrightforhethatwillstheend,mustbepresumedto
willthemeanspropertoaccomplishtheend.Butwhateverarational
manwills,everymanispresumedtowill.Andhencethefoundationof
whatinlawlanguageistermedimpliedwillthatis,willpresumed
withoutbeingdeclared.Anditishappyformantobesoconstitutedwith
respecttothefacultythatbindshimforifinconsciencehewereonly
boundtothearticlesdeclaredorexpressed,deedsandcovenantswould
oftenfallshortoftheirpurposedendand,stillworse,wouldoftenbethe
sourceofinjustice.
Beforeenteringintotheparticularsthatbelongtothissection,itmustbe
premisedingeneral,thateveryquestionconcerningimpliedwillis
appropriatedtoacourtofequitybecauseacourtofcommonlawregards
notanyactofwillbutwhatisexpressed.

Upontheprinciplementioned,everyleaseofland,longorshort,must
necessarilyimplyapowertoremovetenants,wherethegranterofthe
leasedoesnothimselfundertaketoremovethemfortograntalease
intitlingthelesseetoentertopossession,andyettowithholdfromhim
themeansofobtainingpossession,isanabsurdityofwhichnorational
mancanbeguilty.
Amanwhobecomesboundtodisponeadebt,willbyimpliedconsentbe
boundtoconveyeveryexecutiondoneuponit.Andsupposehehas
grantedtheassignmentwithoutmentioningtheexecution,itishowever
understoodtobeconvey'dbyimpliedwill.
Adispositionofaninfeftmentofannualrentmentionedonlytherealright,
omittingapersonalobligationthatthedebtorwasundertopaythedebt.
Thecourtjudgingthatitwastheintentionofpartiestoputthedisponee
inplaceofthedisponer,withoutanyviewto
Page131
benefitthedebtor,sustainedapersonalactionagainstthedebtoratthe
instanceofthedisponee,inordertofulfilthesaidintention*.Ina
reductionexcapiteinhibitionisattheinstanceoftheassigneetoabond
uponwhichaninhibitionhadbeenled,thecourtsustainedtheassignment
asatitle,thoughitneithermentionedtheinhibition,norhadanygeneral
clausethatcouldcomprehendit.Butitwasunderstoodtobetheintention
ofthecedenttoputtheassigneeinhisplace,withoutanyviewtorelieve
thedebtorandthereforehiswilltoconveytheinhibitionalongwiththe
debtwasimplied.Theonlyscruplehereistheconveyinganinhibition
orapersonalobligationwithoutwrit.Butwheretheprincipalsubjectis
convey'dinaformalwrit,itisnotnecessarythateveryaccessorybe
expressed.
Whenamaninfeftshiswifeinlandforsecurityofherjointurepayablein
corn,itcannotbehisintention,withoutanybenefittohimself,tofreehis
tenantsfromtheobligationtheyareundertocarrytheirfarmvictualto
theplaceofsaleandthereforehiswillisimpliedtoconveytohiswife
thisserviceofthetenantsasanaturalaccessorytoherright.
Thenicetyincasesofthiskindis,todeterminefromwhatcircumstances
willistobeimplied.Withrespecttothispoint,peculiarattentionought
tobegiventothepurposedend,andtowhatwouldhavebeenthewillof
thepartieshadthethingoccurredtothem.Thesuperiorofafeuright,
whichwasvoidablepropternonsolutumcanonem,disposesofthe
superiorityforavaluableconsiderationandthequestionis,Hasthe
purchaseratitletoinsistinareductionofthefeu?Itisanaccessoryofthe
superiority,butnotsoconnectedbutthatitmaybeeasilydisjoined.A
reductionofthiskindisaseverepunishment,whicheveryoneisnot
inclinedtoputinexecutionandforthatreasontheconveyanceofthe
privilegetothepurchaseroughttobeexpressed,foritwillnotreadilybe
implied.Ifitwouldbewronginacourtofequitytoimplyaconveyance
ofanyrightorprivilegewithoutanyrationalpresumptionofthegranter's
will,itwouldbeastillgreaterwrongtodecreeanythingcontradictoryto
thedeclaredwillwhich,however,seemstohavebeendoneinthe
followingcase.ThesumofL.120wasgivenwithanapprenticeandas
themasterwassickwhenthearticlesweredrawn,itwasprovided,thatif

hediedwithinayearL.60shouldbereturned.Hehavingdiedwithin
Page132
threeweeks,abillwasbroughtinchancerytohaveagreatersum
returned.Andthoughanexpressprovisionhadbeenmadewithrespectto
thatveryevent,yetitwasdecreedthatahundredguineasshouldbe
returned*.
Whereadischargeisgrantedoftheprincipaldebt,accessoriesare
understoodtobecomprehendedbytheimpliedwillofthepersonwho
grantsthedischarge.Forexample,anagentemploy'dtocarryona
process,statesanaccountwithoutanyarticleforhispains.Hereceives
paymentofthesumintheaccount,andgrantsadischargeinfull,without
reservationofanyclaimforhispains.Underthisdischargewillbe
comprehendedthesaidclaim,eitheraspassedfrom,orasotherwise
satisfied.Animplieddischargeisextendedtoastillstraitercase:an
extractofadecreeimpliesapassingfromanyclaimforcostsofsuit,
howeverlitigioustheantagonistmayhavebeenfornorationalmanwill
extracthisdecreeifhehaveanyviewtoclaimcostsofsuit.
SECT.III.Howfardefectsinadeedorcovenantcanbesupplied.

BEforeenteringuponparticulars,itmustbepremisedingeneral,thata
courtofcommonlawcannotsupplyanyimperfectioneitherinadeedor
inacovenant.Suchextraordinarypowerisreservedforacourtofequity,
authorisedbytheprinciple
"Thatwherearightiscreateditoughttobemadeeffectual."
Henceapracticalruletoguideusthroughallthemazesofthisintricatesubject:
Whereeveritappearstobethewillofthegranterofadeed,orofpartiesengaged
inacovenant,tocreatearight,itisthedutyofacourtofequitytosupplyevery
defectinordertomaketherighteffectual.Iftherebenorightcreated,acourtof
equityhasnotpower,morethanacourtofcommonlaw,tosupplyanydefect.For
thisineffectwouldbetocreatearightor,inotherwords,tomakeawillfora
manwhohasmadenoneforhimself:acourtofequitycannotmakeadeedforan
individual,morethanitcanmakeastatuteforthewholepeople.
Page133
ART.I.Whereessentialarticlesarebyoversightomitted.

AMORTGAGEorcontractofwadsetcontainstheusualclauseof
consigningthemoneyincaseofrefusal.Theplaceofconsignationis
fixedbutbyoversightaconsignatorisnotnamed.Thecourtofsession
willsupplythisdefectbynamingaconsignator.Thereverserisintitled
toredeemhislandanditwouldbeinconsistentwithjusticethathe
shouldbeforfeitedofhisrightbyamereoversight:acourtofequityis
authorisedtosupplythedefect,upontheforesaidprincipleThatwhere
thereisarightitoughttobemadeeffectual.
Awadsetwasgrantedtobeheldofthesuperior,andinfeftmentpassed
accordinglybutthereverseromittedtoprovide,that,uponredemption,

thewadsettershouldsurrenderthesubjectinthesuperior'shandsfor
newinfeftmenttothereverserwhichwasnecessarytorestorehimto
hisformersituation.Thecourtsuppliedthisdefect,anddecreedthe
wadsettertograntaprocuratoryofresignation*.
ART.II.Wheretheintentionistosettleasumuponaperson,lessormoreindifferenteventsandtheevent
thathappensisbyoversightomitted.

AMANbelievinghiswifetobepregnant,leftalegacytoafriendin
thefollowingterms
"Thatifamalechildwasbroughtforth,thesumshouldbe4000merksif
afemale,5000merks."
Thewifeproducednochildandthequestionis,Whetheranysumwasdueto
thelegatee,andwhatthatsumshouldbe?Inthiscaseitisclear,thatthe
testatorintendedalegacytohisfriendinalleventsforifthefriendwasto
havealegacyevenincaseofachild,muchmoreifthereshouldbenochild.
Thequestionthenis,Whetheromissionbyoversightoftheeventthatreally
happened,oughttodisappointthetestator'swill,whoinalleventsintendeda
legacy?Ifthisweretobetheeffect,lawmightjustlybeaccusedofharshness
andseverity.Itisoneoftheusefulbranchesofjudicialpower,togivethe
utmosteffecttothesettlementsofthosewhoarenolongerinthisworldtoact
forthemselves:amandiesinpeace,whenhetruststhathisdeedswillbemade
effectual,fairlyandcandidly,accordingtohisintention.Thecourtaccordingly
judgedthehighestsumdueexpraesumptavoluntateteslatoris.Thecourt
couldnot
Page134
gofurtherwithoutexertinganactofpoweraltogetherarbitrarybecausethey
hadnodatafordeterminingwhatfurtherlengththetestatorhimselfwould
havegone.
Butnowinthecaseproposed,whatifthewifehadbroughtforthtwins?
Inthateventitisfarfrombeingcertain,thatthetestatorwouldhave
givenanylegacytohisfriendandifhisintentionbeuncertain,the
legateecanhavenoclaim.Iventuretourgethisevenagainstthe
opinionofJulianus,themostacuteofallthewritersupontheRoman
law:
"Siitascriptumsit,Sifiliusmihinatusfuerit,exbesseheresesto,ex
reliquaparteuxormeaheresestosiverofiliamihinatafuerit,extriente
heresesto,exreliquaparteuxorheresesto:etfiliusetfilianatiessent,
dicendumest,assemdistribuendumesseinseptempartes,utexhisfilius
quatuor,uxorduas,filiaunampartemhabeat:itaenimsecundum
voluntatemtestantis,filiusalterotantoampliushabebitquamuxor,item
uxoralterotantoampliusquamfilia.Licetenimsubtilijurisregulae
conveniebat,ruptumfieritestamentum,attamenquumexutroquenato
testatorvoluerituxoremaliquidhabere,ideoadhujusmodisententiam
humanitatesuggerentedecursumestquodetiamJuventioCelso
apertissimeplacuit*."

Inacontractofmarriagetherewasthefollowingclause.
"Andincasethereshallhappentobeonlyonedaughter,heobligeshimto
paythesumof18,000merksiftherebetwodaughters,thesumof20,000
merks,whereof11,000merkstotheeldest,and9000totheyoungestand
iftherebethreedaughters,thesumof30,000merks,12,000totheeldest,
10,000tothesecond,and8000totheyoungest."
Afourthdaughterhavingexistedofthemarriage,thequestionoccurred,
Whethershecouldhaveanyshareofthe30,000merks,uponthepresumedwill
ofthefather,orbelefttoinsistforherlegalprovisionabintestato.Thecourt
decreed4500merksasherproportionofthe30,000merkssoastorestrictthe
eldestdaughterto10,500merks,thesecondto8500,andthethirdto6500.
Thoughtheexistenceofafourthdaughterwasacasusincogitatus,forwhich
noprovisionwasmadeyetasitappearedtobethefather'sintentionto
provideforallthechildrenofthatmarriage,therewasarightcreatedinthe
fourthdaughterbythisintention,whichintitledhertoashareofthe30,000
merks.
Page135
Thefollowingcasestandsuponthesamefoundation.
"ClemensPatronustestamentocaverat,utsisibifiliusnatusfuisset,heres
esset:siduofilii,exaequispartibusheredesessent:siduaefiliae,
similiter:sifiliusetsilia,filioduaspartes,filiaetertiamdederat.Duobus
filiisetfilianatis,quaerebaturquemadmodeminpropositaspeciepartes
faciemus:cumfiliidebeantpares,veletiamsinguliduploplusquamsoror
accipere.Quinqueigiturpartesfierioportet,utexhisbinasmasculi,unam
foeminaaccipiat*."
TheestateofCromartybeingentailedinfavourofheirsmale,theEarl,
inhiscontractofmarriage,anno1724,
"becamebound,incaseofchildrenofthemarriagewhoshallsucceedto
andenjoytheestate,toinfefthisladyinaliferentlocalityofforty
chaldersvictualandincasetherebenochildrenofthemarriagewho
shallsucceedtoandenjoytheestate,hebecameboundtomakethesaid
localityfiftychalders."
Towhichthereisaddedthefollowingclause,
"Thatifatthedissolutionofthemarriagetherebechildrenwhoshall
succeedtoandenjoytheestate,butwhoshallafterwardsdeceaseduring
thelifeofhissaidspouse,shefromthatperiodshallbeintitledtofifty
chalders,asifthesaidchildrenhadnotexisted."
TheEarlofCromartybeingforfeitedintheyear1745,havingissuebothmale
andfemale,aclaimwasenteredbyhisladyforherjointureoffiftychalders,to
takeplaceafterherhusband'sdeath.ObjectedbyhisMajesty'sAdvocate,That
sheisintitledtofortychaldersonly,therebeingsonsofthemarriage,who,but
fortheforfeiture,wouldsucceedtotheestate.Takingthewordsofthecontract
strictlyaccordingtotheprinciplesofcommonlaw,theclaimmustberestricted

tofortychaldersbecauseitcannotbesaidliterally,thattherearenochildren
ofthemarriagewhocansucceedtoandenjoytheestate.Buttheforfeitureis
plainlyacasusincogitatus,aboutwhichthepartiesinterposednowilland
equitydictatesthattheladyoughtnottosufferbythisoversight,butthatthe
sameoughttobesuppliedbythecourt,provideditcanbemadeevidentwhat
wouldhavebeenthewillofthepartieshadtheeventbeenforeseen.Aboutthis
therecanbenodoubtforiftheEarlwaswillingtogiveajointureoffifty
chalderstohisspouse,incasehisbrotherorhisnephewshouldsucceedtohis
estate,multomagisinthecaseofaforfeiture.Theclaimaccordinglywas
sustainedforfiftychalders.
Page136
ART.III.Whereasettlementismadeintheprospectofoneeventonly,nootherbeingforeseenandinstead
ofthateventanotherhappens.

IGIVEanexamplethatwillbeakeytothewhole.Anoldbachelor,
havingnoprospectofissuebecausehehadnointentiontomarry,
makesasettlementofhisestatebydisponingthesametoanear
relation,andtoacertainseriesofheirs,reservinghisownliferent,
withapowertoalter.Hetakesadifferentthought,marries,anddies
suddenly,withoutalteringhissettlement,leavinghiswifepregnant.A
malechildisborn,andclaimstheestate.Thesettlementwillbe
supportedatcommonlaw,becausethewordsareclearforthedisponee.
Andasthegranter'swillisalsoforhiminexpressterms,itisnot
obviousuponwhatprincipleacourtofequitycaninterposetooverturn
thissettlement,withoutmakinganewwillforamanwhomadenone
forhimself.Yet,ontheotherhand,itwouldbeaconclusioninlaw
extremelyharsh,toexheredatethisfavouritechild,uponnobetter
groundthanamereoversightofhisfather,andtoinforceasettlement
inaneventwhichthemakerwouldavoidwithhorrorwerehealive.
Thefollowingargumentpromisestoextricateusfromthisdilemma.
Thewillofthemakerinfavourofthedisponee,isnotabsolutetotake
placeinalleventsbutonlyuponsuppositionofwhathetookfor
granted,thathewastohavenoissue.Thereforeintheeventthathas
happenedthedisponeecannotsaythatthewillofthemakerisforhim:
consequentlythesettlementgiveshimnoright.Forthesakeof
illustration,itmaybeadded,thatthereisnodifferenceinsubstance
betweenalimitedwill,suchasthatunderconsideration,andawillthat
isconditionalforthebindingactofthewillisequallyqualifiedby
both:thedifferenceiswithrespecttoevidenceonlythesameactof
willthatissaidtobelimitedwhenthelimitationislefttobegathered
fromcircumstances,beingtermedconditionalwhenthelimitationis
expressedandnotleftuponcircumstances.Forthisreason,alimited
willcannotcreateamoreextensiverightthanawillthatisconditional.
Thisdoctrineisbynomeansnew,thoughputinanewdressforwhat
elseisanimpliedconditionsomuchtalkedofintheRomanlaw,buta
limitationofwillinferredfromcircumstances?Henceitfollows,that
thesettlementunderconsiderationisvoidinequity,forthesamereason
thatitwouldbevoidevenatcommonlaw,ifthecondition
"failingheirsofthegranter'sbody"
hadbeenexpressed.

Page137
Anotherreasoninequityconcursforvoidingthissettlement.The
omissionofthecondition,
"failingheirsofthegranter'sbody,"
wasplainlyanoversightandthedisponeeoughtnotinconsciencetotake
advantageofthatoversightadlucrumcaptandum.Thisfollowsfromtherule
abovelaiddown,Thatindamnoevitandoonemaytakeadvantageofanerror,
butnotinlucrocaptando.
Butwherethechilddiedinafewmonths,thesettlementwas
sustainedbecausethechildwasnothurtbythesettlement*.
Thefollowingcaseispreciselyofthesamenature.Amanhavinglenta
sum,andtakenabondforthesame,payabletohimself,andtohis
childrennominatiminfee,equallyandproportionally,withthis
provision,
"Thatincaseofthedeceaseofanyofthesaidchildren,theshareofthe
predeceasingchildshallbeequallydividedamongthesurvivors"
andoneofthechildren,ason,havingpredeceasedhisfather,leavingissue,the
questionoccurred,Whetherhisshareofthebonddidnot,intermsofthesaid
clause,accruetothesurvivors,exclusiveofhisissue.Thecourtwasof
opinion,thatthegranterdidnotintendtoexcludetheissueofanyofhis
predeceasingchildrenthathewouldhaveprovidedforsaidissuehadtheevent
beenforeseenanduponthatmediumtheypreferredtheissueofthe
predeceasingson.Papinian,thegreatestoftheRomanlawyers,givesthe
sameopinioninasimilarcase:
"Cumavusfilium,acnepotemexalterofilio,heredesinstituisset,anepote
petiit,utsiintraannumtrigesimummoriretur,hereditatempatruosuo
restitueret:nepos,liberisrelictis,intraaetatemsuprascriptamvita
decessit:fideicommissiconditionem,conjecturapietatis,respondi
defecisse,quodminusscriptum,quamdictumfuerat,inveniretur."
Thisopinionisfoundedonsubstantialequityandyetthereasongivenappears
tobeslightandprecarious.Ourauthorsupposes,thatthetestator,declaringhis
will,hadprovidedfortheissueofhisgrandchild,butthatthisprovisionhad
beencasuallyomittedbythewriterwhichiscuttingtheGordianknotinstead
ofuntyingit.Forwhatifthiseventwasreallyoverlooked?Supposingthisto
bethefact,weareleftwithoutareason.Thesolidfoundationoftheopinionis,
thatadeedoughtnottobemadeeffectualinequity,whenbyoversightit
extendstoaneventthatwasnotmeanttobecomprehended.Somucheasierit
istojudgeorperceivewhatisright,thantogiveasolidreasonforour
judgment.
Page138
Nopersoncanhesitateabouttheapplicationofthisruletounforeseen
events,whicharebroughtabout,notcasually,butbythepersonin

whosefavourthedeedisgranted.Amanhavingnomaleissue,settled
hiswholeestate,realandpersonal,uponhiseldestdaughter,withthe
followingproviso,Thatsheshouldpay10,000merkstohertwosisters.
Thedisposition,beinggrantedondeathbed,waschallengedbythese
sisters,andvoidedastothelandestate.Thequestionensued,Whether
theywhobytheirchallengegotmorethanthe10,000merks,hada
claimforthatsumoverandabove.Theyurgedtheirfather'sexpress
will.Butitbeinganswered,Thathavingoverturnedtheirfather'swill,
theycouldnotclaimuponittheirclaimwasdismissed*.Herewasnot
onlyanunexpectedevent,whichwouldhavebeenguardedagainsthad
itbeenforeseenbutfurther,theevent,repugnanttothewillofthe
granter,wastheoperationofpersonshonouredbythedeed,whose
ingratitudejustlybarredthemfromtakinganybenefitbyit.The
followingisasimilarcase.JohnEarlofDundonald,byabondof
entail,madeasettlementofhislandestateonhisheirsmale:atthe
sametimehesettledhismoveablesbywillandalsoexecutedbondsof
provisioninfavourofhisdaughters.Theseseveraldeedsexecuted
unicocontextu,andremainingwiththegranterundelivered,madea
completesettlementofhisestaterealandpersonalandprovedittobe
hisintention,thathisdaughtersshouldtakenothingfromhimbuttheir
provisions.AftertheEarl'sdeath,itbeingdiscoveredthatsomeofthe
landscontainedinhisentailhadnotbeenvestedinhim,butstill
remainedinhereditatejacenteofaremotepredecessor,thedaughters
asheirsoflinelaidclaimtotheselands.Itwasobjected,Thatthey
couldnotalsoclaimtheirprovisions,whichweregiventhemasbeing
totallyexcludedfromthesuccession,andasnototherwiseprovided
becauseadeedcalculatedforoneeventcannotbeeffectualinanother.
"Thecourtjudged,Thattheladiescouldnotclaimtheirbondsof
provisionandlikewisethelandsasheirsoflinebutthattheymightclaim
oneorotherattheiroption."
Fromthedoctrinethusillustrated,itmaybeestablishedasanotherrule
inequity,Thatapersonhonouredinadeed,whocounteractsthewillof
thegranterdeclaredinthedeed,cantakenobenefitbyit.
Reflectingupontheforegoingdoctrine,weperceivearemarkable
differencebetweenadonationcompletedbyatransferenceofproperty,
Page139
andadonationincompleted,whichrequiresanactionagainstthedonor
orhisheirs.Intheformercase,nounforeseeneventwillbesufficient
torestorethepropertytothedonor:thereisnoprincipleoflawnorof
equityuponwhichsuchanactioncanbefounded.Inthelattercase,an
unforeseeneventmakesitthedutyofacourtofequitytodenyaction,
andconsequentlytorenderthedonationineffectual,unlessthegranter
orhisheirbesoscrupulouslymoral,asoftheirownaccordtofulfilit.
Thesameruleholdswherethegranterisalive,supposingonlyhehave
putitoutofhispowertoalterforsolongasthedeedisunderhisown
power,hehasnooccasionforanequitablerelief.Whenanobligation,
relativetoacertaineventexpected,issoughttobemadeeffectualinan

unexpectedevent,acourtofequitydeniesitsauthority.Thisrulewith
respecttothelivingshallbeillustratedbyseveralexamples.A
dispositionoflandgrantedbyamantohiswifewasratifiedbytheheir,
whointhesamedeedboundhimselftopurgeincumbrancesaffecting
theland,
"upontheviewandincontemplationofsucceedingtotherestofthe
estate,"
asexpressedinthedeedofratification.Theheirbeingchargedbythewidowto
purgeincumbrances,thefollowingreasonofsuspensionwassustained,That
theheirwasexcludedbyanexpiredapprisingofthewholeestate,ofwhichhe
wasignorantwhenhegrantedtheratificationandthatthisfactmustliberate
himfromhisobligation,tograntwhichhecouldhavenoothermotivebutthe
prospectofenjoyingtheestate*.Equityherejustlyrelievedfromanobligation
thatwascalculatedforaneventoppositetothatwhichhappened.
Donationsmortiscausaareregulatedbythesameprinciple.Aman
havinganearprospectofdeath,executesadeedinfavourofarelation
orfriend,withoutreservingapowerofalteration.Contraryto
expectationherecovers,andlivesseveralyears.Thedeediseffectualat
commonlawbutthegranterisrelievedinequity,becausethedeedwas
madewithaviewtoaneventthatdidnothappen.
SECT.IV.Adeedorcovenantconsideredasameantoanend.

WHereadeedisgranted,oracovenantmade,inordertobringabout
someevent,theeventastheendischieflyinview,andthedeedor
contractisnoteffectualinconscienceorinreasonfarther
Page140
thanasameantobringabouttheend.Adeedorcovenantcalculated
withperfectforesighttobringaboutthedesiredend,isbindinginjustice
forinthatcasetherecanbenopretextforwithholdingperformance:but
ifadeedorcovenant,byignoranceormistake,answernottheendfor
whichitwasmade,acourtofequitywillnotmakeiteffectual.For
consideringittobeamean,theobjectionagainstitisinvincible,Thatno
meanoughttoberegardedbutasfarasittendstoaccomplishtheend.To
thinkotherwiseistosupposetheperformanceofthedeedorcovenantto
betheultimateend,andnotthemeantotheultimateend.
ART.I.Where,bymistake,themeansprovidedinthedeedorcovenanttendnottobringaboutthedesired
end.

THEmostnotedcasethatcomesunderthisarticle,iswheregoods,by
somelatentinsufficiency,answernottheendforwhichtheyare
bought.Thoughthevenderbeinbonafide,yetthepurchaseris
relievedinequityfromperformance.Thusinpurchasingwinefor
drinking,thoughIputmymarkuponaparticularhogsheadasthe
productofacertainvineyard,tobedeliveredtomeatapricenamed
yetifupontrialitprovesour,andbeunfitfordrinking,Iamnotbound
toreceiveithoweverprecisethebargainwas.
AlargecargoofstrongalewaspurchasedfromabrewerinGlasgow,

inordertobeexportedtoNewYork.Inasuitforthepricethe
followingdefencewassustained,Thatitwasnotproperlypreparedfor
theheatofthatclimateandthataccordinglyithadburstedthebottles,
andwaslost.Itwasnotsupposedthatthebrewerhadbeenguiltyof
anywilfulwrongbutthisdefencewassustaineduponthefollowing
ruleofequity,Thatamanwhopurchasesgoodsforacertainpurpose,
isnotboundtoreceivethemunlesstheyanswerthatpurposewhich
holdsafortioriwherethevenderishimselfthemanufacturer.And
wheretheinsufficiencycannotbeknowntothepurchaserbutupon
trial,theruleholdseventho'thegoodsbedeliveredtohim.Itwasalso
inview,thatifthebrewerbenotanswerableforthesufficiencyofale
soldbyhimfortheAmericanmarket,thatbranchofcommercecannot
becarriedon*.
Aninsolventdebtormakesatrustrightinfavourofhiscreditorsand
amonghisothersubjects,disponestothetrusteeshisinterestina
companystock.Astranger,whobyfurnishinggoodstothecompany
becamecreditortothebankruptasoneofthecompany,and
Page141
likewisewasclearlypreferableuponthecompanystockbeforethe
bankrupt'sprivatecreditors,beingignorantofhispreference,accedes
tothetrustright,andconsentstoanequaldistributionofthe
bankrupt'seffects.Beingafterwardinformedofhispreference,he
retracts,whilemattersareyetentire.Quaer.Isheboundbyhis
agreement?Heundoubtedlydrawsbyitallthebenefithehada
prospectofandconsideringtheagreementsingly,withoutrelationto
theend,heisboundandsosayscommonlaw.Butequityconsidersthe
endandpurposeoftheagreementwhichis,thatthestrangershalldraw
suchproportionofthebankrupt'seffectsasheisintitledtobylaw.The
meansconcerted,viz.thatheshalldrawanequalproportion,contribute
nottothisend,buttooneverydifferent,viz.thatheshalldrawless
thanwhatisjust,andtheothercreditorsmore.Equityrelievesfroman
engagementwheresuchistheunexpectedresulttherebeingno
authorityfromtheintendmentofpartiestomakeitobligatorywhereit
answersnotthepurposedend.
Havinglaidopenthefoundationinequityforgivingreliefagainsta
covenantwhereperformancewillnotanswertheendproposedbyit,I
proceedtoexaminewhethertherebeanyreliefinequityafterthe
covenantisfulfilled.Ibuy,forexample,alamehorseunfitforwork
butthisdefectisnotdiscoveredtillthehorseisdelivered,andtheprice
paid.Ifthevenderhathengagedtowarrantthehorseassufficient,heis
liableatcommonlawtofulfilhiscovenant.Butsupposingthispaction
nottohavebeeninterposed,itappearstomenotatallclear,thatthere
isanyfoundationinequityforvoidingthesalethuscompleted.The
horseisnowmypropertybythepurchase,andthepriceisequallythe
vender'sproperty.Ifheknewthatthehorsewaslame,heisguiltyofa
wrongthatoughttosubjecthimtothehighestdamages:butsupposing
himinbonaside,Iseenogroundforanyclaimagainsthim.The
groundofequitythatrelievesmefrompayingforahorsethatcanbeof
nouse,turnsnowagainstmeinfavourofthevenderforwhyshould
hebeboundtotakemyhorsethatcanbeofnousetohim,morethanI
wasformerlyboundtotakehishorsethatcouldbeofnousetome?

TheRomanlawindeedgaveanactioredhibitoriainthiscase,obliging
thevendertotakebackthehorseandtoreturntheprice.ButIdiscover
areasonforthispracticeinaprincipleoftheRomanlaw,thatwillnot
squarewithourpractice,norwiththatofanyothercommercialnation.
TheprincipleisThatsuchcontractsasareintendedtobeequal,ought
toanswertheintention:andthereforeinsuchcontractstheRoman
Pretorneverpermittedanyconsiderableinequality.Hencetheactio
quantiminoris,
Page142
whichwasgiventoapurchaserwhobyignoranceorerrorpaidmore
forasubjectthanitisintrinsicallyworth:anditfollowsuponthesame
planofequity,thatifasubjectbepurchasedwhichisgoodfornothing,
theactioquantiminorismustresolveintoanactioredhibitoria.But
equitymaybecarriedsofarastobeprejudicialtocommerceby
encouraginglawsuitsandforthatreasonweadmitnottheactio
quantiminoris:theprincipleofutilityrejectsit,experiencehaving
demonstratedthatitisagreatinterruptiontothefreecourseof
commerce.Thesameprincipleofutilityrejectstheactioredhibitoriaas
farasfoundedoninequalityandafterasaleiscompletedbydelivery,
Ihaveendeavouredtoshow,thatifinequalitybelaidaside,thereisno
foundationfortheactioredhibitoria.InScotland,however,thoughthe
actioquantiminorisisrejected,theactioredhibitoriaisadmitted
wherealatentinsufficiencyunqualifiesthesubjectfortheendwitha
viewtowhichitwaspurchased.Thispractice,asappearstome,isout
ofallrule.Ifweadherestrictlytoequitywithoutregardingutility,we
oughttosustaintheactioquantiminorisaswellastheactio
redhibitoria.Butifwegivewaytoutility,thegreatlawincommercial
dealings,weoughttosustainneither.Toindulgedisputesaboutthetrue
valueofeverycommercialsubjectwoulddestroycommerce:andfor
thatreason,equity,whichhasnootherobjectbuttheinterestofasingle
person,mustyieldtoutility,whichregardsthewholesociety.
Thedoctrineabovedeliveredwillbefinelyillustratedbyapplyingitto
erroneouspayment,orsolutioindebiti,whichmakesagreatfigurein
theRomanlaw.Oferroneouspaymenttherearetwokindsclearly
distinguishablefromeachother:onewhereadebtiserroneously
supposedtoexistthatisextinguished,orperhapsneverexistedand
onewherethereisreallyadebt,butthepersonwhopaysisnotdebtor.
Toexplainwhatequitydictateswithrespecttoerroneouspaymentof
thefirstkind,severalcasesshallbestatedthatgivelighttoeachother.I
beginwiththecaseofabondeddebt,which,afterbeingextinguished
bypayment,ispurchasedbonafideforavaluableconsiderationand
thedebtor'sheir,ignorantoftheextinction,grantsabondof
corroborationtotheassignee.Afterthegrantingthisbondof
corroboration,butbeforepayment,theextinctionofthebond
corroboratedcomestobediscoveredand,tomakethequestionof
importance,weshallsupposethatthecedentorassignorbecomes
bankruptafterthedateofthebondofcorroboration.Bothpartieshere
arecertantesdedammoevitando:ifthebondofcorroborationbe
Page143

madeeffectual,thedebtorisforc'dtopayadebtthatisnotdue:ifon
theotherhandheberelievedfromit,theassigneelosesthevaluable
considerationhepaidtothecedent.Whatdoesequityruleinthiscase?
Upontheprincipleabovelaiddown,itrelievesagainstthebondof
corroboration.Acorroborativesecurityisnotintendedtocreateanew
debt,butonlytosecurethepaymentofonealreadydueandtherefore
noclaimcaninequitybefoundedonthebondofcorroboration
independentofthedebtcorroborated:ifthedebtcorroboratedbe
imaginary,thebondofcorroborationmustgofornothing:itpossibly
maybewordedinabsoluteterms,viz.topaythesumstipulatedata
precisedaybutwordsagainstorbeyondintentioncannotoperatein
equity.ForthisreasonIcannotagreetothefollowingopinion:
"Siquisindebitampecuniam,pererrorem,jussumulieris,sponsoejus
promisisset,etnuptiaesecutaefuissent,exceptionedolimaliutinon
potest.Maritusenimsuumnegotiumgeritetnihildolofacit,nec
decipiendusest:quodfit,sicogaturindotatamuxoremhabere.Itaque
adversusmulieremcondictioeicompetit,utautrepetatabeaquodmarito
dedit,aututliberetur,sinondumsolverit*."
Thisreasoningisnotsatisfactory.Thehusbandindeedisnotinmalafideto
demandwhatispromisedhimbutneitherishispartyinmalafideforrefusing
topayadebtasecondtime:andequitywillnotcompelamantoperforma
promise,whenperformancecannotanswertheendforwhichthepromisewas
made.
Letusnextsuppose,thatthesumcontainedinthebondof
corroborationisactuallypaid.Whetherinthiscaseistheassignee
boundtorestorethemoney,whenitisdiscoveredthatthedebt
corroboratedwasimaginary,andthatnothingwasdue?Neitherequity
norcommonlawgivesreliefinthiscase.Thepropertyofthemoney
paidistransferredtotheassigneeanditisaninviolableruleofequity
aswellasofcommonlaw.Thatnomancanbeforfeitedofhisproperty
whoisguiltyofnofault.Neitheristhemoneyinhishandsinecausa,
forthesumhegavetothecedentisajustcause.Comparingthiscase
withtheformer,thematterturnsoutasitfrequentlydothinpointof
equity,quodpotiorestconditiopossidentis.Ifthesumbepromised
only,equityrelievesfrompayment:butifitbepaid,thereisno
foundationinequityfordeprivingtheassigneeofhisproperty.Thusa
creditor,afterobtainingapartialpayment,assignedthewholesumfor
securityofadebtduebyhimtotheassignee.Theassignee,havinggot
paymentofthewholefromthe
Page144
debtor,ignorantoftheformerpayment,was,upondiscoveryofthe
fact,suedforrestitutioncondictioneindebiti.Heputhisdefenceuponl.
44.condic.indeb.insisting,thathereceivednomorethanwhatwas
duetohimbythecedent,thatsuumrecepit,andthathewasnotbound
torestorewhathegotinpaymentofajustdebt.Thedefence
accordinglywassustained*.Thefollowingdecisionisofthesame
nature.Anheirhavingignorantlypaidadebttoanassigneefora
valuableconsideration,andseveralyearsthereafterhavingdiscovered
thathisancestorhadpaidthedebttothecedent,heinsistedina

condictioindebitiagainsttheassignee,andthedefendantwas
assoilzied.Imentionthiscasetherather,because,alongwiththe
generaldefenceabovementioned,Thatamancannotbedeprivedof
hispropertywhoisnotguiltyofanyfault,aseparatedefenceinequity
arosefromthefollowingcircumstance,thataftertheerroneous
paymentthecedentbecamebankrupt.Layingholdofthis
circumstance,theassigneeargued,That,trustingtothepayment,he
hadneglectedtosecurehimselfbyanactionofwarrandice,which
wouldhavebeeneffectualtohimwhilethecedentcontinuedsolvent
andthatthecedent'sbankruptcyoughtnottoaffecthim,butthe
pursuer,bywhosemistakethelosswasoccasioned.Whatissaidabove
willclearlyshow,thatthefollowingdecisioniserroneous.An
executorcreditorhavingconfirmedadebtasduetothedeceased,and
havinguponthattitleobtainedpaymentfromthedebtor'sheir,was
decernedtorestorethemoney,itbeingafterwarddiscovered,thatthe
debthadbeenpaidtotheoriginalcreditor.
Weproceedtothecasewherethereisreallyadebt,butwherethe
personwhopaysisnotdebtor.Thiscaseseemstohavedividedthe
writersontheRomanlaw.Tothepersonwhothuspayserroneously,
Pomponiusaffordsacondictioindebiti.Panlusdoesthesame**.Yet
thissamePaulusinanothertreatiserefusesaction.Thesolutionof
thisquestionseemsnottobedifficult.Supposingthedebttobe
extinguishedbythiserroneouspayment,acondictiocannotbe
sustainedagainstthecreditorforitwouldbegrosslyunjusttodeprive
himbothofhisdebt,andofthesumhereceivedinpaymentofit.But
thefollowingreasonsevincethatthedebtisnotextinguishedbythe
erroneouspayment.1st,Ifthecreditor,upondiscoveringthemistake,
shouldthinkpropertorestorethemoney,thereisnothing
Page145
inlawtobarsuchtransaction:andifso,itisclearthatthedebtmust
remainentire.2d,Thetruedebtor,notwithstandingtheerroneous
payment,isintitledtoforceadischargefromthecreditor,uponoffering
himpaymentwhichhecouldnotdoifhedidnotstillcontinuedebtor.
Whenceitnecessarilyfollows,thatthecreditorholdsthismoneysine
justacausaandconsequently,thatacondictioindebitiagainsthimis
wellfounded.
Thelegalconsequencesofpaymentmadeknowinglyofadebtdueby
another,arehandledbook1.part3.
ART.II.Whereanunforeseenaccidentrendersineffectualthemeansprovidedinthedeedorcovenantto
bringaboutthedesiredend.

CONTRACTSshallfurnishthefirstexamples.Inabargainofsale,the
priceisreferredtoathirdparty:therefereediessuddenlywithout
determiningthepriceandthereisnoperformanceoneitherside.There
beingnoremedyhereatcommonlaw,becausethepriceisnot
ascertained,canacourtofequitysupplythedefectinordertomakethe
bargaineffectual?Thisquestiondependsuponwhattheparties
intendedbythereference.Iftheyintendednottobeboundbutbythe
opinionofthereferee,itisineffectaconditionalbargain,never
purifiedaccordingtowhichconstructionthereisnoplaceforequity,

becausethereisnodefectinthebargain,noranyrightcreatedtoeither
party.Butifthepartiesintendedthatthesaleshouldinalleventsbe
effectual,whichwillbepresumedasthemorerationalconstruction,a
rightuponthatsuppositioniscreatedtoeachparty,intitlingtheoneto
thesubjectandtheothertothevalueanditisthedutyofacourtof
equitytomaketheserightseffectual,bysupplyingthedefect,and
namingapricesecundumarbitriumboniviri.
Amanhavingpurchasedland,gaveabackbondobliginghimselfto
redispone,uponthevender'srepayingthepricewithinatimelimited.
Thevenderhavingdiedbeforethedaynamed,thelandwasfound
legallyredeemed,upontheheir'sofferingthepricebeforeelapsingof
theterm*.Itwasjustlyunderstoodtobetheintendmentofthe
transaction,thatinalleventsthevendershouldhavethefulltime
agreedonforredemptionandtomakethisrighteffectual,hisheirwas
admittedinhisstead.
Agentlemanhavinggivenabondofprovisiontohissisterfor
Page146
3000merks,tookabackbondfromher,importing,
"Thatthesumbeingrathertoogreatforhiscircumstances,sheconsented
thatthesameshouldbemitigatedbyfriendstobechosenhincinde,her
motherbeingalwaysone."
Afterthemother'sdecease,thebrother'screditorsinsistingforamitigation
secundumarbitriumboniviri,itwasanswered,Thattheconditionofthe
mitigationhadfailedbythemother'sdeath,andthereforethatthebondmust
subsistintotum.Whichaccordinglywastheresult,becausethecourtrefusedto
interpose*.Supposingthebackbondtobemerelyagratuitousdeed,and
conditional,thejudgementisright.Butifthebackbondbeheldtobethe
counterpartofthebond,eachofthemabranchofamutualengagement,
whichseemstobethemorenaturalconstruction,itmaybedoubtedwhether
thebrotherwasnotinalleventsintitledtoamitigation.
Thenextexamplesshallbefromdeeds.TheministerofWeem,ina
deedofmortification,settledhisfundsuponfivetrusteesandtheir
successors,fortheuseoftheschoolmastersofthatparish,declaring
themajorpartofthetrusteestobeaquorum.Twoonlyofthetrustees
havingacceptedandintermeddledwiththefunds,aprocesswas
broughtagainstthembytherepresentativesoftheminister,claiming
thefunds,whichwerestillinthehandsofthetrusteesunapplied,upon
thefollowingground,Thatthedeedofmortificationisineffectual,not
havingbeencompletedbyacceptanceofaquorumofthetrustees.It
wasanswered,Thatbythedeedofmortificationassigningthefundsto
trusteesfortheuseoftheschoolmastersofWeem,arightwasvested
intheseschoolmasters,whichthetrustees,bynotacceptance,couldnot
defeatandthatsupposethewholeofthemhadrefusedtoaccept,an
actionwouldlieagainstthemattheinstanceoftheschoolmaster,to
denudeinfavourofothertrusteestobenamedbythecourt.Thedeed
ofmortificationwassustainedthecourtbeingofopinion,thatitwould
havebeeneffectualthoughthewholetrusteeshaddeclinedacceptance

.Iillustratethisbyanoppositecase,wherenorightwascreatedby
thedeed.LadyPrestonfieldexecutedasettlementofconsiderablefunds
toSirJohnCunninghame,hereldestson,andAnneCunninghame,her
eldestdaughter,astrusteesfortheendsandpurposesfollowing.1mo,
Theyearlyinteresttobeappliedfortheeducationandsupportofsuch
ofthegranter'sdescendantsasshouldhappentobeinwant,
Page147
orstandinneedthereof,andthatatthediscretionofthetrustees.2do,
Failingdescendants,thecapitalistoreturntohernearestheirs.The
trusteesdecliningtoacceptthiswhimsicalsettlement,aprocessfor
voidingitwasbroughtbytheheiratlaw,inwhichwerecalledallthe
existingdescendantsofthemaker.Itwasurged,Thatbythissettlement
thereisnorightvestedinthedefendants,norinanyotherdescendant
ofthemakerbecauseallisleftuponthediscretionofthetrustees,
whocannotbecompelledbylaw,supposingtheiracceptance,togivea
pennytoanyparticulardescendantthatthesettlementisvoidbythe
nonacceptanceofthetrusteesthatthefundstherebybelongtothe
pursuer,heiratlawandthatthereisnoequitytodeprivethepursuerof
hispropertyforthebehoofofthedefendants,whohaveinnoeventa
legalclaim.Thedeedwasdeclaredvoidbynonacceptanceofthe
trustees*.Herethecourtjustlyrefusedtosupplyothermeansfor
makingthewillofthedeceasedeffectualbecause,bythewholetenor
ofthesettlement,itappearedtobeherwill,thatallshouldbeleftupon
thediscretionofthetrusteesnamed,andnopurposewasexpressedto
giveherdescendantsanyrightindependentofthesetrustees.
ColonelCampbellbeingboundinhiscontractofmarriagetosecure
thesumof40,000merks,andtheconquestduringthemarriage,to
himselfandspouseinconjunctfeeandliferent,andtothechildrento
beprocreatedofthemarriageinfee,did,byadeathbeddeed,settleall
uponhiseldestson,burdenedwiththesumof30,000merkstohis
youngerchildren,totakeplaceincasetheirmothershouldgiveupher
claimtotheliferentoftheconquest,andrestrictherselftoaless
jointureotherwisetheseprovisionstobevoidinwhicheventitwas
leftupontheDukeofArgyleandEarlofIlaytonamesuchprovisions
tothechildrenastheyshouldseeconvenient.Therefereeshaving
declinedtoacceptthetrustreposedinthem,thequestionoccurred
betweentheheirandyoungerchildren,Whetherthepowersofthe
refereesweredevolveduponthecourtofsessiontodetermine
provisionstotheyoungerchildrensecundumarbitriumbonivirior
whethertheyoungerchildrenweretobelefttotheclaimtheyhadby
thecontractofmarriage?Thecourtwasofopinion,thattheDukeof
ArgyleandEarlofIlayhavingdeclinedtoexecutethepowersvested
inthembyColonelCampbell,theirpowersarenotdevolveduponthis
courttanquamboniviri.Thisjudgement
Page148
cannotbejustifieduponanygroundotherthanthatofholdingthe
determinationoftheDukeofArgyleandEarlofIlayasacondition,
withoutwhichthechildrenwerenottohaveaprovision.Thesettlement

appearstomeinadifferentlight.TheColonel'swilltoprovidehis
youngerchildreninallevents,isclearlyexpressed.Ashewasdoubtful
whatthesumshouldbeincasetheirmotherinsisteduponherjointure,
heleftitupontherefereestonamethesum,notdoubtingtheir
acceptance.ThisreferenceIconsidertobethemeanschosenbythe
Colonelforaccomplishinghispurposeofprovidinghischildrenbut
notsoastoexcludeallothermeans.Hisyoungerchildrenwereintitled
toaprovisionbyhiswillandfailingthemeanschosenbyhimfor
ascertainingtheextent,justicerequiredthatothermeansshouldbe
substituted,inordertomaketheirclaimeffectual.Thiscaseresembles
verymuchthatabovementionedconcerningasumsettledupon
trusteesfortheuseoftheschoolmastersofWeem.Thesettlement
upontrusteeswasameansonlyformakingthemortificationeffectual
andthefailureofthetrusteescouldhavenoothereffectbuttomake
wayforsupplyingothermeans.
ART.III.Wherethemeansprovidedinthedeedorcovenanttend,byanunforeseenaccident,todisappoint
thedesiredend.

JAMESTHOMSON,inhismarriagecontract,provideshisestateand
conquesttotheheirsofthemarriage.Hiseldestson,beingidleand
profligate,contracteddebts,andbecamebankruptwhichinducedthe
oldmantomakeasettlementuponthesaidsoninliferent,andupon
hisheirsinfee.Thebankrupt'screditors,afterthefather'sdeath,
broughtareductionofthissettlement,asindefraudofthemarriage
contract.Thecourtassoilziedthedefendersuponthefollowingground,
Thatthoughthebankruptwasintitledtothefeeatcommonlaw,yetin
acontractintendedforthebenefitofthosewhoshouldspringfromthe
marriage,itcouldnotbetheintentionofthecontractorstosecurethe
estatetocreditorsincaseoftheheir'sbankruptcy.Thecasewasputof
theheirbeingforfeitedfortreasonanditwastheopinionofallthe
judges,thathecouldinthiscaseberemovedfromthesuccession.The
governingprincipleis,Thatnomanisboundtofulfilhisobligation
whenitfailstobringabouttheendthatwasintendedbyit*.
Page149
ART.IV.Wherethedeedorcovenantitselfisvoidedbyanunforeseenaccident,canothermeansbe
suppliedforaccomplishingthedesiredend?

AGRATUITOUSbondbyaminorbeingvoidedattheinstanceofhis
heir,becauseaminorcannotbindhimselfwithoutavaluable
consideration,theobligeeinsistedforanequivalentoutofthe
moveablesleftbytheminor,uponthefollowingground,Thatthebond
impliedalegacy,whichtheminorcouldhavegrantedbymakinga
testament.Itwasyielded,thatiftheheir'schallengehadbeenforeseen,
theminorwouldprobablyhavegivenalegacyinsteadofthebondbut
thatastheminorhadnotexertedanyactofwillwithrespecttoa
legacy,thecourtcouldnotmakeatestamentforamanwhohadnot
madeoneforhimself.Thecourtaccordinglyrefusedtotransubstantiate
thebondintoalegacy*.Inthiscase,asitappearstome,theratio
decidendiistakenfromcommonlaw,notfromequity.Onethingseems
clear,thattheminorintendedinalleventstobestowthesumnamed
uponhisfriendtheobligeeforifhewaswillingtobindhimself
personallytopaythesum,hecouldnothavetheleasthesitationtobind

hisrepresentativesbybequeathingitasalegacy.Andifthisbe
admitted,theconsequenceisfair,thatthefriendtherebyacquireda
right,whichitwasthedutyofthecourtofsessiontomakeeffectual,by
sustainingaclaimagainsttheexecutorinthesamemannerasifthe
sumhadbeenalegacy.Consideringthismatterinadifferentlight,I
candiscovernogoodreasonwhyaminor,whocandisposeofhis
moveablesbytestament,maynotdothesameintheformofabond,
droppingonlytheclausesthataremorebeneficialtotheobligeethana
legacywouldbe.Sofarabondmaybejustlyconsideredasavirtual
legacy.
Agratuitousdispositionofanheritablesubjectbeingvoidedbecause
grantedondeathbed,thedisponeeclaimedthevaluefromtheexecutor,
presumingthatthedeceasedwouldhavegivenanequivalenthadhe
foreseentheevent.Decreed,Thatthedispositioncouldnotaffectthe
executry,eitherasadebt,orasalegacy.Thisjudgementmustbe
approvedforitisfarfrombeingclearthatthevalueoftheheritable
subjectwasintendedinalleventstobemadeeffectualtothedisponee.
Itmaybeaman'swilltoalienfromhis
Page150
heiranheritablesubject,thoughhewouldnotburdenhisexecutors
withthevalue,supposingthemtobeanumberofyoungerchildren.
Thisargumentgoesonthesuppositionthatthedisponerknewthe
subjecttobeheritable.Butwhatifbymistakehetookittobe
moveable?Thisismoredoubtful.Andyetevenuponthatsupposition
itwouldbeboldtogiveanequivalentbecauseamanmayhave
motivesforbestowinguponhisfriendacertainsubject,whowouldnot
bedisposedtoburdeneitherhisheirorexecutorwithanequivalent
sum.
ThereasoningherecoincideswiththatintheRomanlawabouta
legatumreialienae.Ifthetestatorleaveaspeciallegacyofasubject,
believedtobehisown,whichafterhisdeathisdiscoveredtobelongto
astrangertheheirisnotboundtogiveanequivalent,becausehere
deficitvoluntastestatoris.Thisinotherwordsissayingasabove,That
itisnotclearthetestatorintendedinalleventseitherthelegacyorits
value:thesubjectlegatedmaybeconsiderableandpossiblythe
testatorwouldnothaveleftitinlegacyhadhenotconsidereditas
makingpartofhisstock.Butifthetestatorknewthatthesubject
belongedtoanother,itmusthavebeenhiswillandintention,ifhedid
notmeantoplaythefool,thatitshouldbepurchasedbyhisheirforthe
legateeanduponthatsuppositionarightiscreatedinthelegatee,
whichoughttobemadeeffectualbyacourtofequity.
Amanmakesasettlementofhisestateonhiseldestsonintail,witha
power,bydeedorwillunderseal,tochargethelandswithanysumnot
exceedingL.500.Hepreparesadeed,andgetsitingrossed,bywhich
heappointstheL.500tohisyoungerchildren,butdiesbeforeitis
signedorsealedyetthisinequityshallamounttoagoodexecutionof
hispower,thesubstancebeingperformed*.Heretherecouldbeno
doubtabouttheman'swillcreatingarighttohisyoungerchildren.The
powerhereservedofchargingtheestatebydeedorwillunderseal,
wasnotintendedtomaketheirrightconditional,buttogivethemthe

highestsecuritythatisknowninlaw.Thissecuritywasindeed
disappointedbytheman'ssuddendeathbuthehadsufficiently
declaredhispurposeofgivingthemL.500,whichaffordedthema
goodclaiminequityforthatsum.
ProvostAberdeinincliningtohaveacountryseatnearthetownof
Aberdeen,andfindingthatFarquharsonofInvercauldwaswillingto
sellthelandsofCrabston,withinthreemilesofthattown,theparties
exchangedmissiveletters,agreeing,Thatthelandshouldbedisponed
totheProvostinliferent,andtoanyofhischildrenheshould
Page151
pleaseinfeeandthatthepriceshouldbeL.3900Sterling.In
prosecutionofthisagreement,thetitledeedsoftheestatewere
deliveredtoawriter,who,bytheProvost'sorders,madeoutascrollof
thedispositiontobegrantedbyInvercauldtotheProvostinliferent,
andtoAlexander,theonlysonofhissecondmarriage,infee:which
beingrevisedbytheProvost,adispositionwasextendeduponthe12th
June1756,anddispatchedtoInvercauldathiscountryseat,inclosedin
thefollowinglettersubscribedbytheProvost:
"Thiswillcomealongwiththeamendeddisposition,anduponitsbeing
deliveredtomedulysigned,Iamtoputthebondforthepriceinthehand
ofyourdoer."
Invercauldnotbeingathome,thepacketwasdeliveredtohislady.Assoonas
hereturnedhome,whichwasonthe21stofthesaidmonthofJune,he
subscribedthedisposition,andsentitwithatrustyhandtoAberdeen,tobe
deliveredtotheProvost.ButtheProvost,beingtakensuddenlyill,diedonthe
24thofJune,afewhoursbeforetheexpressarrivedatAberdeenbywhich
meansithappened,thatthedispositionwasnotdeliveredtohim,northebond
forthepricegrantedbyhim.Thisunforeseenaccidentgaverisetoaquestion
betweenRobert,theProvost'seldestsonandheir,andthesaidAlexanderson
ofthesecondmarriage.ForRobertitwaspleaded,Thattocompletethesaid
disposition,andtomakeitaneffectualsettlementofthelandsofCrabston,the
Provost'sacceptancewasrequisitethatthisactnothavingbeeninterposed,the
dispositionremainedanundeliveredevident,notlessineffectualthanifithad
wantedthesubscriptionofthegranterandthat,layingasidethisincompleted
deed,theProvost'sclaimtothelandsofCrabston,restinguponthemutual
missives,mustdescendtohisheiratlaw,seeingnoneofhischildrenisnamed
inthesemissives.ItwasansweredforAlexanderthesonofthesecond
marriage,Thathisfather'swillbeingclearlyforhim,thecourtofsessionasa
courtofequityoughttomakethatwilleffectual,howeverdefectivethepowers
ofthecourtmaybeasacourtofcommonlaw.Thesonofthesecondmarriage
wasaccordinglypreferred*.
ART.V.Wherethemeansreachinadvertentlybeyondthedesiredend.

ACOURTofcommonlawmakesnootherinquirybutwhatactsofwill
werereallyexerted,whicharemadeeffectualwithouttheleastregard
toconsequences.Acourtofequity,moreatlibertytofollowthe
dictatesofrefinedjustice,considerseverydeedandcovenantinits

Page152
truelightofameanemploy'dtobringaboutsomeendandinthislight
refusestogiveforcetoit,fartherthanasconducivetothedesiredend.
Inallmatterswhatever,aswellasinmattersoflaw,theendisthe
capitalcircumstanceandmeansareregardedasfaronlyasthey
contributetotheend.Foracourtthentoputadeedorcovenantin
executionbeyondthepurposedend,involvestheabsurdityof
preferringthemeanstotheend,ofmakingthatsubordinatewhichis
principal,andthatprincipalwhichissubordinate.Suchproceeding
wouldbeunjustaswellasabsurd:nomaninconsciencefeelshimself
boundtoperformanypromiseorcovenant,furtherthanasit
contributestotheendoreventfortheaccomplishingofwhichitwas
madeanditisinconsistentwiththeverynatureofacourtofequity,to
compelamantoperformanyactwhereheisnotantecedentlyboundin
conscienceandduty.
Avarietyofirritanciescontrivedtosecureanentailagainstactsand
deedsoftheproprietor,furnishproperexamplesforillustratingthis
article.Irritanciesdirectedagainstthetenantintailtorestrainhimfrom
destroyingtheentail,areineffectresolutiveconditionsandifso
expressedastodeclaretherightvoidableonly,andnotvoidipsofacto,
anyactofcontraventionmaybepurgedbeforechallenge,andevenat
anytimebeforesentenceuponaprocessofdeclarator.Thedifficulty
arisesfromclausesdeclaringthecontravenertofallfromhisrightipso
factouponthefirstactofcontravention.Onethingisclear,thatthe
entailer'swillmustbeobey'dandtherefore,ifhismeaningbetruly
expressedinanipsosactoforfeitingclause,nocourtcanrestorethe
tenantintailagainsttheforfeiture.Butsupposingtheentailertohave
onlyintendedbythisforfeitingclausetokeephisheirsofentailtotheir
duty,whichindubiowillalwaysbepresumeditmaybedoubted
whetheracourtofequityoughtnottointerposetorelievethetenantin
tailfromtheforfeiture,uponhisfreeingtheestatefromhisdebtsand
deeds.Ontheonehand,wehavetheentailer'swilldeclaringthatanact
ofcontraventionshalloperateaforfeitureipsofacto.Butwhatweighs
ontheotherhandis,thatsuchirritanciesbeingintendedinterrorem
only,andtopreservetheestateentiretotheheirsnamedintheirorder,
theentailer'sultimateintentionisfulfillediftheestateberelievedfrom
thedebtsanddeedsofthetenantintail,andisdisappointedifthe
forfeiturebepermittedtohaveitsfulleffect.Herethenwehavethe
entailer'swillwithrespecttothemeanscontradictedbyhisintention
withregardtotheend,soasthatbothcannotbeobey'd:which,upon
themaximThattheendoughttobepreferredbeforethemeans,
affordsa
Page153
fairopportunityforacourtofequitytoconfinetheoperationofthese
means,soastoproducenoeffectbeyondwhatisultimatelyintended.
Thisresolvesintoageneralproposition,
"Thatwherethemeansconcertedreachinadvertentlytoofar,itbelongsto
acourtofequitytodenyanyeffecttothesemeansbeyondwhatis
ultimatelypurposed."

Andaccordinglyitisalwaysthepracticeofthecourtofsession,asacourtof
equity,tosustaintheofferofpurgingorfreeingtheestate,inordertorelieve
fromtheforfeiture.
Theact1685concerningtailziesdeclares,
"Thatiftheprovisionsandirritantclausesarenotrepeatedintherights
andconveyancesbywhichtheheirsoftailziebruikorenjoytheestate,the
omissionshallimportacontraventionoftheirritantandresolutiveclauses
againstthepersonandhisheirswhoshallomittoinsertthesame,
wherebytheestateshallipsofactofall,accresce,andbedevolvedupon
thenextheiroftailziebutshallnotmilitateagainstcreditors,"
&c.Ifthewillofthelegislaturehereexpressedistobestrictlyobey'd,the
forfeituremusttakeplace,withoutadmittingthetenantintailtosupplythe
omissionbyingrossingtheirritantclausesinhistitledeeds:norwouldthe
strongestevidencegivenonhispartofignoranceorcasualomission,relieve
himfromtheforfeiture.Butastheclausemustbeconstructedtobeonlyin
terrorem,itwouldcontradicttheultimatepurposeofthelegislature,togiveit
anyeffect,furtherthantoobligethetenantintailtosupplyhisomissionfor
wecannotsupposethatthelegislatureintendedtobemorerigidinsecuring
entails,thanentailersthemselvescommonlyare.Thisstatutoryirritancy,
accordingtostrictorder,oughttocomeinafterward,intreatingofequitywith
respecttostatutesbutitappearsinabetterlightbybeingjoinedwiththe
irritanciesabovementioned.
Theirritancieshithertomentionedrelatetograntsandsingledeeds.I
proceedtoanexampleofaconventionalirritancy,viz.anirritancyob
nonsolutumcanonemcontainedinatackorfeuright.Suchaclause
expressedsoastomaketherightvoidableonlyuponfailureof
payment,isjustandequalbecause,byadeclaratorofirritancy,it
securestothesuperiororlandlordpaymentofwhatisduehim,andat
thesametimeaffordstothevassalortenantanopportunitytopurgethe
irritancybypayment.Andevensupposingtheclausesoexpressedasto
makefailureofpaymentanipsofactoforfeiture,itwillbeheldbya
courtofequity,thatthemeanschosenreachinadvertentlybeyondthe
ultimateintentionofthepartiescontractersandadeclaratorof
irritancywillstillbenecessary,inordertoaffordanopportunityof
purgingtheirritancy.
Page154
Asettlementbeingmadeuponayoungwoman,proviso,thatshemarry
withconsentofcertainpersonsnamed,theconsenttobedeclaredin
writingaconsentbyparolewasdeemedsufficient*.Forwritingwas
requiredinthewayofevidenceonlyandconsequentlyitwasnot
understoodtobethewillofthemakertoexcludeotherevidencethat
mightbeequallysufficientandfarlesstoforfeitapersonforthemere
wantofaformwhenthesubstancewaspreserved.
Conditionalbondsandgrantsaffordgoodexamplesoflimitingmeans
whentheyexceedjustbounds.Conditionalbondsandgrantsareoftwo
kinds.Oneiswheretheconditionisultimateasforexample,abond
formoneygrantedtoayoungwomanuponconditionofherbeing

marriedtoamannamed,orabondformoneytoayoungmanupon
conditionofhisenteringintoholyorders.Theotheriswherethe
conditionisameanstoacertainendasforexample,abondforasum
ofmoneytoayoungwomanuponconditionofhermarryingwith
consentofcertainfriendsnamed,theintendmentofwhichconditionis
topreventanunsuitablematch.Conditionsofthefirstkindaretaken
strictly,andthesumisnotdueunlesstheconditionbepurified.Thisis
requisiteincommonlawandnotlesssoinequity,becausejustice
requiresthataman'swillbemadeeffectual.Tojudgearightofthe
otherkind,weoughttolaythechiefweightupontheultimatepurpose
ofthegranterwhich,inthecaselastmentioned,istoconfinethe
youngwomantoasuitablematch.Ifshethereforemarrysuitably,or,
suppose,aboveherrank,thoughwithoutconsultingthefriendsnamed,
Ipronouncethatthebondoughttobeeffectualinequity,thoughnotat
commonlaw.Thereasonthatdeterminesmyopinionisgivenabove,
thatweightoughttobelaidupontheultimatepurpose,evenin
oppositiontothedeclaredmeansandthatjusticeisfulfilledwhenthe
granter'sultimatepurposeismadeeffectual.Iamaware,thatin
Scotlandwearetaughtadifferentdoctrine.Inbondsofthekindunder
consideration,adistinctionismadebetweenasuspensivecondition,
andonethatisresolutive.Ifthebondtotheyoungwomancontaina
resolutiveconditiononly,viz.ifshemarrywithoutconsentsheshall
forfeitthebond,itisadmitted,thattheforfeiturewillnottakeeffect
unlessshemarryunsuitably.Butitisheldbyeveryone,thata
suspensivecondition,suchasthatabovementioned,mustbeperformed
intheprecisetermsoftheclausebecause,saythey,thewillofthe
grantermustbetheruleandnocourthaspowertovaryaconditional
grant,ortotransformitintoonethatispureand
Page155
simple.Thisargumentisconclusivewhereaconditionisultimate,
whethersuspensiveorresolutivebutfarotherwisewherethe
conditionisameanstoanend.Itistrue,thatthewillofthegranter
mustbetherule:butitmustbehisultimatewillorintention,in
oppositiontohiswillwithrespecttodisproportionedmeans.Letustry
theforceofthisreasoning,bybringingitdowntocommon
apprehension.Whyisaresolutiveconditiondisregarded,wherethe
obligeemarriessuitably?Forwhatotherreason,butthatthisresolutive
conditionisconsideredasameanstoanend,andthatiftheendbe
accomplishedthegranter'spurposeisfulfilled?Isnotthisreasoning
applicableequallytothesuspensiveconditionunderconsideration?No
manofplainunderstanding,unacquaintedwithlaw,willdiscoverany
difference.Andaccordingly,inthelaterpracticeoftheEnglishcourt
ofchancery,thisdifferenceseemstobedisregarded.AportionofL.
8000isgiventoawomanprovidedshemarrywithconsentofAandif
shemarrywithouthisconsent,sheshallhavebutL.100yearly.She
wasrelievedthoughshemarriedwithoutconsentfortheprovisoisin
terroremonly*.
Onehavingthreedaughters,deviseslandstohiseldest,uponcondition
thatwithinsixmonthsafterhisdeathshepaycertainsumstohertwo
sistersandifshefail,hedevisesthelandtohisseconddaughteronthe
likecondition.Thecourtmayenlargethetimeforpayment,thoughthe
premisesaredevisedover.Andinallcaseswherecompensationcanbe

madeforthedelay,thecourtmaydispensewiththetime,thougheven
inthecaseofaconditionprecedent.Thispracticalruleisevidently
derivedfromthereasoningabovestated.
Takeanotherexamplethatcomesunderthesameruleofequity.A
claimistransacted,andalesssumaccepted,uponconditionthatthe
samebepaidatadaycertain,otherwisethetransactiontobevoid.Itis
thegeneralopinion,thatwheretheclauseisresolutive,equitywill
relieveagainstitafterthestipulatedtermiselapsed,providedthe
transactedsumbepaidbeforeprocessberaisedbutitisdeniedthat
thiswillholdwheretheclauseissuspensive.Inmyapprehension,
thereisanequitablegroundforreliefinbothequally.Theformmaybe
different,buttheintentionisthesameinboth,viz.tocompelpayment
ofthetransactedsumandthereforeifpaymentbeofferedatanytime
beforeadeclaratorofirritancy,with
Page156
damagesforthedelay,theconditionalirritancyhashadthefulleffect
thatwasultimatelyintended.Equitythereforerequiresadeclaratorof
irritancy,whethertheclausebesuspensiveorresolutiveandthe
defendantoughttobeadmittedtopurgethefailurebyoffering
paymentofthetransactedsum.Thecase,Iacknowledge,isdifferent
wherethetransactedsumistobepaidinparcels,andatdifferent
periodsasforexample,whereanannuityistransactedforalessyearly
sum.Acourtofequitywillscarceinterposeinthiscase,butleavethe
irritancytotakeplaceipsofacto,bytherulesofcommonlawforifthe
irritantclausebenotinthiscasepermittedtooperateipsofacto,itwill
bealtogetherineffectual,andbenocompulsiontomakepayment.Ifa
declaratorbenecessary,thedefendantmustbeadmittedtopurge
beforesentenceandifitbeatallnecessary,itmustberenewedevery
termwherethereisafailureofpayment.Thiswouldbeunjust,because
itreducesthecreditortothesamedifficultiesofrecoveringhis
transactedsumthathehadwithrespecttohisoriginalsumwhich,in
effect,istoforfeitthecreditorforhismoderation,insteadofforfeiting
thedebtorforhisingratitude.
Theexamplesabovegivencoincideinthefollowingpoint,Thatthe
actsofcontraventionarecapableofbeingpurged,soastorestore
matterstothesamesituationasiftherehadbeennocontravention.But
thereareactsincapableofbeingpurged,suchasthecuttingdowntrees
byatenant.Now,supposealeasebegrantedwithaclauseofforfeiture
incaseoffellingtrees,willequityrelieveagainstthisforfeitureinany
case?Iftheactofcontraventionwasdoneknowingly,andconsequently
criminally,therecanbenoequityingivingreliefbutifitwasdone
ignorantlyandinnocently,acourtofequityoughttointerposeagainst
theforfeiture,uponmakingupfulldamagestothelandlord.Takethe
followinginstance.Theplaintiff,tenantforlifeofacopyholdestate,
felledtrees,which,atacourtbaron,wasfoundawaste,and
consequentlyaforfeiture.Thebillwastoberelievedagainstthe
forfeiture,offeringsatisfactionifitappearedtobeawaste.Thecourt
decreedanissue,totrywhethertheprimaryintentioninfellingthe
treeswastodowastedeclaring,thatincaseofawilfulforfeitureit
wouldnotrelieve*.

Page157
SECT.V.Wherethereisafailureinperformance.
ART.I.Wherethefailureistotal.

INordertodistinguishequityfromcommonlawuponthissubject,we
mustbeginwithexaminingwhatpoweracourtofcommonlawhasto
compelpersonstofulfiltheirengagements.Thatthiscourthasnot
powertodecreespecificperformance,isanestablishedmaximin
England,foundeduponthefollowingreason.Ineveryengagement
theremustbeatermspecifiedforperformance:beforethattermthere
canbenodemandforperformance,noranyprocessbroughtuponthat
headandafterthetermispast,performanceatthatpreciseterm
becomesimprestable.Acourtofcommonlaw,confinedtothewords
ofadeedorcovenant,hathnotpowertosubstituteequivalentsand
thereforeallthatcanbedonebysuchacourt,istoawarddamages
againstthepartywhofailstoperform.Evenabondofborrowedmoney
isnotanexceptionforafterthetermofpayment,thesumisorderedto
bepaidbyacourtofcommonlaw,notasperformanceofthe
obligation,butasdamagefornotperformance.This,itmustbe
acknowledged,isagreatdefectfortheobviousintentionoftheparties
inmakingacovenant,isnottohavedamages,butperformance.The
defectoughttobesuppliedanditissuppliedbyacourtofequityupon
aprincipleoftenmentioned,Thatwherethereisarightitoughttobe
madeeffectual.Byeverycovenantthatisnotconditional,thereisa
rightacquiredtoeachparty:atermspecifiedforperformanceisamean
toascertainperformance,notaconditionandwhenthatmeanfails,it
isthedutyofacourtofequitytosupplyanothermean,thatistoname
anotherday.
Toillustratethisdoctrine,severalcasesshallbestatedwithrespectto
theperformanceofacovenant.Inaminuteofsaleofland,atermis
namedforenteringthepurchaserintopossession,andforpaymentof
theprice.Bysomeaccident,thematterliesovertillthetermispast,
withoutademandoneitherside.Atcommonlawtheminuteofsaleis
renderedineffectualbecausepossessioncannotbedeliveredatthe
termcovenanted,northepricepaidafterthattermiselapsed:neither
candamagebeawardedfornonperformance,becauseneitherpartyhas
beeninmora.Itbelongsthentoa
Page158
courtofequitytoassignanewtermforspecificperformance,whichis
fulfillingthepurposeofthecovenant,andmakingtherightsarising
therefromeffectual.Atthesametime,itoughtnottobeoverlooked,
thatthenaminganewtermforperformancemustvarythearticlesof
theoriginalagreement.Thepricecannotbearinterestfromtheterm
namedintheminute,becausethepurchaserwasnotboundtopaythe
priceuntilheshouldgetpossession:noristhevenderliabletoaccount
fortherentsfromthatterm,becausehecouldnotbeboundtoyield
possessiontillthepricewasoffered.Theseseveralprestationsmust
takeplacefromthenewtermnamedbythecourtofequity.
Supposingnowamoraononeside.Thepurchaser,forexample,
demandsperformanceoftheminuteofsaleatthetermstipulatedand

yearspassindiscussingthevender'sdefences.Theseatlastare
repelled,andthepurchaserinsistsforspecificperformance.Whatdoth
equitysuggestinthiscase?fornow,thetermofperformancebeing
past,theoriginalarticlescannotbefulfilled.Onethingisevident,that
thepurchasermustnotsufferbythevender'sfailure:andthereforea
courtofequity,thoughitmustnameanewtermforperformance,may,
however,ifthepurchaserinsistuponit,appointanaccounttobemade
uponthefootingoftheoriginalarticles.Iftherent,forexample,exceed
theinterestofthemoney,thebalancemaybejustlyclaimedbythe
purchaser,becausehewouldhavehadthebenefitofthatexcessifthe
venderhadperformedasheoughttohavedone.Butwhatiftheinterest
oftheprice,asusual,exceedtheneatrent?Thevenderwillnotbe
intitledtothedifferenceforthepurchaserwasnotboundtopaythe
pricetillpossessionwasofferedhim,andhecouldnotbeliablefor
interestbeforetheprincipalsumwasdue.Inaword,thepurchaserhas
aclaimfordamageintheformercasebecause,wheretherentexceeds
theinterest,hecanqualifydamagebythedelayofperformance.Butin
thelattercase,wheretheinterestexceedstherent,thepurchaser,
insteadoflosing,gainsbythedelay,anduponthataccounthasno
damagetoclaim.Thisatfirstviewmaybethoughttoclashwiththe
maximCujuscommodumejusdebetesseincommodum:dothitnot
seemunjust,thatthepurchasershouldhaveanoptiontoclaimtherents
fromthebeginning,oronlyfromthepresenttime,asbestsuitshis
interest?Itmayseemsoatfirstview,butthereisnoinjusticein
reality:thepurchaser'soptionarisethjustlyfromthefailureofhis
partywhichshowsthattheforegoingmaximobtainsbetweenpersons
onlywhoareuponanequalfooting,notwhere
Page159
theoneisguiltyofafaultrespectingtheother.Ineedscarceadd,that
thesameoptionwhichisgiventothepurchaserwherethevenderisin
mora,isgiventothevenderwherethepurchaserisinmora.
Itfrequentlyhappensthatspecificperformancebecomesimprestable
aswhereIsellthesamehorsesuccessivelytoAandB.Inthiscasethe
performancetoAbecomesimprestableafterthehorseisdeliveredto
Bandtherefore,insteadofdecreeingspecificperformance,thecourt
ofequitymustbesatisfied,likeacourtofcommonlaw,todecree
damages,accordingtothemaximQuodlocofactiimpraestabilis
succeditdamnumetinteresse.
Thissuggestsanenquiry,Whetherinawardingdamagestherebeany
differencebetweenacourtofequityandacourtofcommonlaw.The
obligorbeingboundtoperformwhatheundertakes,oughtfromthe
verynatureofhisobligationtomakeupthelossoccasionedbyhis
failureandeveryfailureaccordinglywillaffordagoodclaimfor
damagesatcommonlaw.Thusthepurchaserofanestatefromanheir
apparent,having,alongwiththedisposition,receivedaprocuratoryto
serveandinfefthisauthor,employshisowndoertoperformthatwork.
Bythedoer'sremissness,theheirapparentdieswithoutbeinginfeft,
whichrendersthedispositionineffectualtothepurchaser.Thedoeris
boundatcommonlawtomakeupthepurchaser'sloss,thoughitbe
lucrumcessansonly.Incasesofthatnature,ifskillbeprofessed,
unskilfulnesswillaffordnodefence.

"Proculusait,simedicusservumimperitesecuerit,vellocatovelexlege
Aquilacompetereactionem*.Celsusetiamimperitiamculpae
adnumerandamscripsit.Siquisvitulospascendosvelsarciendumquid
poliendumveconduxit,culpameumpraestaredebereetquodimperitia
peccavitculpamesse,quippeutartifexconduxit."
Uponthisprinciplethefollowingcasewasdetermined.Anadvocatebeing
indebtedaconsiderablesumtohisclient,wroteanddeliveredhimabillof
exchangeforthesum.Beingsuedforpayment,heobjectedthatthebillwas
null,ascontainingapenalty.Itisprobablethattheadvocatewasignorantof
thisnullitywhenhedrewthebillbutheundertookthetrustofdrawingit,and
thereforewasboundtomakeiteffectualtohisclient.
Whenaprisonerfordebtmakesanescape,thecreditorishurtinhis
interest,butsustainsnoactualdamageforitisnotcertainthat
Page160
hewouldhaverecoveredhismoneybydetainingthedebtorinprison
anditispossiblehemayyetrecoverit,notwithstandingtheescape.
Butitisundoubtedlyahurtorprejudicetobedeprivedofhis
expectationtoobtainpaymentbytheimprisonmentandthecommon
lawgivesreparationbymakingthenegligentjailorliableforthedebt,
preciselyasequitydothinsimilarcases.Amessengerwhoneglectsto
putacaptioninexecution,affordsanotherinstanceofthesamekind.
Byhisnegligenceheissaidlitemsuamfacere,andissubjectedtothe
debt.Theundertakinganofficeimpliesanagreementtofulfiltheduty
oftheofficeinallitsbranchesandnegligenceaccordinglyisabreach
ofagreement,whichmustsubjecttheofficertoalltheconsequences,
whetheractualdamageoranyotherprejudice.Itoughtnottoescape
observationatthesametime,thatasneglectmerelywithoutintention
ofmischiefisnogroundforpunishment,damagesaretheonlymeans
withinthecompassoflawforcompellingamantobediligentin
performinghisduty.
Certaincovenantsunknowninthecommonlawbelongtoequity.Abill
ofexchangewasofthatnature,tillitwasbroughtunderthecommon
lawbyactofparliamentandwhileitcontinuedinitsoriginalstate,
damagesfromfailureofperformancecouldnotbeclaimedbutina
courtofequity.Apolicyofinsuranceistothisdayunknownat
commonlawandconsequentlyeverywrongrelativetoitmustbe
redressedinacourtofequity.
Andnowastotherulesforestimatingdamageuponfailuretoperform
acovenant.Afailuretoperformanyduty,whetherarisingfroma
covenantornot,isafaultonly,notacrimeandtherefore,accordingto
whatislaiddownabove*,noconsequentialdamagethatisuncertain
oughttobeclaimed.Thereisthegreaterreasonforthismoderation
withrespecttocovenants,wherethefailureisfrequentlyoccasionedby
averyslightfault,andsometimesbyinabilitywithoutanyfault.This
ruleisadoptedbythewritersontheRomanlaw:
"Cumpervenditoremsteteritquominusremtradat,omnisutilitas

emptorisinaestimationemvenit:quaemodocircaipsamremconsistit.
Nequeenim,sipotuitexvinoputanegotiari,etlucrumfacere,id
aestimandumest,nonmagisquamsitriticumemerit,etobeamremquod
nonsittraditum,familiaejusfamelaboraverit:nampretiumtritici,non
servorumfamenecatorum,consequitur."
"Venditorisiemptorinpretiosolvendomoramfecerit,usurasduntaxat
praestabit,nonomneomninoquod
Page161
venditor,moranonfacta,consequipotuitvelutisinegotiatorfuit,etpretio
soluto,exmercibusplusquamexusurisquaererepotuit*."
Incomparingtherulelaiddowninthiscaseforestimatingdamage,
withthatmentionedaboveconcerningajailorandamessenger,thereis
anappearanceasifuncertaindamage,rejectedintheformer,were
admittedinthelatterandthismaybethoughtaninconsistencyinthe
ruleherelaiddownforestimatingdamage.Butthisdifficultywillbe
removedbyasingleobservation,Thatuncertaindamageisnot
admittedineithercase.Theriskacreditorrunsuponescapeofhis
prisonerisextremelycertain,howeveruncertaintheconsequencesmay
be.Itisthisriskonlythatisestimatedanditisestimatedinthemost
accuratemanner,byrelievingthecreditorfromit,andlayingitupon
thejailorormessenger.
Uponthewhole,withrespecttodamagesfrombreachofcovenants,it
appearsthatthereisnodefectincommonlawtomaketheinterposition
ofequitynecessary.Andthisobservation,itispresumed,willhold
alsowithrespecttodeeds.
ART.II.Wherethefailureispartialonly,nottotal.

MANYobligationsareofsuchanatureastoadmitnomedium
betweencompleteperformanceandtotalfailure.Astoother
obligations,theremaybeapartialperformance,andconsequentlya
failurethatisbutpartial.Abargainandsaleofahorse,foraprice
certain,furnishethanexampleofeachkind.Thevender'sperformance
isindivisible:ifhedelivernotthehorse,hisfailureistotal.The
obligationuponthepurchasertopaytheprice,admitsaperformance
byparts:ifhehavepaidanypartoftheprice,hisperformanceis
partial,andhisfailurepartial.
Manyobligationsadfactapraestandaadmitamediumbetween
completeperformanceandtotalfailure.Awaggonerwhoengagesto
carrygoodsfromLondontoEdinburgh,andstopsshortatNewcastle,
hasperformedhisbargaininpart,andconsequentlyhasfailedbutin
part.Thelike,whereashipfreightedforavoyageisforcedbystressof
weathertolandhercargobeforearrivingatthedestinedport.
Incasesofthiskindthequestionis,Whatshallbethelegaleffectofa
partialfailure?Withrespecttocommonlawtheansweriseasy:taking
thebargainstrictly,Iamnotboundtopaythepriceorwagestillmy
partyhaveperformedhispartofthebargain,thatis,the

Page162
wholeofwhathebecameboundtoperform.Butinordertoanswerthe
questionwithrespecttoequity,aculpablefailuremustbe
distinguishedfromafailureoccasionedbyaccidentormisfortune.In
theformercaseacourtofequitywillgivenoreliefitbeingageneral
rule,Thatnoclaimissustainedinequitywheretheclaimis
occasionedbythefaultoftheclaimanthimself.Butinthelattercase,a
claimwillbesustainedforapartofthepriceorwages,inproportionto
theperformance,upontheprincipleNemodebetlocupletarialiena
jactura.Thus,ifamanundertaketobuildmeahouseforacertain
price,accordingtoaplanconcerted,anddiebeforethehousebefully
completed,hisrepresentativeswillinequitybeintitledtoapartofthe
price,inproportiontothequantityofworkdoneforinproportionto
thatquantityIamlocupletioralienajactura.Thus,inthecaseabove
mentioned,ifthewaggonerdieatNewcastle,orbepreventedbyother
accidentfromcompletinghisjourney,heorhisexecutorswillhavea
claimagainsthisemployerprorataitineris.Anduponthesame
principlethefreightisdueprorataitineriswhichwasfoundinthe
caseLutwidgecontraGray*.
Aprocesswaslatelybroughtbeforethecourtofsessionuponthe
followingfact.MarinerswerehiredatGlasgowtoperformatrading
voyagetoNewfoundland,fromthencetoLisbon,andfromLisbonto
Clydeacertainsumpermonthforwages,tobepaidwhenthevoyage
shouldbecompleted.TheGlasgowcargowassafelylandedin
Newfoundlandandacargooffish,receivedthere,wasdeliveredat
Lisbon.Inthehomewardpassage,theship,withtheLisboncargo,was
takenbyaFrenchprivateerandthemariners,whentheyobtainedtheir
liberty,demandedtheirwagesprorataitineris.Thiscausewas
compromisedbutfromwhatissaid,marinersstandevidentlyuponthe
samefootingwithawaggoner,oranownerofafreightedship.And
accordingly,itisacommonsaying,Thatthefreightisthemotherof
theseamenswagesmeaning,thatiftheformerbedue,thelattermust
alsobedue.
Page163
SECT.VI.Indirectmeansusedtoevadeperformance.

AMongpersonswhoaresway'dbyinterestmorethanbyconscience,the
employingindirectmeanstoevadetheeffectoftheirengagements,isfar
frombeingrare.Suchconduct,asbeinginconsistentwiththatcandorand
bonafideswhichisrequisiteincontracting,andinperformingcontracts,
ismorallywrongandacourtofequitywillbewatchfultodisappoint
everyattemptofthatnature.Thus,ifaman,subjectedtoathirlageofall
theoatsgrowingonhisfarmthatheshallhaveoccasiontogrind,sellhis
ownproductofoats,andbuymealfortheuseofhisfamily,withnoother
viewbuttodisappointthethirlage,thisisawrongcontrabonamfidem
contractus,whichwillsubjecthimtothemulturethatwouldhavebeen
dueforgrindingtheoatsofhisownfarm.Thefollowingcaseisan
exampleofthesamekind.Agentlemanbeingabroad,andhavingno
prospectofchildren,twoofhisnearestrelationsagreedprivately,thatif
theestateshouldbedisponedtoeither,theotherwastohaveacertain

share.Thegentleman,ignorantofthisagreement,settledhisestateupon
oneofthem,reservingapowertoalter.Thedisponeesenthisson
privatelytoDenmark,wherethegentlemanresided:uponwhichthe
formerdeedwasrecalled,andanewsettlementmadeupontheson.Ina
processafterthegentleman'sdeathforperformanceoftheagreement,the
defencewas,Thattheagreementdidnottakeplace,asthedispositionwas
notinfavourofthedefendant,butofhisson.Thecourtfound,Thatthe
defendanthadactedfraudulently,inobtaininganalterationofthe
settlementinordertoevadeperformanceoftheagreementandthatno
maninconsciencecantakebenefitbyhisownfraud.Forwhichreasonhe
wasdecreedtofulfiltheengagementasifthealterationhadnotbeen
made*.
Uponthesamefoundationreststhefollowingrule,Thatacourtofequity
willnotsustainanyobjectionwhichiscalculatedbytheobjectorto
evadeanobligationheisundertothepersonagainstwhomtheobjection
ismade.Thisrulewillbeexplainedbythefollowingexamples.Ina
ranking,acreditorclaimedpreferenceuponthedebtor'sescheat,because
ithadfallenbyadenunciationuponhishorning.Answered,Thatthere
wasnoescheat,thedebtorbeingrelaxed
Page164
andthatthoughtherelaxationwasinformal,yetthecreditorhad
consentedtoit.Thecourtwouldnotpermitthecreditortoevadetheeffect
ofhisconsent,byinsistingupontheinformalityoftherelaxationandfor
thatreasonfoundhimexcludedpersonaliobjectionefromobjectingto
therelaxation*.Inacompetitionbetweentwoannualrenters,thefirstof
whomwasboundtothesecondascautionerthefirstclaiming
preference,itwasobjectedbytheother,thatitwasunjustinthecautioner
tousehispreferableinfeftmentforexcludingacreditorwhosedebthe
wasboundtopay.Thecourtrefusedtosustainthispersonalobjection
leavingthesecondannualrentertoinsistpersonallyagainstthefirstas
cautioner.Thiswasactingasacourtofcommonlaw,notasacourtof
equity:foritwasundoubtedlyamoralwronginthefirstannualrenterto
layholdofanymeanstoevadeoreventodelayperformanceofhis
cautionaryobligementandthecourtoughttohaverepressedthismoral
wrong,bysustainingthepersonalobjectionagainsthim.Acautionerfora
curatorbeingsuedforasumleviedbythecurator,curatorionomine,
objected,Thatthecuratorhadnorightbyreasonofaprioractof
curatorystandingunreduced.Itbeingagainstconscienceforamanthus
toevadeperformanceofhisownengagement,thecautionerwasrepelled
personaliobjectionefrompleadingthedefence.Averbalpromiseto
disponelandisnotmadeeffectualinequitybecauseacourtofequity
cannotoverturncommonlaw,whichgivesapowerofrepentanceunless
writbeinterposed.Butapurchaserinsistingforperformanceofa
dispositionoflandgrantedtohim,andthedisponerdefendinghimself
uponanullityinthedispositionthecourtfound,Thatthedefendantwas
barredpersonaliobjectionefromobjectingthenullity,becausehehad
verballyagreedtoratifythedisposition.
Thefirstthingconsideredinaprocessisthepursuer'stitleandwherethe
titleisinsufficient,itistheprovinceofthejudgetorefuseprocess,even
thoughnoobjectionbemadebythedefendant.Henceitfollows,thatthe

defendantcannotbebarredpersonaliobjectionefromobjectingtothe
pursuer'stitle.Thus,againstapoindingoftheground,whichcannot
proceedbutuponaninfeftment,itbeingobjected,Thatthepursuerwas
notinfeftitwasanswered,Thatthedefendant,whoisthesuperior,is
boundbythefeudalcontracttoinfeftthepursuer,andhadbeenchargedto
thateffectandthathe
Page165
couldnotmoveanobjectionwhicharosefromhisownfault.Thecourt
judged,Thatitisparsjudicistorefusetosustainactionwithoutagood
titleandthereforethatnopersonalobjectionagainstthedefendantcan
supplythewantofatitle*.
SECT.VII.Repentanceinwhatcontractspermitted,andtowhom.

HAveweinScotlandanyactionsimilartowhatintheRomanlawis
termedCondictiocausadatacausanonsecuta?Voet,uponthetitle
Condictiocausadata,&c.says,Thatthecondictioexpaenitentiaisnot
admittedinmodernpractice,becauseeverypactionisnowobligatory.It
mayindeedappearsingular,thatthereshouldbeacovenantofsucha
nature,astoaffordtotheonepartyanexceptionfoundedonpaenitentia
merely,orchangeofmind,andnottotheother.Iinclinehowevertobe
ofopinion,thatthisprivilegehathanequitablefoundationwithrespectto
everycovenantthatissolelyorchieflybeneficialtooneofthe
contractors,andoflittleornoconsequencetotheother.Forexample,I
promiseamanasumofmoneytomanumithisslave.Thismanisnot
interestedtodemandperformanceofthepromise,becausehegainsno
morebythemoneythanhelosesbythemanumission.Therefore,from
thenatureofthething,theprivilegeofrepentanceoughttobeindulged
me.Thecommonlawhoweverinthiscaseaffordsmenorelief,because
itknowsnodistinctionofparties:butitistheprovinceofacourtof
equitytoaffordreliefwherethecommonlawisdeficient.
Withrespecttocovenantsinwhichbothpartiesareinterested,buttheone
much,theotherlittle,itappearstome,thatthepartychieflyinterested
mayberelievedinequity,ifhecanshowthatperformancewillbe
prejudicialtohim.Forexample,Ibargainwithanundertakertobuildme
adwellinghouseforacertainsum,accordingtoaplanconcerted.Before
theworkisbegun,theplanisdiscoveredtobefaultyinmanycapital
articles,anduponthewholetobeillcontrived.AmIbound
notwithstandingtofulfilmycovenantwiththeundertaker?Thiswouldbe
hard,andscarceagreeabletothebenevolenceofjustice.Supposeagain,
that,uponamorenarrowinspection
Page166
spectionintomyaffairs,thesumagreedonforbuildingisfoundtobe
morethanIcanafford.Orwhatif,intheinterim,Isucceedtoanestate,
withagoodhouseuponitoraminvitedbyanemploymenttosettle
elsewhere?IfIamrelieved,theundertakerloseslittle,beingatlibertyto
acceptofemploymentfromothers:butifIberigidlytiedbymy
engagement,agreatinterestonmysideissacrificedtoasmallintereston

his.Covenants,intendedforthesupportofsociety,andtoconnect
individualsbymutualgoodoffices,oughtnottobestretchedtotheirruin.
Thesoledifficultyis,todetermineinwhatcasesacourtofequityshould
interpose.Thisisadelicatepointforitwillnotbethoughtthatitoughtto
interposeineverycovenantthatisnotstrictlyequal.Itisundoubtedlythe
safestcoursetorefusetheaidofthecourt,unlesswherethecircumstances
aresostrongastoaffordaclearconvictionofthehardshipof
performance.
Somecovenantsareofsuchanature,andhavesuchimportant
consequences,thattoeachpartythereislocuspoenitentiaebefore
performance.Acontractofmarriageisoneoftheseandforthatreason,
abondgrantedbyawomantomarrytheobligeeunderthepenaltyofa
certainsum,willnotbeeffectualinequity*.Uponthesameprinciple
thereislocuspoenitentiaetogetfreefromaverbalbargainaboutland.
SECT.VIII.Howfaradeedorcovenantvoidatcommonlawcanbesupportedinequity.

APrincipleinlogics,Thatwillwithoutpowercannotoperateanyeffect,
isapplicabletolawmattersandisexpressedasfollows,Thatadeed
ultraviresisnullandvoid.Thecommonlawadheresrigidlytothis
principle,withoutdistinguishingwhetherthedeedbetotallybeyondthe
powerofthemaker,orinpartonly:itisconsideredasonedeed,which
mustbeentirelyeffectualorentirelyvoid.Thedistinctionisreservedtoa
courtofequity,whichgivesforcetoeveryrationaldeedasfarasthe
maker'spowerextends.
Thisdoctrineshallbeillustratedbyproperexamples.Ifonehavingpower
tograntaleasefortenyearsgrantsitfortwenty,theleaseis
Page167
inequitygoodfortenyears*.Forheretherecanbenodoubtaboutwill
andjusticerequires,thattheleasestandgoodaslongaswillissupported
bypower.Atacksetbyaparsonformorethanthreeyearswithout
consentofthepatron,isatcommonlawvoidtotally,butinequityis
sustainedforthethreeyears.Butacollegehavingsetaperpetuallease
oftheirteindsfor50merksyearly,whichteindswereyearlyworth200
merks,andtheleasebeingchallengedforwantofpowerinthemakers,
whocouldnotgivesuchaleasewithoutanadequateconsideration,it
wasfoundtotallynull,andnotsustainedforanylimitedtimeorhigher
duty.Foracourtofequity,aswellasacourtofcommonlaw,mustact
bygeneralrulesandheretherewasnoruleforascertainingeitherthe
enduranceoftheleaseortheextentoftheduty.Further,acourtofequity
mayseparateadeedintoitsconstituentparts,andsupportthemaker'swill
asfarashehadpower:butherethelimitingtheenduranceand
augmentingthedutysoastocorrespondtothepowerofthemakers,
wouldbetoframeanewlease,varyingineveryarticlefromthewillof
themakersoftheleasechallenged.
Thesettlementofanestatebymarriagearticlesupontheheirofthe
marriage,isnotintendedtobarthehusbandfromasecondmarriagenor
consequentlytobarhimfrommakingrationalprovisionstotheissueof
thatmarriage.Letussupposethatamanthusboundtotheheirofhisfirst
marriage,makesexorbitantprovisionstohischildrenofthesecond

marriage,suchashiswholeestate,orthegreaterpart.Thissettlementis
voidableatcommonlaw,asabreachofengagementanditisamatterof
delicacyforacourtofequitytointerposewheretheyhavenogeneralrule
fordirection.Justicehoweverdemandsaninterposition,thatchildren,to
whomthefathercertainlyintendedtogiveallinhispower,maynotbe
leftentirelydestitute:norwoulditbeconsistentwithcommonsense,that
childrenshouldsufferasmuchbyexcessofaffectionintheirfatherasby
hisutterneglect.Inthiscase,therefore,thecourtofsessioninterposes,
byrestrictingtheprovisionswithinrationalbounds,suchasareconsistent
withtheengagementthefathercameunderinhisfirstcontractof
marriage.Thecourthoweverneverinterposeswithoutnecessityand
thereforeifthecommonlawaffordanymeansforprovidingthechildren,
thesemeansarepreferred.This
Page168
observationwillbeputinaclearlightbythefollowingcase.Colonel
Campbell,bymarriagearticles,beingboundtoprovidetotheissue
thereofthesumof40,000merks,withtheconquest,did,byadeathbed
settlement,appointhiseldestsontobeheirandexecutorandleftitupon
theDukeofArgyleandEarlofIlaytonamerationalprovisionstohis
youngerchildren.Therefereeshavingdeclinedthetrustreposedinthem,
theyoungerchildreninsistedtohavethesettlementvoided,as
contradictorytothemarriagearticles.Itwaspleadedfortheheir,Thatthe
Colonelhadapowertodividethespecialsumandconquest,bygiving
moretoonechildandlesstoanotherandthoughthewholehappenstobe
settledontheeldestsonbyaccident,notbyintention,yetthatthis
inequality,supposingittohavebeenintended,isnofoundationfor
voidingthesettlementtotally,butonlytobringintheyoungerchildren
foramoderateshare.Thecourtvoidedthesettlementtotallywhich
intitledthechildreneachofthemtoanequalshareofthesubjects
providedtotheminthemarriagecontract*.Thecourtmustinterpose
wheretherigorofthecommonlawdeprivestheyoungerchildrenofall:
butinthepresentcasethesettlementwasvoidatcommonlawandthe
youngerchildrenbeingsufficientlyprovidedbythecontractofmarriage,
therewasnonecessityforanequitableinterposition.
Itbeingtheprofessedintentionofpartiesenteringintoasubmission,to
putanendtoallthedifferencesthataresubmitted,arbitersarechosento
fulfilthatintention,whoareboundbyacceptancetoexecutethe
commissiongiventhem.Henceanawardordecreetarbitralisvoidat
commonlaw,ifanyarticlesubmittedbeleftundecided,becauseinthat
casethecommissionisnotexecuted.Thisisequitableaswellaslegal
wherethesubmissioncontainsmutualclaims,itbeinggrosslypartialto
ascertaintheclaimsofoneoftheparties,whiletheotherislefttoan
action.Butwheretheclaimsareallononeside,andsomeofthemonly
determined,equitywillsupporttheaward,which,asfarasitgoes,is
beneficialtothepartiesforitisalwaysbettertohavesomeoftheir
disputesdeterminedthannoneofthem.Thishowevergoesuponthe
supposition,thatnoobjectioninequityliesagainsttheaward:forifa
deedbenullatcommonlaw,acourtofequitywillneversupportit,except
asfarasitisjust.
Whenarbiterstakeuponthemtodeterminearticlesthatarenotsubmitted,
theawardordecreetarbitralisatcommonlawvoid,

Page169
evenwithrespecttothearticlessubmittedbecauseitisconsideredas
oneentireact,whichmustbewhollyeffectualorwhollyvoid.Equity
goesmoreaccuratelytowork:itseparatesthearticlessubmittedfrom
thosenotsubmitted,andsustainstheawardasfarasthearbiterswere
vestedwithproperpowers.Thus,iftwosubmitallactionssubsistingat
thedateofthesubmission,andthearbitratorsawardareleaseofall
actionstothetimeoftheaward,theawardshallbegoodforwhatisinthe
submission,andvoidfortheresidueonly*.Adecreetarbitralbeing
challenged,asultravirescompromissi,withrespecttomutualgeneral
discharges,whichwereorderedtobegranted,thoughsomeparticular
claimsonlyweresubmittedthedecreetarbitralwassustainedasfarasit
relatedtothearticlessubmitted,andvoidedonlyastothegeneral
discharges.
Bytheact80.parl.1579,
"alldeedsofgreatimportancemustbesubscribedandsealedbytheparties,
iftheycanwriteotherwisebytwonotariesbeforefourwitnesses,presentat
thetime,anddesignedbytheirdwellingplacesandthedeedswanting
theseformalitiesshallmakenofaith."
Withrespecttothisstatute,itisfixedbythecourtofsession,thatadeedisof
greatimportancewhenwhatisclaimeduponitexceedsinvalueL.100.And
uponthestatutethusconstructed,ithasoftenbeendisputedinthecourtof
session,WhetherabondforagreatersumthanL.100subscribedbyonenotary
onlyandfourwitnesses,ortwonotariesandthreewitnesses,bevoidorwhether
itoughttobesustainedtotheextentofL.100.Acourtofcommonlaw,adhering
tothewordsofthestatute,willrefuseactionuponit.Andsuchwasthepractice
originallyofthecourtofsession.Butacourtofequity,regardingthepurpose
ofthelegislature,whichistomakeadditionalchecksagainstfalsehoodinmatters
ofimportance,willsupportsuchdeedstotheextentofL.100:foradeed
becomesofsmallimportancewhenreducedtothatsum,andoughttobe
supportedupontheordinarychecks.Andaccordinglythecourtofsession,acting
inlatertimesasacourtofequity,supportssuchbondstotheextentofL.100.
Butinapplyingtherulesofequitytothiscase,thebondoughttobeforavaluable
consideration,oratleastbearational
Page170
act.Forifirrational,itisnotintitledtoanysupportfromequity.
OralevidenceisnotsustainedinScotlandtoproveaverballegacy
exceedingL.100butifitberestrictedtothatsum,witnessesare
admitted*.
Inthecasesmentioned,therearenonewhohaveoccasionforthe
equitablereliefbutthoseonlywhoarepartiestothetransaction.Butin
manycasesthirdpartieshappentobeaffected,ofwhichtakethe
followingexample.Ayoungerbrotherservesheirtohisfather,andis
infeft,theeldesthavingbeensolongabroadastobereputeddead.He
comeshome,andclaimsthesuccessionwhichipsofactovoidsthe

serviceandinfeftmentofhisbrotherbecauseaservicecanhavenolegal
effectwithoutarighttobeserved.Intheinterimtheyoungerbrotherhas
actedbonafideasproprietor:andmanyhavebeenhistransactionswith
thirdparties,whowerealsoinbonafidewhichtransactions,being
foundeduponhistitleofproperty,arenullandvoid,asflowinganon
habentepotestatem.Istherenoreliefinequityinacaseofthisnature,
wherethehardshiponthirdpartiesisintolerable?Onethingisclear,that
thebonafidesoftheyoungerbrotherwillsecurehimagainstaclaimfor
therentsconsumed.Ontheotherhand,itisequallyclear,thatnosale
madebyhimcanbeeffectual,unlessasfarasnecessaryforpaymentof
thefamilydebtstowhichextentasalemaybesupportedinequity.The
onlygeneralruleis,Thatequitywillsupporteveryactofordinary
administrationbutthatactsofextraordinaryadministrationwillnotbe
effectual,exceptsuchasbeingprudentandrationalarebeneficialtothe
righteousheir.Uponthatrulethecourtproceededinthefamouscaseof
Missinish,whobeingtheonlyheirinbeingatthetime,wasadmittedto
serve,thoughtherewasanearerheirinpossibility,whoafterwardexisted.
Missinish,byhisserviceandinfeftment,wasonlyaconditional
proprietor,hisrightdependingontheexistenceornonexistenceofa
nearerheirandasanearerheircameintoexistence,Missinish'sright
wasnullaprincipio.Buthehavingsoldlandforpaymentofthefamily
debtswhiletherewasyetnoprospectofanearerheir,thesalewas
supportedbythecourtofsession,uponevidencebroughtthatitwasin
remversumofthetrueheir.
SimilaristhecaseofCountAntoniusLeslie,analien,whowas
Page171
servedandinfeftintheestateofBalquhain,asnextheirofentailforan
alienatthattimewasthoughtcapabletoinheritlandinScotland.Buthis
titlebeingafterwardchallengeduponthatgroundbyPeterLeslieGrant,
thenextsubstitute,thereasonofreductionwassustainedinthecourtof
session,andinthehouseofLords.Duringhispossessionhehadsold
manytreescometomaturity,thepriceofwhichhehadreceived.Andhe
wasprotectedfromaccountingforarticlesofthissortthathappenedwhile
hewasinbonafide.
ThefamouscaseofBarbariusPhilippus*isaninstanceofthesamekind.
BeingelectedaRomanPraetor,hedeterminedmanycauses,and
transactedeverysortofbusinessthatbelongedtotheoffice.Atthelong
runhewasdiscoveredtobeaslave,whichrenderedallhisactsand
deedsvoidatcommonlawbecausenonebutafreemanwascapabletobe
electedaRomanPraetor.Withrespecttothirdparties,however,hisacts
anddeedswereheldtobegood,asifhereallyhadbeenaPraetor.
SECT.IX.Whetheranysuperveningaccidentcaninequityvoidorrenderineffectualacontract
originallyunexceptionable.

INJanuary1755,FosterandDuncansettoAdamsonandWilliamsona
salmonfishingintheriverTayoppositetoErrol,onthenorthsideofa
shallownamedtheGuineabank,toendureforfiveyears.Theriverthere
isbroadbutthecurrent,beingnarrow,passedatthattimealongthenorth
sideofthesaidbank,therestoftheriverbeingdeadwater.Asonecannot
fishwithprofitbutinthecurrent,thetacksmenmadelargeprofitsthefirst

twoyears,andwerenotlosersthethirdbutthefourthyearthecurrent
changed,whichfrequentlyhappensinthatriver,andinsteadofpassingas
formerlyalongthenorthsideofthebank,passedalongthesouthside,
whichwasapartoftheriversettoothertacksmenbywhichmeansthe
fishingsettoAdamsonandWilliamsonbecameentirelyunprofitablethe
remainderoftheirlease.
Thegrantersofthetackhavingbroughtaprocessagainstthetacksmen
forL.36Sterling,beingthetackdutyforthetwolastyears,thedefence
wasatotalsterilitybythechangeofthecurrentasaforesaid
Page172
andaproofbeingtaken,thefactsappearedtobewhatareabove
mentioned.
Itwasadmittedforthepursuers,thattheextinctionofthesubjectmust
havetheeffectevenatcommonlawtoputanendtotheleasebecausethe
leasehavingaspecialrelationtoasubjectwhichistobepossessedfor
rent,itcannotsubsistwhenthereremainsnosubjectthatcanbe
possessedasforexample,whenlandisswallowedupbythesea,orwhen
arivertotallychangesitscourse,andneverreturnstoitsformerchannel.
Thecaseisdifferentinsterility,whetheroflandoroffishingfortherethe
subjectremaininginexistence,isstillcapabletobepossessedbythe
lesseeandconsequentlytheleasesubsists,andtherentisdue,however
unprofitablethepossessionmaybe.Ifthereforetherebeanyreliefinthe
caseofsterility,itmustbeuponequitableconsiderationsandwhatever
maybethoughtwithrespecttoatotalsterilityduringthewholeyearsof
thelease,orduringtheremainingyearsaftertheleaseisofferedtobe
givenup,thesterilityherewastemporaryonly:forasthestreamofthe
riverTayisextremelychangeable,itmighthavereturnedtoitsformer
placeinamonthorinaweekandasthetacksmenadheredtothetack,
anddidnotoffertosurrenderthepossession,theycertainlywereindaily
expectationthatthecurrentwouldtakeitsformercourse.Thatsucha
temporarysterilitycannotaffordadefenceinequityagainstpaymentof
therent,willappearfromthefollowingconsiderations.Primo,Alease
putsthelesseeinplaceofthelandlordastoprofitandlosstheprofitis
hiswithoutlimitation,andsooughttheloss:Cujuscommodumejusdebet
esseincommodumisaruleinequitythatholdswiththegreatestforceina
leasewherethelesseedrawsalltheprofit,ifitshouldbetentimeshis
rent,andontheotherhandcanneverlosemorethanhisrent.Secundo,
Therecanbenoequityinthedefenceaftertheleaseisatanend.Forat
thatratethetenanthasafinegametoplay:ifthesterilitycontinuetothe
endofthelease,thetenanttakesadvantageoftheequitabledefencetoget
freeoftherentbutiffruitfulnessberestored,hetakesadvantageofthe
lease,andmakesalltheprofithecan.Thelandlordbythismeans
continuesboundwhilethetenantisfree,whichisrepugnanttoallthe
rulesofequityaswellasofcommonlaw.Tertio,Atanyratethetenant
cannotpickoutoneorothersterileyeartogetfreeofthatyear'srent:if
equityaffordhimanydeduction,itmustbeuponacalculationofthe
wholeyearsoftheleaseforifhebeagaineruponthewhole,whichisthe
presentcase,hehasnoclaiminequityforanydeduction.Itwascarried,
however,byapluralitytosustainthedefenceofsterility,
Page173

andtoassoilziethedefendersfromtherentdueforthelasttwoyearsof
thetack.
Thisjudgementseemsnotbetterfoundedinequitythanatcommonlaw
anditiseasytodiscoverwhatmovedtheplurality.Inaquestionbetween
arichlandlordandapoortenant,thenaturalbiasisinfavourofthelatter:
thesubjectincontroversymaybeatrifletothelandlord,andyetbethe
tenant'sall,Acasemaybeputoppositetothatunderconsideration.A
widowwomanwithanumerousfamilyofchildrenhasnothingtosubsist
onbutherliferentofadwellinghouse,andofanextensiveorchard.
Thesesheleasestoamaninopulentcircumstances,forarentofL.15for
thehouse,andL.25fortheorchard.Hepossessesforseveralyearswith
reasonableprofit.Theorchardhappenstobebarrenthetwolastyearsof
thelease,andheclaimsadeductionuponthataccount.Nomanwould
givethiscaseagainstthewidow.Somuchdoextraneouscircumstances
influencethedeterminationsofacourt,evenwherethejudgesarenot
sensibleofthem.
Iamnotcertainbutthatsomeofthejudgesconsideredthisasarei
interitustoaffordadefenceatcommonlawaverygreatmistake,asa
thingcannotbeunderstoodtobetotallydestroy'dwhilewehavedaily
expectationofitsbeingrestoredtoitsformercondition*.
SECT.X.Whereadeedorcovenantisoccasionedbyerror.

ERrormaybedistinguishedintotwokinds.Onepreventsconsent
altogetherasforexample,wherethepurchaserhasonesubjectinview
andthevenderanother.Inthiscasethereisnobargainfortheparties
agreenotinthesamething.Thiscanonlyhappenincovenantsandasno
obligationcanarisewherethereisnoagreement,suchacovenant,ifit
canbecalledso,isvoidbythecommonlawandthereisnooccasionfor
theinterpositionofequity.Theotherkindiswheretheerrorisnotsuch
astopreventconsent,butisamotiveonlyforenteringintoan
engagement.Anerrorofthiskindmayhappeninsingledeedsaswellas
incovenantsandasherewillorconsentisreallyinterposed,thedeed
mustbeeffectualatcommonlawandthequestionis,Whether,orhow
far,thereoughttobeareliefinequityonaccountoftheerror?
Page174
Amaximabovelaiddown*willpavethewaytothesolutionofthis
question,viz.Thatonecertansdedamnoevitandomaylawfullytake
advantageofanerrorcommittedbyanotherbutthatjusticeforbidssuch
advantagetobetakeninordertomakepositivegainbyit.Fromthe
investigationofthismaximintheplacecited,itwillappearthatjustice
makesnodistinctionbetweenanerrorinfactandanerrorinlaw.One
differenceindeedthereis,whichbelongsnottothepresenthead,thatan
errorinlawisnotsoreadilypresumedasanerrorinfact.
Ishallbeginwithshowingwhatinfluenceanerrorhaswithrelationto
grantsandothersingledeeds.Somearepurelygratuitous,someare
foundedonanantecedentrationalcause.Suchcausemustinallevents
supportthedeed,becausejusticewillnotpermitthemakertoseek
restitutionagainstadeedwhichitwasrationaltogrant.Andsupposing
himtobeboundinconscienceonly,acourtofequitywillnotvoidan

honestdeed,thoughoccasionedbyanerroneousmotive.Arichman,for
example,executesabondinfavourofanindigentrelation,movedbyan
erroneousbeliefthatthisrelationhadbehavedgallantlyinabattlewhere
hewasnotevenpresent.Equitywillnotrelievethegranteragainstthis
deed,beinginitselfrational,andwhichatanyrateisamatterofcharity.
Thecreditor,itistrue,gainsbytheerror:butthenitcannotbesaidthathe
laysholdofthiserrortohurtthegranterofthebond,becauseaman
cannotbesaidtobehurtbydoinganactofgenerosityorcharity.
Equitythereforerelievesnotfromerror,exceptwithrelationtodeeds
purelygratuitous,suchasdonations,legacies,&c.norwithrelationto
these,unlesswherethesolemotiveofgrantingiserroneous.Anerrorthe
discoveryofwhichwouldnothavetotallypreventedthedeed,cannotat
allberegardedforagratuitousdeedmustbesustainedinwholeor
voidedinwhole,therenotbeinghereasincovenantsanymeasureof
equalityorinequality.Withrespectthentoagratuitousdeedwherethe
solemotiveofgrantingiserroneous,justicerequiresthatthegranterbe
relievedfromperformance.Hefeelshimselfnotboundinconscienceand
thegrantee'sconsciencedictatestohim,thatheoughtnottomakeprofit
bysucherror.TothispurposePapinian.
"Falsamcausamlegatononobesse,veriusest:quiaratiolegandilegatonon
cohaeret.Sedplerumquedoliexceptiolocumhabebit,siprobeturalias
legaturusnonfuisse."
ThefollowingtextsoftheCorpusJurisareproperexamplesofthisrule:
"Longemagislegatofalsacausaadjectanonnocet:veluti
Page175
cumquisitadixerit,Titio,quiameabsentenegotiameacuravit,Stichumdo,
lego.Velita,Titio,quiapatrocinioejuscapitalicrimineliberatussum,
Stichumdo,lego.LicetenimnequenegotiatestatorisunquamgesseritTitius,
nequepatrocinioejusliberatussit,legatumtamenvalet.Sedsi
conditionaliterenunciatafueritcausa,aliudjurisest:velutihocmodo,Titio,
sinegotiameacuraverit,fundummeumdo,lego*."
Again,
"Quodautemjurisestinfalsademonstratione,hocvelmagisestinfalsa
causa.Velutiita,Titiofundumdo,quianegotiameacuravit.Item,Fundum
Titiusfiliusmeuspraecipito,quiafraterejusexarcatotaureossumpsit:licet
enimfraterhujuspecuniamexarcanonsumpsit,utilelegatumest."
Hereitisfarfrombeingclearthattheerrorwasthesoleimpulsivecauseofthe
legacy.Butthecircumstancesofthefollowingcasemakeitevidentthattheerror
wasthesoleimpulsivecause,soastobringitunderthesaidexception
mentionedbyPapinian.
"PactumeiusAndrosthenesPactumeiamMagnamfiliamPactumeiiMagni
exasseheredeminstituerat:eiquepatremejussubstituerat.Pactumeio
Magnoocciso,etrumoreperlato,quasifiliaquoqueejusmortua,mutavit

testamentum,NoviumqueRufumheredeminstituit,hacpraefatione:Quia
heredesquosvoluihaberemihi,continerenonpotui,NoviusRufusheres
esto.PactumeiaMagnasupplicavitImperatoresnostrosetcognitione
suscepta,licetmodusinstitutionecontineretur,quiafalsusnonsoletobesse,
tamenexvoluntatetestantisputavitImperatoreisubveniendum.Igitur
pronunciavit,HereditatemadMagnampertinere,sedlegataexposteriore
testamentoeampraestaredebere,proindeatquesiinposterioribustabulis
ipsafuissetheresscripta."
Inthiscasetwoseparatefoundationsofanequitablereliefappearinaclearlight:
First,AsettlementcausedbyerrorSecondly,Aprovisionmadebyasettlement
forafiguredevent,notforthatwhichreallyexisted.Justicethereforeinterposes
againstsuchasettlementbecausetosustainitwouldbethesameasdisinheriting
thefavouriteheir,contrarytotheintentionofthemaker.
Withrespecttothelegaciescontainedinthelattertestament,against
whichnoreliefwasgranted,theopiniondeliveredappearswellfounded.
Forthoughthetestatorwasdeterminedbyanerroneousmotivetomake
thetestamentasfarasconcernedRufustheheir,therewasnoevidence
norpresumptionthathewasdeterminedbythesameerrortomakethe
legacies.
Page176
Withrespecttocontractswheremeansareerroneouslychosenthatanswer
nottheintentionofthecontractors,anerrorofthismagnitudewillvoid
thecontract:astowhich,seesect.4.art.1.Butanyerrorofless
importancewillnotberegarded.Ipurchase,forexample,atelescope,
judgingittobemountedwithsilverequitywillnotrelievemefromthe
bargainthoughthemountingprovestobeofabasermetal.Thesameofa
watch,thecaseofwhichItaketobegold,thoughitbeonlysilvergilt.
Theornamentsofaninstrumentormachinehavenorelationtouseandif
thesubjectpurchasedansweritsend,thechiefviewofthepurchaseris
obtained.Themostthatcanbemadeofanerrorinsuchacase,istofound
aclaiminequityforabatingthepriceinordertomakethebargain
strictlyequalandthiswasdonebytheRomanlaw,whichannullsevery
salewherethelesionorprejudiceisultraduplum*.Butaclaimofthis
nature,asprejudicialtocommerce,isopposedbytheprincipleofutility,
andforthatreasonisrejectedinmostcommercialcountries.
Thisaffordsagoodopportunitytoillustratethelegaleffectsofa
transaction.Atransactionputtinganendtoanymatterincontroversyor
dispute,mustbeeffectualforadeedwillneverbepresumedtoproceed
fromerror,wherethereisajustorrationalmotiveformakingit.Onthe
otherhand,ifamanbemovedtomakeatransactionuponsuppositionof
aclaimwhichhasnofoundation,anerrorofthiskindwillundoubtedly
entitlehimtoberelievedinequity.
"Siexfalsisinstrumentistransactionesvelpactionesinitaefuerint,quamvis
jusjurandumdehisinterpositumsit,etiamciviliterfalsorevelato,eas
retractaripraecipimusitademum,utsidepluribuscausisvelcapitulis
eaedempactionesseutransactionesinitaefuerint,illatantummodocausavel
parsretractetur,quaeexfalsoinstrumentocompositoconvictafuerit,aliis

capitulisfirmismanentibus."
Forherethemotiveformakingthetransactionwaserroneous.
Oneindeedmaybemovedbyerrortomakeanunequaltransaction,
whichwouldbecorrectedbyequitydidnotutilitystandinthewayforto
extinguishlawsuitsandcontroversies,thegreatsourceofidlenessand
discord,isnotadvantageoustothoseonlywhodealincommerce,butto
all.Uponthisaccountnoinequality,howevergreat,oughttoberegarded
inatransactionwherethereisnoothercauseforgivingrelief.An
interposition,eveninthestrongestcase,mustgiveencouragementtolaw
suitsforifoneobtainredress,otherswillhopeforitwhohavenotso
goodaclaim.Itwillhavestillaworseeffect,bymakingjudgesarbitrary,
whoinsuchacasecanhavenogeneralruletodirecttheirdecrees.
Page177
CHAP.V.Powersofacourtofequitytoremedywhatisimperfectincommonlawwithrespectto
statutes.

COnsideringthelimitednatureofacourtofcommonlaw,thereisnoreason
thatitshouldhavemorepoweroverstatutesthanoverprivatedeeds.With
respecttobothitisconfinedtothewords,andmustnotpretendto
pronounceanyjudgementuponthespiritandmeaninginoppositiontothe
words.Andyetthewordsofastatutecorrespondnotalwaystothewillof
thelegislaturenorarethethingsenactedpropermeansalwaystoanswerthe
endinviewfallingsometimesshortoftheend,andsometimesgoing
beyondit.Henceinmakingstatuteseffectual,thereisthesamenecessityfor
theinterpositionofacourtofequitytosupplydefectsandcorrectexcesses,
thatthereisinmakingdeedsandcovenantseffectual.Butinordertoforma
justnotionofthepowersofacourtofequitywithrespecttostatutes,itis
necessary,asapreliminarypoint,toascertainhowfartheycomeunderthe
powersofacourtofcommonlawandwiththatpointIshallcommencethe
inquiry.
Submissiontoaregulargovernmentisuniversallyacknowledgedtobea
duty:butthetruefoundationofthisdutyseemstolieinobscurity,though
scarceanyothertopichasfilledmorevolumes.Manywritersderivethis
dutyfromanoriginalcompactbetweenthesovereignandhispeople.Beit
so.Butthen,whatbindsthosewhofollowinsuccession?foracompact
bindsthoseonlywhoarepartiestoitnottomentionthatgovernmentswere
establishedlongbeforecontractswereofanyconsiderableauthority*.
Others,dissatisfiedwiththisnarrowfoundation,endeavourtoassignone
moreextensive,derivingtheforegoingdutyfromwhatistermedinthe
Romanlawaquasicontract.
"Itisarule,"theysay,"inlaw,andincommonsense,Thatamanwholayshold
ofabenefit,musttakeitwithitsconditions,andsubmittoitsnecessary
consequences.Thusonewhoacceptsasuccession,mustpaytheancestor's
debts:heispresumedtoagreetothiscondition,andisnotlessfirmlybound
thanbyanexplicitengagement.Inpointofgovernment,protectionand
submissionarereciprocalandthetakingprotectionfromalawful
Page178

government,infersaconsenttosubmittoitslaws."
Thisgroundofsubmissionisnotmuchmoreextensivethantheformerforboth
proceeduponthesupposition,thatwithoutconsentexpress'dorimply'dnoperson
owesobediencetogovernment.Atthisrate,thegreaterpartofthosewholiveunder
governmentareleftinastateofindependencyforseldomisthereoccasionto
affordsuchpeculiarprotectiontoprivatepersons,asnecessarilytoinfertheir
consent.Infact,thefargreaterpartofthosewholiveinsociety,arenotcapableto
understandtheforegoingreasoning:manyofthemhavenoteventheslightestnotion
ofwhatismeantbythetermsprotectionandsubmission.Iaminclinedthereforeto
think,thatthisimportantdutyhasamoresolidfoundationand,comparingitwith
othermoralduties,Ifindnoreasontodoubt,that,likethem,itisdeeplyrootedin
humannature*.Ifamanbeasocialbeing,andgovernmentessentialtosociety,itis
notconformabletotheanalogyofnature,thatweshouldbelefttoanargumentfor
investigatingthedutyweoweourrulers.Ifjustice,veracity,gratitude,andother
privateduties,besupportedandinforc'dbythemoralsense,itwouldbestrangethat
natureshouldbedeficientwithrespecttothepublicdutyonly.Butnatureisnot
deficientinanybranchofthehumanconstitution:governmentisnotlessnecessary
tosociety,thansocietytomanandbytheveryframeofournaturewearefittedfor
governmentaswellasforsociety.Toformoriginallyastateorsocietyunder
government,therecanbenomeans,itistrue,otherthancompactbutthis
foundationisfarfrombeingsufficienttosupportastateafteritisformed,andto
preserveitforanycourseoftime.Thecontinuanceofastate,andofgovernment
overmultitudeswhoneverhaveoccasiontopromisesubmission,mustdependona
differentprinciple.Themoralsense,whichbindsindividualstobejusttoeachother,
bindsthemequallytosubmittothelawsoftheirsocietyandwehaveaclear
convictionthatthisisourduty.Thestrengthofthisconvictionisnowheremore
visiblethaninadisciplinedarmy.Therethedutyofsubmissionisexertedevery
momentatthehazardoflifeandfrequentlywherethehazardisimminent,and
deathalmostcertain.Inaword,whatreasonshowstobenecessaryinsociety,is,by
themoralsense,madeanindispensableduty.Wehaveasenseoffitnessand
rectitudeinsubmittingtothelawsofoursocietyandwehaveasense
Page179
ofwrong,ofguilt,andofmeritingpunishment,whenwetransgressthema.
Henceitclearlyfollows,thateveryvoluntarytransgressionofwhatisby
statuteorderedtobedoneorprohibited,isamoralwrong,anda
transgressionofthelawofnature.Thisdoctrinewillbefoundofgreat
importanceinthepresentinquiry.
Manydifferencesamongstatutesmustbekeptinview,inordertoascertain
thepowersofacourtofcommonlawconcerningthem.Somestatutesare
compulsory,othersprohibitorysomerespectindividuals,othersthepublic
onlyofsomethetransgressionoccasionsdamage,ofothersnottosomea
penaltyisannexed,othersrestuponauthoritymerely.
Ibeginwiththosewhichrestuponauthoritymerely,withoutannexingany
penaltytothetransgression.Theneglectofacompulsorystatuteofthis
kindwillfoundanactionatcommonlawtothosewhohaveinterest,
ordainingthedefendanteithertodowhatthestatuterequires,ortopay
damages.If,again,thetransgressionofaprohibitorystatuteofthesame
kindharmanyperson,thedutyofthecourtisobvious:Theharmmustbe
repaired,byvoidingtheactwhereitcanbevoided,suchasanalienation

afterinhibitionandwheretheharmisincapableofthisremedy,damages
mustbeawarded.Thisisfulfillingthewillofthelegislature,beingallthat
isintendedbysuchstatutes.
Butfromdisobeyingastatuteprejudiceoftenensues,which,notbeing
pecuniary,cannotberepairedbyawardingasuminnameof
Page180
damages.Statutesrelatingtothepublicaregenerallyofthisnatureand
manyalsoinwhichindividualsareimmediatelyconcerneda.Toclearthis
pointwemustdistinguishasformerlybetweencompulsoryandprohibitory
statutes.Thetransgressionofaprohibitorystatuteisadirectcontemptof
legalauthority,andconsequentlyamoralwrong,whichoughttobe
redressedanditmustnecessarilybethepurposeofthelegislaturetoleave
theremedytoacourtoflaw,wheretheprohibitionisnotenforcedbya
particularsanction.Thisisaclearinference,unlesswesupposethe
legislatureguiltyofanabsurdity,viz.prohibitingathingtobedone,andyet
leavingindividualsatlibertytodisobeywithimpunity.Tomakethewillof
thelegislatureeffectualinthiscase,differentmeansmustbeemploy'd
accordingtothenatureofthesubject.Ifanactdoneprohibentelegecanbe
undone,themosteffectualmethodofredressingthewrongistovoidtheact.
Iftheactcannotbeundone,theonlymeansleftispunishment.And
accordinglyitisaruleinthelawofEngland*,thatanoffenderforcontempt
ofthelaw,maybefinedandimprisonedattheKing'ssuitb.
Ontheotherhand,thetransgressionofacompulsorystatuteorderinga
thingtobedone,infersnotnecessarilyacontemptoflegalauthority.Itmay
beanactofomissiononly,whichisnotcriminalanditwillalwaysbe
constructedtobesuch,unless,fromcollateralcircumstances,itbemade
evidentthattherewasapositiveintentiontocontemnthelaw.Supposing
thenthetransgressiontobeanactofomissiononly,andconsequentlyno
placeforpunishment,thequestionis,Whatcanbedone,inordertofulfil
thewillofthelegislature?Thecourthastwomethods:oneis,toorderthe
statutetobefulfilledandifthisorderbealsodisobey'd,acriminal
contemptmustbetheconstructionoftheperson'sbehaviour,tobefollowed,
asintheformercase,withaproperpunishment.Theotheris,to
Page181
orderthethingtobedoneunderapenalty.Igiveanexample.The
freeholdersarebystatuteboundtoconveneatMichaelmas,inorderto
receiveupontherollpersonsqualifiedbutnopenaltyisaddedtocompel
obedience.Inodiumofafreeholderwhodesirestobeputupontheroll,they
forbeartomeet.Whatistheremedyherewherethereisnopecuniary
damage?Thecourtofsessionmayappointthemtomeetunderapenalty.
For,ingeneral,ifitbethedutyofjudgestoordertheend,theymustuse
suchmeansasareintheirpower.Andifthiscanbedonewithrespecttoa
privateperson,itfollows,thatwhereathingisorderedtobedoneforthe
goodofthepublic,itbelongstothecourtofsession,uponapplicationofthe
King'sAdvocate,toorderthethingtobedoneunderapenalty.Inaprocess
attheinstanceofanheritorintitledtoasalmonfishinginariver,againstan
inferiorheritor,forregulatinghiscruiveandcruivedike,concluding,That

heshouldobservetheSaturday'sslapthatthehecksofhiscruivesshouldbe
threeincheswide,&c.itwasdecreed,Thatthedefendantshouldbeobliged
toobservetheseregulationsunderthepenaltyofL.50Sterling.Itwas
urgedforthedefendant,Thatthepursuermustbesatisfiedwithdamages
uponcontraventionbecausethelawhasimposednopenalty,andthecourt
canimposenone.Answered,Thatitisbeyondthereachofarttoascertain
thedamageinthiscaseandthereforethattoinforcetheseregulationsa
penaltyisnecessary.Forifthisremedybeneglectedbythelegislature,it
mustsuppliedbyacourtofequityupontheprinciple,Thatiftherebearight
itoughttobemadeeffectual.
Whatnextcomeunderconsiderationarestatutesforbiddingthingstobe
doneunderapenaltyfortotheomissionofathingorderedtobedone,a
penaltyisseldomannexed.Thesearedistinguishableintotwokinds.The
firstregardthemorenoxiousevils,whichthelegislatureprohibits
absolutelyleavingthecourtsoflawtoemployallthemeansintheirpower
forrepressingthembutaddingapenaltybeforehand,becausethatcheckis
notinthepowerofcourtsoflaw.Thesecondregardslighterevils,torepress
whichnoothermeansareintendedtobeappliedbutapecuniarypenalty
only.Bothkindsareequallybindinginconscienceforineverycaseitisa
moralwrongtodisobeythelaw.Butthendisobediencetoastatuteofthe
secondclassisattendedwithnootherconsequencebutpaymentofthe
penaltywhereasthepenaltyinthefirstclassisdue,aswesay,byandattour
performanceandforthatreason,acourtoflaw,besideinflictingthe
penalty,isboundtouseallthemeansinitspowertomakethewillofthe
legislatureeffectual,inthesamemannerasif
Page182
therewerenopenalty.Andevensupposingthattheactprohibitediscapable
ofbeingvoidedbythesentenceofacourt,thepenaltyoughtstilltobe
inflictedforotherwiseitwillloseitsinfluenceasaprohibitorymeans.
Prohibitorystatutesareoftensoinaccuratelyexpressed,astoleaveit
doubtfulwhetherthepenaltybeintendedtheonlymeansofrepressingthe
evil,oroneofthemeansonly.Thisdefectoccasionsincourtsoflawmuch
conjecturalreasoning,andmanyarbitraryjudgements.Thecapital
circumstanceforascertainingthedifference,appearstobethenatureofthe
evilprohibited.Withrespecttoeveryevilofaperniciousnature,andofa
generalbadtendency,itoughttobeheldthewillofthelegislaturetogiveno
quarter:andconsequently,besideinflictingthepenalty,itisthedutyof
courtsoflawtouseeveryothermeantomakethiswilleffectual.With
respectagaintoevilsofalessperniciousorlessextensivenature,itought
tobeheldtheintentionofthelegislature,toleavenopowerwithjudges
beyondinflictingthepenalty.Thisdoctrinewillbeillustratedbythe
followingexamples.Bytheact52.parl.1587.
"Hewhobargainsforgreaterprofitthan10percent.shallbepunishedasan
usurer."
Hereisapenaltywithoutdeclaringsuchbargainsnull:andyetithaseverbeenheld
theintendmentofthisacttodischargeusurytotallyandthepenaltyisdeemedto
beaddedasonemeanonlyofmakingtheprohibitioneffectual.Therewas
accordinglyneveranydifficultyofsustainingactionforvoidingusuriousbargains,

norevenofmakingthelenderliableforthesumsreceivedbyhimabovethelegal
interest.Thisthenisheldtobeastatuteofthefirstclass.Thefollowingstatutes
belongtothesecondclass.Anexclusiveprivilegeofprintingbooksisgiventothe
authorsandtheirassignsforthetermoffourteenyears.Anypersonwhowithinthe
timelimitedprintsorimportsanysuchbook,shallforfeitthesametothe
proprietor,andonepennyforeverysheetfoundinhiscustodythehalftotheKing,
andtheotherhalftowhoevershallsueforthesame*.Withrespecttothemonopoly
grantedbythisstatute,ithasbeenjustlyestablished,thatacourtoflawisconfined
tothepenalty,andcannotapplyothermeansformakingiteffectual,notevenan
actionofdamagesagainstaninterloper.
"Membersofthecollegeofjusticearedischargedtobuyanylands,teinds,&c.
thepropertyofwhichiscontrovertedinaprocess,underthecertificationof
losingtheiroffice."
Theevilherebeingneithersoperniciousnor
Page183
soextensiveasusury,ithasbeenalwaysheldthesenseofthestatute,tobesatisfied
withthepenalty,withoutgivingauthoritytoreduceorvoidsuchbargains.
Butthoughcontractsordeedscontrarytostatutoryprohibitionsofthekind
lastmentioned,arenotsubjecttoreduction,itisaverydifferentpoint,
Whetheritbethedutyofcourtsoflawtoforceperformanceofsucha
contractordeedbysustainingactionuponit.Andyetthisdistinctionseems
tohavebeenoverlookedinthecourtofsession:foritisthepracticeofthat
court,whiletheyinflictthepenalty,tosupportwiththeirauthoritythatvery
thingwhichisprohibitedunderthepenalty.Thusamemberofthecollege
ofjusticebuyinglandwhilethepropertyiscontrovertedinaprocess,is
deprivedofhisofficeandyet,withthesamebreath,actionisgivenhimto
maketheminuteofsaleeffectual*.This,ineffect,isconsideringthe
statute,notasprohibitoryofsuchpurchases,butmerelyaslayingatax
uponthem,similartowhatatpresentislaiduponplate,coaches,&c.Imust
takethelibertytosay,thattherecannotbeamoregrossmisapprehensionof
thespiritorintendmentofanystatutethanthisconstruction.Comparing
togetherthestatutescontainedinbothclasses,theonlydifferenceconcerns
themeansemploy'dformakingtheprohibitioneffectualthatbesidethe
penalty,othermeansmaybeemploy'dbycourtsoflawtorepressthemore
noxiousevils,whichcannotbedonewheretheevilsarelessnoxious.But
uponcoolreflectioneveryonemustbeofopinion,thatwithrespecttothe
prohibitionbothclassescoincideandthatitmustbethewillofthe
legislaturetoprohibitbothequally,becausebothindifferentdegreesare
hurtfultothesocietyingeneral,ortopartofit.Thisarticleisofnoslight
importance.IfIhavesetinajustlightthespiritandintendmentofthe
foregoingstatutes,itfollowsofnecessaryconsequence,thatanact
prohibitedinastatuteofthesecondclassoughtnottobecountenancedwith
anactionmorethananactprohibitedinastatuteofthefirstclass.Courtsof
lawwereinstitutedtoinforcethewillofthenationallegislature,aswellas
oftheGreatLegislatoroftheuniverse,andtoputinexecutionmunicipal
lawsaswellasthoseofnature.Whatshallwesaythenofacourtthat
supportsanactprohibitedbyastatute,orauthorisesanythingcontradictory
tothewillofthelegislature?Whatelsecanwejustlysay,butthatsuch
proceeding,repugnanttotheverydesign

Page184
ofitsinstitution,isadirectbreachoftrust,byactinginoppositionor
defianceofthelaw?Itisabreachoftrustofthesamenature,thoughnotthe
sameindegree,withthatofsustainingactionforabribepromisedto
commitmurderorrobbery.Withregardthentostatutesofthiskind,though
acourtisconfinedtothepenalty,andcannotinflictanyotherpunishment,
itdothbynomeansfollow,thatactionoughttobesustainedformakingthe
actprohibitedeffectual:onthecontrary,tosustainactionwouldbeflyingin
thefaceofthelegislature.Thestatute,forexample,mentionedabove,
concerningmembersofthecollegeofjustice,issatisfiedwiththepenaltyof
deprivation,withoutdeclaringthebargainnullandthereforetosustaina
reductionofthebargainwouldbetopunishbeyondthewords,andperhaps
beyondtheintentionofthestatute.Butwhetheractionshouldbesustained
tomakethebargaineffectual,isaconsiderationofaverydifferentnature:
therefusingactioninthiscase,ismadenecessarybytheveryconstitutionof
acourtoflawitbeinginconsistentwiththedesignofitsinstitution,to
inforceanycontractoranydeedprohibitedbystatute.Itfollowsindeed
fromthesepremisses,thatitisleftoptionaltothevendertofulfilthe
contractornotathispleasureforifacourtoflawcannotinterpose,heis
undernolegalcompulsion.Noristhisanovelty.Inmanycasesbesidethe
present,theruleisapplicableQuodpotiorestconditiopossidentis,where
anactionwillnotbegiventocompelperformance,andyetifperformance
bemade,anactionwillaslittlebegiventorecallit*.
Ponderingthissubjectsedatelyandattentively,Icanneverceasewondering
tofindthepracticeIhavebeencondemningextendedtoamuchstronger
case,wherethepurposeofthelegislaturetomakeanabsoluteprohibitionis
clearlyexpressed.ThecaseIhaveinviewrelatestotherevenuelaws,
prohibitingcertaingoodstobeimportedintothisisland,orprohibiting
themtobeimportedfromcertainplacesnamed.Toimportsuchgoods,orto
bargainabouttheirimportation,isclearlyacontemptoflegalauthority
andconsequentlyamoralwrong,whichthesmuggler'sconscienceoughtto
checkhimfor,andwhichitwillcheckhimfor,ifhebenotalreadya
hardenedsinner.Andyet,bymistakingthenatureofprohibitorylaws,
actionsinthecourtofsessionhavebeeneverydaysustainedformaking
suchsmugglingcontractseffectual.
"Nondubiumest,inlegemcommittereeum,quiverbalegisamplexus,contra
legisnititurvoluntatem.Necpoenasinsertaslegibusevitabit,quisecontra
jurissententiamsaevapraerogativa
Page185
verborumfraudulenterexcusat.Nullumenimpactum,nullamconventionem,
nullumcontractumintereosviderivolumussubsecutum,quicontrahuntlege
contrahereprohibente.Quodadomnesetiamleguminterpretationes,tam
veteresquamnovellas,trahigeneraliterimperamusutlegislatoriquodfieri
nonvult,tantumprohibuissesufficiat:caeteraque,quasiexpressa,exlegis
liceatvoluntatecolligere:hocest,utea,quaelegefieriprohibentur,sifuerint
facta,nonsoluminutilia,sedproinfectisetiamhabeantur:licetlegislatorfieri
prohibuerittantum,necspecialiterdixeritinutileessedeberequodfactumest*."

Somuchuponthepowersofacourtofcommonlawwithrespecttostatutes.
Uponthewholeitappears,thatthiscourtisconfinedtothewillofthe
legislatureasexpressedinthestatutorywords.Ithasnopowertorectifythe
words,nortoapplyanymeansformakingthepurposeofthelegislature
effectual,otherthanthosedirectedbythelegislature,howeverdefective
theymaybe.Thisimperfectionisremediedbyacourtofequity,which
enjoys,andoughttoenjoy,thesamepowerswithrespecttostatutesthatare
explainedabovewithrespecttodeedsandcovenants.Togiveajustnotion
ofthesepowersconcerningthepresentsubject,thefollowingdistinction
willcontribute.Statutes,asfarastheyregardmatteroflaw,andcomeunder
thecognisanceofacourtofequity,maybedividedintotwoclasses.First,
Thosewhichhavejusticefortheirobject,bysupplyingthedefects,or
correctingtheinjustice,ofcommonlaw.Second,Thosewhichhaveutility
fortheirsoleobject.Statutesofthefirstclassareintendedfornoother
purposebuttoenlargethejurisdictionofcourtsofcommonlaw,by
impoweringthemtodistributejusticewheretheirordinarypowersreach
not:suchstatutesarenotnecessarytoacourtofequity,which,byits
originalconstitution,cansupplythedefectsandcorrecttheinjusticeoflaw:
buttheyhavetheeffecttolimitthejurisdictionofacourtofequityforthe
remediesaffordedbythemmustbeputinexecutionbythecourtsof
commonlaw,andnolongerbyacourtofequity.Allthatislefttoacourtof
equityconcerningastatuteofthiskind,istosupplythedefectsandcorrect
theinjusticeofcommonlaw,asfarasthestatuteisincompleteorimperfect
which,ineffect,issupplyingthedefectsofthestatute.Butitisnotanew
powerbestoweduponacourtofequityastostatutesthatareimperfect:the
courtonlygoesontoexerciseitswontedpowerswithrespecttomattersof
justicethatareleftwithitbythestatute,andnotbestoweduponcourts
Page186
ofcommonlaw.Iexplainmyselfbyanexample.Whengoodsare
wrongouslytakenaway,thecommonlawofEnglandgaveanactionfor
restitutiontononebuttotheproprietorandthereforewhenthegoodsofa
monasterywerepillagedduringavacancy,thesucceedingabbothadno
action.Thisdefectinlawwithrespecttomaterialjustice,wouldprobably
havebeenlefttothecourtofchancery,haditspowersbeenevolvedwhen
thestatuteofMarlebirgesupplyingthedefectwasmade*butnoother
remedyoccurring,thatstatuteimpowersthejudgesofcommonlawto
sustainaction.Hadthestatuteneverexisted,actionwouldundoubtedlyhave
beensustainedinthecourtofchancery:allthepowerthatnowremains
withthatcourt,istosustainactionwherethestatuteisdefective.Thestatute
enacts,
"Thatthesuccessorshallhaveanactionagainstsuchtransgressor,for
restoringthegoodsofthemonastery."
Attendingtothewordssingly,whichacourtofcommonlawmustdo,theremedyis
incompletefortreescutdownandcarriedoffarenotmentioned.Thisdefectinthe
statute,issuppliedbythecourtofchancery.AndCokeobserves,thatastatutewhich
givesremedyforawrongdone,shallbetakenbyequity.Afterall,itmakesno
materialdifference,whethersuchinterpositionofacourtofequity,beconsideredas
supplyingdefectsincommonlaw,orassupplyingdefectinstatutes.Itisstill
enforcingjusticeinmatterswhichcomenotunderthepowersofacourtofcommon
law.

Statutesagainthathaveutilityfortheirobject,areoftwokinds.First,Those
whicharecalculatedforpromotingthepositivegoodandhappinessofthe
societyingeneral,orofsomeofitsmembersinparticular.Second,Those
whicharecalculatedforpreventingmischiefsolely.Defectivestatutesofthe
latterkindmaybesuppliedbyacourtofequitybecause,evenindependent
ofastatute,thatcourthathpowertomakeregulationsforpreventing
mischief.Butthatcourthathnot,morethanacourtofcommonlaw,any
powertosupplydefectivestatutesoftheformerkindbecauseitisnot
impoweredoriginallytointerposeinanymatterthathathnoothertendency
butmerelytopromotethepositivegoodofthesociety.Butthisisonly
mentionedheretogiveageneralviewofthesubject:forthepowersofa
courtofequityasdirectedbyutilityarethesubjectofthenextbook.
Havingsaidsomuchingeneral,wearepreparedforparticularswhichmay
commodiouslybedistributedintothreesections.First,
Page187
Wherethewillofthelegislatureisnotjustlyexpressedinthestatute.
Second,Wherethemeansenactedfallshortoftheendpurposedbythe
legislature.Third,Wherethemeansenactedreachunwarilybeyondtheend
purposedbythelegislature.
SECT.I.Wherethewillofthelegislatureisnotjustlyexpressedinthestatute.

THissection,forthesakeofperspicuity,shallbedividedintothree
articles.First,Wherethewordsareambiguous.Second,Wheretheyfall
shortofwill.Third,Wheretheygobeyondwill.
ART.I.Wherethewordsareambiguous.

THEfollowingisaproperinstance.Bytheact250.parliament1597,
"Vassalsfailingtopaytheirfeudutiesforthespaceoftwoyears,shall
forfeittheirfeurights,inthesamemannerasifaclauseirritantwere
ingrossedintheinfeftment."
Theforfeitingclausehereisambiguous:itmayeithermeananipsojure
forfeitureuponelapsingofthetwoyears:oritmaymeanaforfeitureifthefeu
dutybenotpaidafteraregulardemandinaprocess.Everyambiguousclause
oughttobesointerpretedastosupporttherulesofjustice,becausesuchmust
beconstructedtheintendmentofthelegislatureandthatbythisrulethelatter
sensemustbechosen,willappearfromtheslightestreflection.Theremedy
hereprovidedagainsttheobstinacyornegligenceofanundutifulvassal,could
neverbeintendedatrapfortheinnocent,byforfeitingthosewhohavefailedin
paymentthroughignoranceorinability.Theconstructionchosenmakingthe
rightvoidableonly,notvoidipsojure,obligesthesuperiortoinsistina
declaratorofirritancyorforfeiture,inordertovoidtherightwhichgivesthe
vassalanopportunitytopreventtheforfeiture,bypayingupallarrears.Bythis
method,itistrue,theguiltymayescape:butthisisfarmoreeligiblein
commonjustice,thanthattheinnocentbepunishedwiththeguilty.
Page188
ART.II.Wherethewordsfallshortofwill.

INtheactofCharlesII.layingataxonmaltliquors,therearenowords
directingthetaxtobepaid,butonlyapenaltyincaseofnotpayment.
Theexchequer,which,likethesession,isacourtbothofcommonlaw
andofequity,suppliesthedefectand,inordertofulfiltheintendment
ofthestatute,sustainsanactionforpaymentofthetax.
ART.III.Wherethewordsgobeyondwill.

BYtheact5.parl.1695,itisenacted,
"Thathereafternomanbindingforandwithanotherconjunctlyand
severally,inanybondorcontractforsumsofmoney,shallbebound
longerthansevenyearsafterthedateofthebond."
Itappearingtothecourt,fromthenatureofthething,andfromotherclausesin
thestatute,thatthewordsaretooextensive,andthattheprivilegewasintended
fornonebutforcautionersuponwhosefaithmoneyislent,theyhaveforthat
reasonbeenalwaysinusetorestrictthewords,andtodenytheprivilegeto
othercautioners.
Theact24.parl.1695,formakingeffectualthedebtsofheirswhoafter
threeyearspossessiondieinapparency,isplainlycalculatedfordebts
onlythatarecontractedforavaluableconsideration.Theacthowever
isexpressedinsuchextensiveterms,astocomprehenddebtsand
deeds,gratuitousaswellasforavaluableconsideration.Thecourt
therefore,restrictingthewordstothesenseofthestatute,never
sustainsactionuponthisstatutetogratuitouscreditors.
Theregulations1695,admittingnoobjectionagainstadecreetarbitral
butbriberyandcorruptiononly,reachunwarilybeyondthemeaningof
thelegislature.Adecreetarbitralderivesitsforcefromthesubmission
andforthatreasoneverygoodobjectionagainstasubmissionmust
operateagainstthedecreetarbitral.Butasubmissionisinitsnaturea
mutualcontractandthereforeeveryobjectionthatinitsnatureis
effectualtocutdownthesubmissionasamutualcontract,mustbe
equallyeffectualtocutdownthedecreetarbitralfoundeduponit.
ThefollowingisaninstancefromtheRomanlawwithrespecttothe
hereditatispetitio,ofwordsreachinginadvertentlybeyondthewillof
thelegislator.
"IlludquoquequodinorationeDivi
Page189
Hadrianiest,utpostacceptumjudiciumidacloripraestetur,quod
habiturusesset,sieotempore,quopetit,restitutaessethereditas,
interdumdurumest:quidenim,sipostlitemcontestatammancipia,aut
jumenta,autpecoradeperierint?Damnaridebebitsecundumverba
orationis:quiapotuitpetitor,restitutahereditate,distraxisseea.Ethoc
justumesseinspecialibuspetitionibusProculoplacet.Cassiuscontra
sensit.InpraedonispersonaProculusrecteexistimat:inbonaefidei
possessoribusCassius.Necenimdebetpossessorautmortalitatem
praestare,autproptermetumhujuspericulitemereindefensumjussuum

relinquere*."
SECT.II.Wherethemeansenactedfallshortoftheendpurposedbythelegislature.

THEfirstinstanceshallbegivenofmeansthataffordacompleteremedy
insomecases,neglectingothersubiparestratio.Inordertofulfiljustice,
thewillofthelegislaturemaybemadeeffectualbyacourtofequity,
whateverdefecttheremaybeinthewords.Takethefollowingexamples.
IntheRomanlaw,Ulpianmentionsthefollowingedict.
"Siquisidquod,jurisdictionisperpetuaecausa,inalbo,velincharta,velin
aliamateriapropositumerit,dolomalocorruperitdaturineum
quingentorumaureorumjudicium,quodpopulareest."
UponthisedictUlpiangivesthefollowingopinion.
"Quodsi,dumproponitur,velantepropositionem,quiscorruperitedicti
quidemverbacessabunt,Pomponiusautemaitsententiamedicti
porrigendamesseadhaec*."

"OratioImperatorumAntoninietCommodi,quaequasdamnuptias
inpersonamsenatoruminhibuit,desponsalibusnihillocutaest:recte
tamendicitur,etiamsponsaliainhiscasibusipsojurenulliusesse
momentiutsuppleatur,quodorationideest."
"LexJulia,quaededotalipraedioprospexit,neidmaritoliceat*
Page190
obligare,autalienare,pleniusinterpretandaest:utetiamdesponso
idemjurissit,quoddemarito*."

BythestatuteofGlocester,
"Amanshallhaveawritofwasteagainsthimwhoholdethfortermoflifeor
ofyears."
Thisstatute,whichsuppliesadefectinthecommonlaw,isextendedagainstone
whopossessesforhalfayearoraquarter.For(saysCoke)atenantforhalfayear
beingwithinthesamemischiefshallbewithinthesameremedy,thoughitbeout
oftheletterofthelaw.
Anheir,whetherapparentonly,orenteredcumbeneficio,cannotactmore
justlywithrespecttohispredecessor'screditorsthantobringhis
predecessor'sestatetoajudicialsale.Thepricegoestothecreditors,
whichisalltheyareintitledtoinjusticeandthesurplus,ifanybe,goes
totheheir,withoutsubjectinghimtotroubleorrisk.Theact24.parl.
1695,wasaccordinglymade,impoweringtheheirapparenttobringtoa
rouporpublicauctionhispredecessor'sestate,whetherbankruptornot.

Butasthereisasolidfoundationinjusticeforextendingthisprivilegeto
theheirenteredcumbeneficio,heisunderstoodasomittedperincuriam
andthecourtofsessionsuppliedthedefect,bysustainingaprocessatthe
instanceoftheheircumbeneficio,forsellinghispredecessor'sestate.
BythecommonlawofScotland,aman'screditorsafterhisdeathhadno
preferenceuponhisestate:thepropertywastransferredtohisheir,and
theheir'screditorscameinfortheirshare.Thiswasgrossinjusticefor
theancestor'screditors,wholenttheirmoneyuponthefaithoftheestate,
oughtinallviewstohavebeenpreferred.Theact24.parl.1661,madeto
redresstheinjusticeofthecommonlawinthisparticular,declares,
"Thatthecreditorsofthepredecessordoingdiligenceagainsttheapparent
heir,andagainsttherealestatewhichbelongedtothedefunct,withinthe
spaceofthreeyearsafterhisdeath,shallbepreferredtothecreditorsofthe
apparentheir."
Theremedyherereachingtherealestateonly,thecourtofsessioncompletedthe
remedy,byextendingittothepersonalestate**,andalsotoapersonalbond
limitedtoasubstitutenamed.Andasbeingacourtofequityitwaswell
authorisedtomakethisextensionfortowithdrawfromthepredecessor's
creditorspartofhispersonalestate,isnotlessunjustthantowithdrawfromthem
partofhisrealestate.
Page191
Onestatutethereis,orratherclauseinastatute,whichaffordsaplentiful
harvestofinstances.Bytheprinciplesofcommonlawanheirisintitledto
continuethepossessionofhisancestorandformerlyifhecouldcolour
hispossessionwithanysortoftitle,howeverobsoleteordefective,he
enjoy'dtherentsbestowingcommonlyasharetopreventthecreditors
fromdrawingpaymentoutoftheestate*.Amongmanyremediesforthis
flagrantinjustice,thereisaclauseintheact62.parl.1661,enacting,
"Thatincasetheapparentheirofanydebtorshallacquirerighttoanexpired
apprising,thesameshallberedeemablefromhim,hisheirsandsuccessors,
withintenyearsafteracquiringofthesame,bytheposteriorapprisers,upon
paymentofthepurchasemoney."
Thisremedyhasbeenextendedinmanyparticulars,inordertofulfiltheend
intendedbythelegislature.For,1mo,Thoughtheremedyisaffordedtoapprisers
only,itisextendedtopersonalcreditors.2do,Ithasbeenextendedeventoanheir
ofentail,impoweringhimtoredeemanapprisingofhisentailedlandsafterit
waspurchasedbytheheirofline.3tio,Thoughnopurchaseismentionedinthis
clausebutwhatismadebytheheirapparent,theremedyhoweverisextended
againstapresumptiveheir,whocannotbeheirapparentwhilehisancestoris
alive.4to,Itwasjudged,thatanapprisingledbothagainstprincipaland
cautioner,andpurchasedbytheheirapparentoftheprincipal,mightbe
redeemedbythecreditorsofthecautioner.Thiswasastretch,butnotbeyondthe
boundsofequity:thecautionerhimself,ascreditorforrelief,couldhave
redeemedthisapprisingintermsofthestatuteanditwasthought,thatevery
privilegecompetenttoadebtoroughttobeextendedtohiscreditors,inorderto
maketheirclaimseffectual.5to,Theprivilegeisextendedtoredeemanapprising

duringthelegal,thoughthestatutementionsonlyanexpiredapprising.And,
lastly,Thoughtheprivilegeofredemptionislimitedtotenyearsafterthe
purchasemadebytheheirapparent,itwasjudged,thatthetenyearsbeginnotto
runbutfromthetimethatthepurchaseisknowntothecreditors.Thesedecisions
allofthemaretobefoundintheDictionary,vol.1.p.359.
Itischieflytostatutesofthiskindthatthefollowingpassageis
applicable.
"Nonpossuntomnesarticulisingillatimautlegibusautsenatusconsultis
comprehendi:sedcuminaliquacausasententiaeorummanifestaest,is,qui
jurisdictionipraeest,adsimiliaprocedere,atqueitajusdiceredebet.Nam,
utaitPedius,quotieslegealiquid,unumvelalterumintroductumest,bona
occasioest,caetera,
Page192
quaetenduntadeandemutilitatem,velinterpretationevelcertejurisdictione,
suppleri*."
Thenextbranchisofmeansthatareincompleteineveryrespect,where
theverythinginviewofthelegislatureisbutimperfectlyremedied.Of
thistakethefollowingillustriousexample,whichatthesametime
furnishesanopportunitytoexplainthenatureandeffectofan
adjudicationafteritslegalisexpired.
Anadjudicationduringthelegalisapignuspraetorium:andexpiryofthe
legalisheldtotransferthepropertyfromthedebtortothecreditor
preciselyasinawadsetormortgage,wheretheredemptionislimited
withinadaycertain.Yettherulewhich,withrelationtoawadset,affords
anequityofredemptionafterthestipulatedtermofredemptionispast,
hasneverbeenextended,directlyatleast,torelieveagainstanexpired
legal.Thissubjectthereforeiscurious,andmeritspeculiarattention.
Inapoindingofmoveablesthedebtorhasnotanequityofredemption,
becausethemoveablesaretransferredtothecreditoratajustvalue.The
samebeingoriginallythecaseofanapprisingofland,thelegalreversion
ofsevenyearsintroducedbytheact36.parl.1469,wasinrealitya
privilegebestoweduponthedebtor,withoutanyfoundationinequityand
thereforeequitycouldnotsupportanextensionofthereversiononehour
beyondthetimelimitedbythestatute.Butthenatureofanapprisingwas
totallyreversedbyanoppressiveanddishonestpracticeofattachingland
forpaymentofdebt,withoutpreservinganymeasurebetweenthedebt
andthevalueofthelandbywhichgreatportionsoflandweresometimes
carriedoffforpaymentofinconsiderablesums.Anapprising,as
originallyconstituted,wasajudicialsaleforajustprice:butan
execution,bywhichlandatrandomisattachedforpaymentofdebt
withoutregardingitsvalue,cannotpossiblybeasaleforajustprice:it
oughttohavebeenreprobatedaswithoutanyfoundationinlaw.But
indulgingitwiththeutmostfavour,itwouldbeflagrantinjusticetohold
itforanythingbetterthanapignuspraetorium,asecurityforpaymentof
debt.Accordinglytheact6.parl.1621,considersitinthatlight,
enacting,

"Thatapprisersshallbeaccountablefortheirintromissionswithinthelegal,
firstinextinctionoftheinterest,andthereafterofthecapital"
which,ineffect,isdeclaringthepropertytoremainwiththedebtor,asnomanis
boundtoaccountforrentsthatarehisown.Anditisconsideredinthesamelight
bytheact62.parl.1661,

Page193
"rankingparipassuwiththefirsteffectualapprising,allotherapprisingsled
withinyearanddayofit:"
creditorsrealorpersonalmayberankeduponacommonsubjectparipassu,orin
whatorderthelegislaturethinksproperbutsuchrankingisincompatiblewith
thenatureofpropertya.
Anapprisingthen,accordingtoitslatermodel,or,inplaceofit,an
adjudication,is,duringthelegal,apignuspraetoriumonly,orajudicial
securityfordebtandthequestionis,Whether,afterthisalteration,itbe
convertedintoatitleofpropertyuponexpiryofthelegal?Theact1621
abovementionedgoesnofurtherthantomakeapprisersaccountablefor
theirintromissionwithinthelegalandiftheybenotaccountable
thereafter,theinferenceseemsfairthatuponthataccounttheymustbe
heldtobeproprietors.Thisinference,howeverplausible,amountsnotto
acertainty:itisconsistentwiththestatutethatanapprisingmaycontinue
apignuspraetoriumafterthelegalaswellasbefore,withthefollowing
difference,thatlikeaproperwadsettertheapprisershallnotbe
accountableafterthelegal.Butevensupposingtheinferencetobe
invincible,itremainstobeconsideredhowfaracourtofequityisbound
byit.Thestatutemakesapprisersaccountableduringthelegalbutthere
itstopsshort,anddoesnotsaythatipsofacto,uponexpirationofthe
legal,anapprising,fromapignuspraetorium,isconvertedintoatitleof
property.Howevercleartheinferencemaybe,itisonlyanargument
drawnbyreasoning,andhasnodirectauthorityfromthestatute:itdoes
notappearthatthelegislatureintendedthisinference,orsomuchas
foresawit.Acourtofequitythen,thoughithasnopowertooverturn
expresslaw,isnotboundbyanyargumentdrawnfromastatute,exceptas
farasthatargumentissupportedbytherulesofjustice.Andinthatview
weproceedtoinquire,whataretherulesofjusticewithrespecttoan
apprisingoranadjudicationafterexpirationofthelegal.
Accordingtotheoriginalformofanapprising,requiringastrictequality
betweenthedebtandthevalueoftheland,itwasrationalandjust,that
thepropertyofthelandshouldinstantlybetransferredtothecreditorin
satisfactionofthedebtbutitcouldnolongerberationalorjustto
transferthepropertyafteritbecamecustomarytoattachlandatrandom
withoutregardingitsextent.Thedebtor's
Page194
wholelandestatewasapprised,andisnowadjudgedbyeverysingle
creditor,howeversmallhisdebtmaybeandthereforetotransfertoan

appriseroradjudgerthepropertyofthelandipsofacto,uponthedebtor's
failuretomakepaymentwithinthelegal,wouldbeapenalirritancyofthe
severestkind.Ontheotherhand,thissupposedipsofactotransferenceof
thepropertyispenaluponthecreditorwherethelandadjudgedbyhim
happenstobelessinvaluethanhisdebt:inthatcaseitwouldbeglaring
injusticetoforcethelanduponhiminpaymentofhisdebt.Naymore,it
isrepugnanttofirstprinciples,thatamanshouldbecompelledtotake
landforhisdebt,howevervaluablethelandmaybe:itmaybehischoice
tocontinuepossessionascreditorafterthelegalaswellasbeforeand
thismustbeunderstoodhischoice,ifhedonoactimportingthecontrary.
Torelievethecreditoraswellasdebtorfromtheforegoinghardships,
equitysteersamiddlecourse.Itadmitsnotanipsofactotransferenceof
theproperty,uponexpiryofthelegalbutonlygivesthecreditoran
option,eithertocontinueinhisformersituation,ortotakethelandforhis
debtwhichoptionmustbedeclaredinaprocess,intitledadeclaratorof
expiryofthelegal.Thisremovesallhardships:landisnotimposedupon
thecreditoragainsthiswill:thedebtor,ontheotherhand,hasan
opportunitytopurgehisfailure,bymakingpaymentandifhesuffera
decreetopasswithoutofferingpayment,itisjustthatthepropertybe
transferredtothecreditorinsatisfactionofthedebtforjudicial
proceedingsoughtnotforevertobekeptinsuspense.Thusthelawisso
constructedastomakethepropertybetransferrableonly,andnottobe
transferredbutbytheinterventionofadeclarator.Andthedeclaratorhere
servesthesamedoublepurposethatitservesinthelexcommissoriain
pignoribus:itisadeclarationofthecreditor'swilltoacceptthelandfor
hismoneyanditrelievesthedebtorfromtheforfeitureofapenal
irritancy,byadmittinghimtopurgeatanytimebeforethedeclaratory
decreepass.
Weproceedtoexaminehowfarthepracticeofthecourtofsession
concerningapprisingsandadjudicationsisconformabletotheprinciples
ofequityabovelaiddown.AndImustpreparemyreaderbeforehandto
expectherethesamewaveringandfluctuationbetweencommonlawand
equity,that,inthecourseofthiswork,isdiscoveredinmanyother
instances.Iobserve,inthefirstplace,Thatthoughthecourt,adheringto
commonlaw,hasnothithertosustainedtothedebtoranequityof
redemptionafterexpiryofthelegal,yetthatthesamethingineffectis
doneindirectly,throughtheinfluenceofequity.Somepretextorotherof
informalityisalwaysembracedto
Page195
openanexpiredlegal,inordertoaffordthedebtoranopportunityto
redeemhislandbypaymentofthedebt.Andthismatterhasbeencarried
sofarastoopenthelegaltotheeffectsolelyofintitlingthedebtorto
makepayment,holdingthelegalasexpiredwithrespecttoothereffects,
suchasthatofrelievingthecreditorfromaccountingfortherentslevied
byhim,unlessduringthetenyearsthatthelegaliscurrentbystatute*.
Hereisastrangejumblebetweencommonlawandequity:thefreeingthe
creditorfromaccountingfortherentsafterthetenyears,supposesthe
propertytohavebeentransferredtohimipsofactobythelapseofthese
years:andyettheadmittingpaymenttobemadeafterthetenyears,is
supposingthatthepropertyisnottransferredbeforeadeclaratorofexpiry
ofthelegalforuponnoothersuppositioncanpaymentbeforc'duponthe
adjudgerafterthestatutoryreversionisexpired.

Inanotherparticularourpracticeisstilllessconsistent,ifpossible,with
anyjustprinciples.Withrespecttotheadjudger,itisjustlyheld,thatthe
debtduetohimcannotbeextinguishedwithouthisconsentwhenceit
necessarilyfollows,that,evenafterthelegalisexpired,theadjudgermust
haveanoption,toadheretohisdebt,ortotakethelandinplaceofit.This
ruleisestablishedinourpresentpracticeandwhatmanissoblindasnot
toperceivewhatfollowsfromtherule?Anadjudger,uponwhosewillit
dependstocontinuetobeacreditor,ortotakehimselftothelandinplace
ofhisdebt,cannotalreadybeproprietorofthatland:beforetheproperty
canbetransferredtohim,hemustinterposehiswill,whichisdonebya
declaratorandsofarourpracticeproceedsuponjustprinciples.But
whetherwhatisheldwithrespecttothedebtorbeconsistentwiththat
practice,wenextinquire.Wehold,thatthedebtor'spowerofredemption
isconfinedwithinthelegalthat,byexpiryofthelegal,heisforfeited
ipsofactoofhispropertyandthatthereafterhehasnopowertoredeem,
ortopurgehisfailureofpayment.Herewefindoneopinioninconsistent
withanother,andthesameinconsistenceindifferentbranchesofour
practice:withrespecttothecreditor,thepropertyisnothis,tillhechuse
toinsistinadeclaratorofexpiryofthelegal:withrespecttothedebtor
again,thepropertywithoutadeclaratorislosttohimipsofacto,byexpiry
ofthelegal.Cananymansaywhoisproprietorintheinterim?These
notionswithrespecttothesamepointcannotbereconciledbutthecause
ofthemmaybeaccountedfor.Inallourpracticewefindastrongleaning
tocreditors
Page196
inoppositiontotheirdebtors.Apropensityinfavourofcreditorshath
bestoweduponanapprisertheequitableprivilegeofanoptionbetween
thedebt,andthelanduponwhichitissecured:therigor,ontheother
hand,withwhichdebtorsaretreated,hasdeniedthemtheequitable
privilegeofpurginganirritantclauseatanytimebeforethedoorbeshut
againstthembyadeclaratorydecree.
SECT.III.Wherethemeansenactedreachunwarilybeyondtheendpurposedbythelegislature.

BYthestatute9oAnnae,cap.13.
"ThepersonwhoatonetimelosesthesumorvalueofL.10Sterlingat
game,andpaysthesame,shallbeatlibertywithinthreemonthstosuefor
andrecoverthemoneyorgoodssolost,withcostsofsuit.Andincasethe
losershallnotwithinthetimeforesaidreallyandbonafidebringhisaction,
itshallbelawfulforanyonetosueforthesame,andtriplevaluethereof,
withcostsofsuit."
Herethereisnolimitationmentionedwithrespecttothepopularactionnor,as
farasconcernsEngland,isitnecessary,because,bytheEnglishstatute31stEliz.
cap.5.
"noactionshallbesustaineduponanypenalstatutemadeortobemade,
unlesswithinoneyearoftheoffence."
AlimitingclausewasnecessarywithregardtoScotlandonly,towhichthesaid
statuteofElizabethreachethnotandtherefore,asthereisnolimitationexpressed
intheact,acourtofcommonlawinScotlandmustsustainthepopularactionfor

fortyyears,contraryevidentlytothewillofthelegislature,whichneverintended
apenalstatutetobeperpetualinScotland,thatinEnglandiscircumscribed
withinayear.Itbelongsthereforetothecourtofsessiontolimitthisstatute,by
denyingactionifnotbroughtwithinoneyearaftertheoffenceforitcertainly
wasnottheintentionofthelegislaturetodistinguishScotlandfromEnglandwith
respecttoprescriptionofpenalactions.HenceinthedecisionJanuary19.1737,
MurraycontraCowan,whereanactionwassustainedevenaftertheyearfor
recoveringmoneylostatplay,withthetriplevalue,itclearlyappears,thatthe
courtofsessionactedasacourtofcommonlaw,andnotasacourtofequity.
Theact6.parl.1672,requires,
"Thatallexecutionsofsummonsshallbearexpresslythenamesand
designationsofthepursuersanddefenders."
Thisregulationwasnecessaryinordertoconnect
Page197
theexecutionwiththesummons.Forasatthatperioditwascommontowritean
executionuponapaperapart,bearingareferenceingeneraltothesummons,in
thefollowingmanner,
"Thatthepartieswithinexpressedwerelawfullycited,"
&c.theexecutionofonesummonsmightbeappliedtoanyother,soasto
becomelegalevidenceofacitationthatwasnevergiven.Butastherecanbeno
opportunityforthisabusewhenanexecutioniswrituponthebackofthe
summons,itbelongstoacourtofequity,withrespecttoacasewherethe
statutoryremedyisunnecessary,torelievesofarfromtheenactingclausewhich
isdonebydeclaring,thatitisnotnecessarytonamethepursuersanddefenders
whentheexecutioniswritonthebackofthesummons*.
Bythe34thand35thHenryVIII.cap.5.14.itisdeclared,Thatawillor
testamentmadeofanymanors,lands,&c.byafemecovert,shallnotbe
effectualinlaw.Thiscouldnotbeintendedtorenderineffectualawill
madebyawomanwhosehusbandisbanishedforlifebyactof
parliament.Andaccordinglysuchwillwassustained.
Thestatutesintroducingthepositiveandnegativeprescriptions,havefor
theirobjectpublicutilityandthesupplyingdefectsinthesestatutesrests
uponthesameprincipleasubjectthatbelongstothenextbook,which
containstheproceedingsofacourtofequityactingupontheprincipleof
utility.Buttomitigatethesestatuteswithrespecttoarticlesthathappento
beoppressiveorunjust,isabranchofthepresentsubjectandto
examplesofthatkindIproceed.Commonlaw,whichlimitsnotactions
withinanytime,affordsgreatopportunityforunjustclaims,which,
howeverillfoundedoriginally,arebroughtsolateastobesecureagainst
alldetection.Itisnotwrongincommonlawtosustainanoldclaim,fora
claimmaybeveryoldandyetveryjust:buttosustainclaimswithout
anylimitationoftime,givesgreatscopetofraudandforgery,andforthat
reasonpublicutilityrequiredalimitation.Uponthatprinciplethestatutes
1469and1474weremade,denyingactionupondebtsandotherclaims
beyondfortyyears.Acourtofcommonlawproceedinguponthese
statutes,cannotsustainactionafterfortyyears,evenwhereaclaimis

evidentlywellfounded,aswhereitisprovedtobesobyreferringittothe
oathofthedefendant.Inthiscasethemeansenactedgoevidentlybeyond
theendpurposedbythelegislaturewhichintendedonlytosecureagainst
suspiciousandillfounded*
Page198
claims,nottocutoffanyjustdebtandinthisviewnothingfarthercould
beintendedthantointroduceapresumptionagainsteveryclaimbrought
afterfortyyearsreservingtothepursuertobringpositiveevidenceofits
beingasubsistingclaim,andjustlydue.Yetthecourtofsession,actingas
acourtofcommonlaw,didinonecaserefusetosustainactionafterthe
fortyyears,thoughthedebtwasofferedtobeprovedbytheoathofthe
defendant*.Inanotherpointtheyactproperlyasacourtofequity.
Personsunderagearerelievedfromtheeffectofthesestatutes,foran
extremegoodreason,thatnopresumptioncanlieagainstacreditorwhile
underage,fordelayingtobringhisaction.
ThesameconstructioninequityisgiventotheEnglishactoflimitation
concerningpersonalactions:itisheld,Thatabareacknowledgementof
thedebtissufficienttobarthelimitationimporting,thatthelegislature
intendednottoextinguishajustdebt,butonlytointroduceapresumption
ofpayment.ButwiththisdoctrineIcannotreconcilewhatseemstobe
establishedintheEnglishcourtsofequity,
"Thatifamanbywillordeedsubjecthislandtothepaymentofhisdebts,
debtsbarredbythestatuteoflimitationsshallbepaidfortheyaredebtsin
equity,andthestatutehathnotextinguishedtheobligation,thoughithath
takenawaytheremedy."
Thisdifferswidelyfromtheequitableconstructionofthestatuteforifits
intendmentbetopresumesuchdebtspaid,theycannoteveninequitybe
consideredasdebts,unlessthestatutorypresumptionberemovedbycontrary
evidence.Thefollowingcaseproceedsuponthesamemisapprehensionofthe
statute:
"Ithathalsobeenruledinequity,thatifamanhasadebtduetohimbynote,
orabookdebt,andhasmadenodemandofitforsixyears,sothatheis
barredbythestatuteoflimitationsyetifthedebtororhisexecutor,afterthe
sixyears,putsoutanadvertisementintheGazette,oranyothernewspaper,
thatallpersonswhohaveanydebtsowingtothemmayapplytosucha
place,andthattheyshallbepaidthis,thoughgeneral,(andthereforemight
beintendedoflegalsubsistingdebtsonly),yetamountstosuchan
acknowledgementofthatdebtwhichwasbarred,aswillrevivetheright,
andbringitoutofthestatuteagain."
Tothecasefirstmentioned,ofreferringadebttothedefendant'soath,a
maximinthelawofEnglandisobviouslyapplicable,

Page199

"Thatacaseoutofthemischief,isoutofthemeaningofthelaw,thoughit
bewithintheletter."
Aclaim,ofwhateverage,referredtothedefendant'soath,isplainlyoutofthe
mischiefintendedtoberemediedbytheforegoingstatutesandthereforeought
nottoberegulatedbythewords,whichinthiscasegobeyondtheendproposed.
Coke*illustratesthismaximbythefollowingexample.Thecommonlawof
Englandsufferedgoodstakenbydistresstobedrivenwherethecreditorpleased
whichwasmischievous,becausethetenant,whomustgivehiscattlesustenance,
couldhavenoknowledgewheretheywere.Thismischiefwasremediedby
statute3.EdwardI.cap.16.enacting,
"Thatgoodstakenbydistressshallnotbecarriedoutoftheshirewherethey
aretaken."
Yet,saysourauthor,ifthetenancybeinonecountyandthemanorinanother,
thelordmaydrivethedistresstohismanor,contrarytothewordsofthestatute
forthetenant,bydoingofsuitandservicetothemanor,ispresumedtoknow
whatisdonethere.
Theact83.parl.1579,introducingatriennialprescriptionofshop
accounts,&c.isdirectedtothejudges,enacting,
"Thattheyshallnotsustainactionafterthreeyears,"
withoutmakinganydistinctionbetweennativesandforeigners.Noristhere
reasonformakingadistinctionbecauseeveryclaimant,nativeorforeigner,must
bringhisactionforpaymentinthecountrywherethedebtorresidesandforthat
reasonbothequallyoughttoguardagainsttheprescriptionofthatcountry.When
suchisthelawofprescriptioningeneral,andoftheact1579inparticular,I
cannotavoidcondemningthefollowingdecision.
"Inapursuitforanaccountofdrugs,furnishedfromtimetotimebya
LondondruggisttoanEdinburghapothecary,thecourtrepelledthedefence
ofthetriennialprescription,anddecreed,Thattheactoflimitationin
England,beingthelocuscontractus,mustbetherule."
Thisdecisioniserroneous,notonlyforthereasonabovegiven,butalsofora
separatereason.TheEnglishstatuteoflimitationhasnoauthoritywithus,
otherwisethanasinferringapresumptionofpaymentfromthedelayofbringing
anactionwithinsixyearsandthispresumptioncannotarisewherethedebtoris
abroad,eitherinScotlandorbeyondseas.
Iftheprescriptionofthecountrywherethedebtordwellsbetherule,
whicheverycreditorforeignordomesticoughttohaveinview,itfollows
necessarily,thatadefendant,totakeadvantageoftheprescription
Page200
ofthecountrywheretheactionisbroughtagainsthim,mustbeableto
qualifyhisresidencethereduringthewholecourseoftheprescription.
WhilethedebtorresidesinEngland,forexample,orinHolland,the
creditorhasnoreasontobeuponhisguardagainsttheScotchtriennial
prescription:andsupposingtheactiontobebroughtthenextdayafterthe
debtorsettlesinScotland,itwouldbeabsurdthatthecreditorshouldbe

cutoutbythetriennialprescription.Iillustratethisdoctrinebyaplain
case.AshopkeeperinLondonfurnishesgoodstoamanwhohashis
residencethere.Thecreditor,trustingtotheEnglishstatuteoflimitation,
reckonshimselfsecureifhebringhisactionwithinsixyearsbutisforc'd
tobringhisactioninScotland,towhichthedebtorretiresafterthree
years.Itwouldinthiscasebegrossinjustice,tosustaintheScotch
triennialprescriptionasabartotheaction.Thisnevercouldbethe
intentionofourlegislatureandinthisviewthemeansenactedinthe
statute1579areunwarilytooextensive,forbiddingactionafterthree
years,withoutlimitingthedefencetothecasewherethedefendanthas
beenallthattimeinScotland.Thestatutethereforeoughttobelimitedto
thecasenowmentioned,whichwillmakeitcorrespondtojusticeandto
theintendmentofthelegislature.
Equityisalsoappliedtomitigatetherigorofstatutelawwithrespectto
evidence.BytheEnglishstatuteoffraudsandperjuries*,itisenacted,
"Thatallleases,estates,interestsoffreeholdortermsofyears,madeor
createdbyparoleandnotputinwriting,shallhavetheforceandeffectof
leasesorestatesatwillonly."
Intheconstructionofthisstatutethefollowingpointwasresolved,Thatifthere
beaparoleagreementforthepurchaseofland,andthatinabillbroughtfora
specificexecutionthesubstanceoftheagreementbesetforthinthebill,and
confessedinthedefendant'sanswer,thecourtwilldecreeaspecificexecution,
becauseinthiscasethereisnodangerofperjury,whichwastheonlythingthe
statuteintendedtoprevent.Again,whateverevidencemayberequiredbylaw,
yetitwouldbeunjusttosufferanymantotakeadvantageofthedefectof
evidence,whenthedefectisoccasionedbyhisownfraud.Andaccordinglythere
aremanyinstancesintheEnglishlawbooks,whereaparoleagreementintended
tobereducedinwriting,butpreventedbyfraud,hasbeendecreedinequity,
notwithstandingthestatuteof
Page201
fraudsandperjuries.Thusuponamarriagetreaty,instructionsgivenbythe
husbandtodrawasettlementarebyhimprivatelycountermanded:afterwhich
hedrawsinthewoman,uponthefaithofthesettlement,tomarryhim.The
paroleagreementwillbedecreedinequity*.
Statutoryirritanciesinanentailarehandledbook1.part1.chap.4.sect.
4.art.5.
CHAP.VI.Powersofacourtofequitytoremedywhatisimperfectincommonlawwithrespectto
transactionsbetweendebtorandcreditor.

INthesetransactionswefinddailyinstancesofoppression,sometimesby
thecreditor,sometimesbythedebtor,authorisedbyoneorothergeneral
ruleofcommonlaw,whichhappenstobeunjustwhenappliedtosome
singularcaseoutofthereasonoftherule.Ineverycaseofthiskind,itisthe
dutyofacourtofequity,tointerpose,andtorelievefromtheoppression.
Totrustthispowerwithsomecourtisevidentlyamatterofnecessity,for
otherwisewrongwouldbeauthorisedwithoutremedy.Suchoppression
appearsindifferentshapesandindifferentcircumstances,whichIshall

endeavourtodistinguishbyarrangingthemunderdifferentheads
beginningwiththeoppressionacreditormaycommitunderprotectionof
commonlaw,andthenproceedingtowhatmaybecommittedbyadebtor.
SECT.I.Injusticeofcommonlawwithrespecttocompensation.

BYthecommonlawofthisland,whenadebtorissuedforpayment,it
willaffordnodefencethattheplaintiffoweshimanequivalentsum.This
sumhemaydemandinaseparateactionbutinthemeantime,ifhemake
notpaymentofthesumdemandedfromhim,adecreewillissueagainst
himtobefollowedwithexecution.Nowthisisrigorous,orratherunjust.
For,withrespectto
Page202
theplaintiff,unlesshemeantooppress,hecannotwishbetterpayment
thantobedischargedofthedebtheowesthedefendant.And,with
respecttothedefendant,itisgrossinjusticetosubjecthimtothemost
rigorousexecutionforfailingtopayadebt,whenpossiblytheonlymeans
hehasforpaymentisthatverysumwhichtheplaintiffdetainsfromhim.
Tothatactofinjustice,however,thecommonlawlendsitsauthority,by
ageneralrule,impoweringeverycreditortoproceedtoexecutionwhen
hisdebtorfailstomakepayment.Butthatrule,howeverjustinthemain,
wasneverintendedtotakeplaceinthepresentcaseandthereforeacourt
ofequityremediesanactofinjusticeoccasionedbyatooextensive
applicationoftherulebeyondthereasonandintentionofthelaw.The
remedyis,toorderanaccountinplaceofpayment,andtheonedebttobe
hitoffagainsttheother.Thisistermedtheprivilegeofcompensation,
whichalwaysfurnishesagooddefenceagainstpaymentwherethereisa
counterclaim.CompensationaccordinglywasinoldRomesustained
beforethePraetorandinEnglandhaslongbeenreceivedincourtsof
equity.InScotlandindeedithastheauthorityofastatute*whichit
seemswasthoughtnecessary,becauseatthatperiodthecourtofsession
wasprobablynotunderstoodtobeacourtofequity.Butperhapsthere
wasafurtherview,viz.tointroducecompensationasadefenceintocourts
ofcommonlawandwiththatpreciseviewdidcompensationlately
obtaintheauthorityofastatuteinEngland:thedefenceofcompensation
wasalwaysadmittedinthecourtofchancerybutbyauthorityofthe
statute,itisnowalsoadmittedincourtsofcommonlaw.
Inapplyingtheforegoingstatuteintroducingcompensation,acourtof
equityhathmoreextensivepowersthanacourtofcommonlaw.Acourt
ofcommonlawistiedtotheletterofthestatute,andhasnoprivilegeto
inquireintoitsmotive.Butthecourtofsession,asacourtofequity,may
supplyitsdefectsandcorrectitsexcesses.YetIknownotbywhat
misapprehension,thecourtofsession,withregardtothisstatute,hath
alwaysconsidereditselfasacourtofcommonlaw,andnotasacourtof
equityamisapprehensionthelessexcusable,consideringthesubjectof
thestatute,amatterofequity,whichthecourtitselfcouldhave
introducedhadthestatuteneverbeenmade.Ishallmakethisreflection
plain,byenteringintoparticulars.Thestatuteauthorisescompensationto
bepleaded
Page203

intheoriginalprocessonly,bywayofexception,andgivesnoauthority
topleaditwhetherinthereductionorsuspensionofadecree.Thewords
are,
"Thataliquiddebtbeadmittedbywayofexceptionbeforedecreetbyall
judges,butnotinasuspensionnorreductionofthedecreet."
Thislimitationisproperintwoviews.Thefirstis,thatifadefendantomitor
forbeartopleadcompensationintheoriginalprocess,thejudgementis
notwithstandingjustandtheforbearingoromittingtouseaprivilegegivenby
law,isnotagoodreasonforchallengingajudgementwhetherinasuspensionor
reduction.Theotherviewis,thatitwouldaffordtoogreatscopeforlitigiosity
weredefendantsindulgedtoreservetheirarticlesofcompensationasagroundfor
suspensionorreduction.Attendingtotheseviews,ajudgementpurelyinabsence
oughtnottobarcompensation,becausejudgementsareoftenpronouncedwhen
thepartyhathnotanopportunitytoappear.Forthatreason,apartywhois
restoredtohisdefencesinasuspension,uponshowingthathisabsencewasnot
contumacious,oughttobeatlibertytopleadeverydefence,whetherinequityor
atcommonlaw.Andyetourjudgesconstantlyrejectcompensationwhenpleaded
inasuspensionofadecreeinabsence,thoughthatcasecomesnotunderthe
reasonandmotiveofthestatute.Thestatute,inmyapprehension,admitsofstill
greaterlatitudewhichis,thatafteradecreeinforoissuspendedforanygood
reason,compensationmaybereceivedindiscussingthesuspensionforthe
statutegoesnofartherthantoprohibitadecreetobesuspendedmerelyupon
compensation.Norcanithaveanybadeffecttoadmitcompensationwhena
causeisbroughtunderreviewbysuspensionbecauseofiniquitycommittedin
theoriginalprocess:onthecontrary,itisbeneficialtobothbypreventinganew
lawsuit.
Ifthedecisionsofthecourtofsessionuponthedifferentarticlesofthis
statuteshowaslavishdependenceonthecommonlawthedecisions
whichregulatecasesofcompensationnotprovidedforbythestatute
breatheafreerspirit,beinggovernedbytrueprinciplesofequity.I
proceedtothesecases.Thefirstthatpresentsitself,is,whereoneonlyof
thetwoconcurringdebtsbearsinterest.Whatshallbetheeffectof
compensationinthatcase?Shalltheprincipalandinterestbebrought
downtothetimeofpleadingcompensation,andbesetoffatthatperiod
againsttheotherdebtwhichbearsnotinterest?Orshalltheaccomptbe
institutedasatthetimeoftheconcourse,asiffromthatperiodinterest
werenolongerdue?Equityevidentlyconcludesforthelatterforit
considers,thateachhadthe
Page204
useoftheother'smoney,andthatitisnotjusttheoneshouldhaveaclaim
forinterestwhiletheotherhasnone:interestisapremiumfortheuseof
money,andmycreditorineffectgetsthatpremiumbyhavingfromme
theuseofanequivalentsum.Andaccordinglyitistheconstantpractice
ofthecourttostaythecourseofinterestfromthetimethetwodebts
concur.Butthiscanonlyholdwherethecompensationismutualfora
debtorwhocannotretainbycompensationissupposedtohavethe
moneyalwaysreadytomeetademand:inwhichsituationitwouldbe
unjusttoobligehimtopay5percent.premium,oranypremium,for
moneythatmustliedeadinhishandwithoutbeingputtoanyuseandyet

thisineffectwouldbedone,werethisdeadsumadmittedtooperateretro,
soastocutdownadebtduetohimbearinginterest.Example.A
tacksmanlendsaconsiderablesumtohislandlord,agreeinginthebond
tosuspendthepaymentduringthecurrencyofthetack,butstipulatingto
himselfapowertoretaintheinterestannuallyoutofthetackduty.The
tacksmanmakespunctualpaymentofthesurplustackduties,sooftenas
demanded:but,bysomedisorderinthelandlord'saffairs,aconsiderable
arrearisallowedtoremaininthehandsofthetacksman.Thelandlord
endeavouringtomakethetackdutiesinarrearoperateretroagainstthe
bondeddebt,soastoextinguishsomepartoftheprincipalannually,the
retrooperationwasnotadmittedinthiscase:because,intermsofthe
contract,thetacksmanwasboundtokeepinhishandthesurplustack
dutiesreadytobepaidondemandandforthatreasonitwouldbeunjust
tomakehimpayinterestforthissumor,whichcomestothesame,it
wouldbeunjusttomakeitoperateretro,byapplyingitannuallyin
extinctionofthebondeddebtbearinginterest*.
Inapplyingcompensationbothclaimsmustbepureforitisnotequitable
todelaypayingadebtofwhichthetermispast,uponpretextofa
counterclaimthatcannotatpresentbedemanded,orthatisuncertainas
toitsextent.Butwhatifinthiscasethepursuerbebankrupt,orvergens
adinopiam?Thecommonlawauthorisesabankrupttoinsistforpayment
equallywithapersonsolvent:butitneverwastheintentionofthe
commonlawtoobligemetopaywhatIowetoabankrupt,andtoleave
mewithoutremedyastowhatheowesme.Thisthereforeisapropercase
fortheinterpositionofequity.Itcannotauthorisecompensationin
circumstancesthataffordnotplaceforitbutitcanpreventthemischief
inthemostnaturalmanner,byobligingthebankrupttofindsecurityto
makegoodthecounterclaim
Page205
whenitshallbecomedueandthisistheconstantpracticeofthecourtof
session.
Compensationwouldbebutanimperfectremedyagainsttheoppression
ofthecommonlaw,ifitcouldnotbeappliedotherwisethanbyexception.
Thestatute,itistrue,extendstheremedynofartherbutthecourtof
session,uponaprincipleofequity,affordsaremedywherethestatuteis
silent.Supposingtwomutualdebts,ofwhichtheoneonlybearsinterest,
thecreditorinthebarrendebtdemandshismoneywhichthedebtorpays
withoutpleadingcompensation,andthendemandsthedebtduetohimself
withtheinterest.Orletitbesupposed,thatpaymentofthebarrendebtis
offered,whichthecreditormustaccept,howeversensibleofthehardship.
Inthesecasesthereisnoopportunitytoapplytheequitablemaxim,That
bothsumsshouldbearinterest,orneither.Therefore,togiveopportunity
forapplyingthatmaxim,aprocessofmutualextinctionofthetwodebts
oughttobesustainedtothecreditorwhosesumisbarrentohaveeffect
retrofromthetimeofconcourse:andthisprocessaccordinglyisalways
sustainedinthecourtofsession.
Wenexttakeunderconsiderationthecaseofanassignee.Andthefirst
questionis,Whethertheprocessofmutualextinctionnowmentionedbe
competentagainstanassignee.Topreventmistakesinjudgingofthis
question,letitbeunderstood,thatanassignmentintimatedis,byour

presentpractice,apropercessioinjure,transterringtheclaimfunditus
fromtheassignororcedenttotheassignee.Thisbeingtakenforgranted,
itfollows,thatcompensationcannotbepleadedagainstanassignee:for
thoughoneoftheclaimsisnowtransferredtohim,thatcircumstance
subjectshimnottothecounterclaimandthereforethereisnomutual
concourseofdebtsbetweentheparties,uponwhichtofounda
compensation.
Letussuppose,thattheclaimbearinginterestisthatwhichisassigned.
Thisclaim,principalandinterest,mustbepaidtotheassignee,because
heisnotsubjectedtothecounterclaim.Mustthentheassignee'sdebtor,
afterpayingtheprincipalandinterest,besatisfiedtodemandfromthe
cedentthesumduetohimselfwhichbearsnotinterest?Atthatrate,the
creditorwhoseclaimbearsinterest,willalwaystakecarebyan
assignmenttopreventcompensation.Thishardshipisasufficientground
fortheinterpositionofacourtofequity.Ifthecedenthathprocuredan
undueadvantagetohimself,bymakingasumbearinterestinthenameof
anassignee,whichwouldnotbearinterestinhisownnameheoughtto
bedeprivedofthatundueadvantage,tomakeupwhathisdebtorsuffers
bytheassignment.
Page206
Andtheproperreparationistoobligehimtopayinterestexaequitate,
thoughtheclaimnaturallybearsnone.
Butifthedebtassignedbethatwhichbearsnotinterest,atotalseparation
istherebymadebetweenthetwodebts,soastobarcompensation
altogether.Andwhatafterthiscanpreventthecounterclaimwithits
interestfrombeingmadeeffectualagainstthecedent?Noobjectionin
equitycanarisetohim,seeing,withhiseyesopen,hedeprivedhimselfof
theopportunityofcompensation,theonlymeanhehadtoavoidpaying
interestuponthecounterclaim.
Inhandlingcompensationasdirectedbyequity,Ihavehitherto
consideredwhatthelawoughttobe,andhavecarefullyavoidedthe
intricaciesofourpractice,whichinseveralparticularsisgrossly
erroneous.Tocompletethesubject,Imusttakeasurveyofthatpractice,
theerrorsofwhichwillbethemoreeasilyapprehendedafterwhatis
alreadysaid.Byouroldlaw,derivedfromthatoftheRomans,andfrom
England,acreditorcouldnotassignhisclaim:allhecoulddowasto
grantaprocuratoryinremsuam,whichdidnottransferthejuscreditito
theassignee,butonlyintitledhimprocuratorionominetodemand
payment.Fromthenatureofthistitleitwasthought,thatcompensation
mightbepleadedagainsttheassigneeaswellasagainstthecedent:and
indeed,consideringthetitlesingly,theopinionwasrightbecausethe
pleadingcompensationagainstaprocuratororassignee,isinreality
pleadingitagainstthecedentorcreditorhimself.Theopinionhoweveris
erroneous,andtheerrorarisesfromoverlookingthecapitalcircumstance,
whichistheequitablerightthattheassignee,thoughconsideredasa
procuratoronly,hathtotheclaimassigned,byhavingpaidapriceforit.
Equitywillneversubjectsuchaprocuratororassigneetothecedent's
debts,whetherinthewayofpaymentorcompensation.Andasforthe
statute,itaffordsnotanypretextforsustainingcompensationagainstan
assigneeforavaluableconsideration:itwasmadetorectifythecommon

law,bybestowingtheprivilegeofcompensationasfarasjustand
equitable,thatisbetweentwopersonswhoaremutuallydebtorsand
creditorstoeachotherbutitnevercouldbetheintentionofthe
legislature,indefianceofjustice,tomakecompensationeffectualagainst
anassigneewhopaysvalue.Normustitpassunobserved,that,asourlaw
standsatpresent,thisiniquitouseffectgiventocompensationisstillmore
absurd,ifpossible,thanitwasformerly.Inourlaterpracticean
assignmenthaschangeditsnature,andisconvertedintoapropercessio
injure,divestingthecedentfunditus,andvestingtheassignee.Whenceit
follows,that,afteran
Page207
assignmentisintimated,compensationoughttobebarredfromthevery
natureoftheassignee'stitle,evenlayingasidetheobjectionuponthe
headofequity.Butwebegunwithsustainingcompensationagainstan
assigneeforavaluableconsideration,inqualityofaprocuratornot
adverting,thatthoughhistitledidnotprotecthimfromcompensation,his
rightaspurchaseroughttohavehadthateffect:andbytheforceof
customwehaveadheredtothesameerroneouspractice,evenafterour
lawischanged,whennowthetitleofanassigneeprotectshimfrom
compensation,aswellasthenatureofhisrightwhenhepaysvalueforit.
SECT.II.Injusticeofcommonlawwithrespecttoindesinitepayment.

NExtofoppressionorwrongthatmaybecommittedbyadebtor,under
protectionofcommonlaw.
Everymanwhohastheadministrationofhisownaffairs,maypayhis
debtsinwhatorderhepleases,wherehiscreditorsinterposenotbylegal
execution.Norwillitmakeadifference,thatseveraldebtsaredueby
himtothesamecreditorfortheruleoflawis,Thatiffullpaymentbe
offeredofanyparticulardebt,thecreditorisboundtoaccept,andto
grantadischarge.
Butnowsupposingasumtobedeliveredbythedebtortothecreditor
indefinitely,withoutapplyingittoanyonedebtinparticular,thequestion
is,Bywhatruleshalltheapplicationbemade,whenthepartiesafterward
cometostateanaccount?Ifthedebtsbeallofthesamekind,itisofno
importancetowhichofthemthesumbeapplied:otherwise,ifthedebts
beofdifferentkinds,oneforexamplebearinginterest,onebarren.The
ruleintheRomanlawis,Quodelectioestdebitorisarulefoundedonthe
principlesofcommonlaw.Thesumdeliveredtothecreditor,asaforesaid,
cannotindeedberecalled,becauseitwasdeliveredtohiminorderfor
paymentbutastherewasnoagreementabouttheapplication,itremains
stillasumbelongingtothedebtorwhichconsequentlyintitleshimto
maketheapplication.Butthoughthisisagreeabletotheruleofcommon
law,itisnotagreeabletotheruleofjusticeforifthedebtormakean
undueapplication,equitywillinterposetorelievethecreditorfromthe
hardship.Equityindeedcannotforceamantogivehismoneyoutofhis
ownhandandtherefore,ingivingitaway,hemaynamewhattermsor
conditionshethinksproper:upon
Page208

whichaccount,thoughadebtoractsunjustlyinapplyinghismoney
towardextinctionofadebtbearinginterest,whenheisduetothesame
creditoradebtbearingnoneyetaremedyinthiscaseisbeyondthereach
ofequity.Butwherethemoneyisalreadygivenaway,andinthehandof
thecreditor,thedebtorhasnolongerthesamearbitrarypowerofmaking
theapplication:equitywillinterpose,andwilldirecttheapplication.
Thusindefinitepaymentcomesunderthepowerofacourtofequity.
Inordertoascertaintheequitablerulesforapplyinganindefinite
payment,afewpreliminaryconsiderationsmaybeproper.Aloanof
moneyisamutualcontractequallyforthebenefitofthelenderand
borrower:thedebtorhastheuseofthemoneyheborrows,andforitpays
tothecreditorayearlypremium.Withrespectthereforetoasumbearing
interest,thedebtorisnotbound,eitherinstrictlaworinequity,topaythe
capitaluntilthecreditormakeademand.Adebtnotbearinginterestisin
averydifferentcondition:thedebtorhasthewholebenefit,andthe
creditorisdeprivedoftheuseofhismoneywithoutavaluable
considerationwhichbindsthedebtor,ingoodconscience,eithertopay
thesum,ortopayinterest.Thoughthisbeamatterofduty,itcannot
howeverbeinforcedbyacourtofequityinallcasesforitmaybethe
creditor'sintentiontoassistthedebtorwiththeuseofmoneywithout
interest:butuponthefirstlegalexpressionofthecreditor'swilltohave
hismoney,acourtofequityoughttodecreeinterest.
Anotherpreliminaryconsiderationis,thatwhereabondisgrantedwitha
cautioner,thedebtorisinconscienceboundtopaythesumattheterm
covenanted,inordertorelievehiscautioner,whohasnobenefitbythe
transaction.Thecaseisdifferentwherethecautionershewsawillingness
tocontinuehiscreditwiththeprincipaldebtor.
WearenowripeforenteringintoparticularsandthefirstcaseIshall
mentionis,wheretwodebtsareduebythesamedebtortothesame
creditor,oneofwhichonlybearsinterest.Anindefinitepaymentought
undoubtedlytobeappliedtothedebtnotbearinginterest,becausethis
debtoughtincommonjusticetobefirstpaidandthereisnothingto
obligethedebtortopaytheothertillitbedemanded.Amanofcandor
willmaketheapplicationinthismannerandwerethereoccasionfora
presumption,itwillbepresumedofeverydebtorthatheintendedsuch
application.Butthejudgehasnooccasiontolayholdofapresumption:
hisauthorityformakingtheapplicationisderivedfromaprincipleof
justice.Thesame
Page209
ruledirects,thatwherebothdebtsbearinterest,theindefinitepayment
oughtfirsttobeappliedforextinguishingwhatisdueofinterestand
thereafterforextinguishingoneorothercapitalindifferently,orfor
extinguishingbothinproportiona.
Thesecondcaseshallbeoftwodebtsbearinginterestoneofwhichonly
issecuredbyinfeftmentorinhibition.Itisequaltothedebtorwhichof
thedebtsbefirstpaid:andtherefore,theindefinitepaymentoughttobe
appliedtothedebtforwhichthereistheslenderestsecuritybecause
suchapplicationisfortheinterestofthecreditor.Takeanothercaseof
thesamekind.Atenantintailowestwodebtstothesamecreditoroneof

hisowncontracting,andoneasrepresentingtheentailer.Everyindefinite
paymenthemakesoughttobeascribedtohisproperdebt,forpaymentof
whichthereisnofundbuttherentsduringhislife.This,itistrue,is
againsttheinterestofthesubstitutes:buttheirinterestcannotberegarded
intheapplicationofrentswhichbelongnottothembuttothetenantin
tail:andnext,astheyarecertantesdelucrocaptando,theirinterest
cannotweighagainstthatofacreditorwhoiscertansdedamnoevitando.
Thirdcase.Adebtorobtainsanease,uponconditionofpayingataday
certainthetransactedsumbearinginterest:heisalsoboundtothesame
creditorinaseparatedebtnotbearinginterest.Thequestionis,Towhich
ofthesedebtsoughtanindefinitepaymenttobeapplied?Itistheinterest
ofthedebtorthatitbeappliedtothetransactedsum:itistheinterestof
thecreditorthatitbeappliedtotheseparatedebtnotbearinginterest.The
judgewillnotprefertheinterestofeither,butmaketheapplicationinthe
mostequitablemanner,regardingtheinterestofboth:hewilltherefore,in
thefirstplace,considerwhichofthetwohasthegreatestinterestinthe
applicationandhewillsoapplythesumastoproducethegreatesteffect.
Thisconsiderationwillprobablyleadhimtomaketheapplicationtothe
transactedsumforifthetransactionbeinanydegreelucrative,the
debtorwilllosemorebyitsbecomingineffectual,thanthecreditorwill
bywantingtheinterimuseofthemoneyduetohimwithoutinterest.But
thenthebenefitoughtnottolieallononesideandthereforeequityrules,
thatthedebtor,whogetsthewholebenefitoftheapplication,oughttopay
interestfortheseparatesumwhichbringsmatterstoaperfectequality
between
Page210
them.Forthesamereason,iftheapplicationbemadetothedebtnot
bearinginterest,thetransactionoughttobemadeeffectual,
notwithstandingthetermappointedforpayingthetransactedsumbe
elapsed.
Fourthcase.Supposetheonedebtissecuredbyadjudication,thelegalof
whichisnearexpiring,andtheotherisadebtnotbearinginterest.And,to
adjustthecasetothepresentsubject,weshallalsosuppose,thatthelegal
ofanadjudicationexpiresipsofactowithoutnecessityofadeclarator.An
indefinitepaymenthereoughttobeappliedforextinguishingthe
adjudication.And,forthereasongivenintheprecedingcase,theseparate
debtoughttobearinterestfromthetimeoftheindefinitepayment.
Fifthcase.Anheirofentailowestwodebtstothesamecreditortheonea
debtcontractedbytheentailernotbearinginterest,theotheradebt
bearinginterestcontractedbytheheir,whichmayfoundadeclaratorof
forfeitureagainsthim.Anindefinitepaymentoughttobeappliedtothe
firstmentioneddebt,becauseitbearsnotinterest:forwithregardtothe
heir'shazardofforfeiture,theforfeiture,whichcannotbemadeeffectual
butbyaprocessofdeclarator,maybepreventedbypayingthedebt.And
thedifficultyofprocuringmoneyforthatpurpose,isaneventtoodistant
andtoouncertaintoberegardedinformingaruleofequity.
Sixthcase.Neitherofthedebtsbearsinterestandoneofthemisguarded
byapenalirritancy,feudutiesforexampleowingmorethantwoyears.In
thiscasethefeudutiesoughttobeextinguishedbytheindefinite
paymentbecausesuchapplicationrelievesthedebtorfromadeclaratorof

irritancy,andisindifferenttothecreditorasbothdebtsarebarren.Nor
willitberegarded,thatthecreditoriscutoutofthehopehehadof
acquiringthesubjectbythedeclaratorofirritancybecauseinequitythe
ruleholdswithoutexception,Quodpotiordebetesseconditioejusqui
certatdedamnoevitando,quamejusquicertatdelucrocaptando.
Seventhcase.Iftherebeacautionerinoneofthedebts,andneitherdebt
bearinterest,theindefinitepaymentoughtundoubtedlytobeappliedfor
relievingthecautioner.Gratitudedemandsthisfromtheprincipaldebtor,
forwhoseservicesolelythecautionergavehiscredit.Itmaybemorethe
interestofthecreditortohavetheapplicationmadetotheotherdebt
whichisnotsowellsecured:butthedebtor'sconnectionwithhis
cautionerismoreintimatethanwithhiscreditorandequityrespectsthe
moreintimateconnectionasthefoundationofastrongerduty.
Page211
Eighthcase.Ofthetwodebts,theoneisbarren,theotherbearsinterest,
andissecuredbyacautioner.Theindefinitepaymentoughttobeapplied
tothedebtthatbearsnotinterest.Thedelayingpaymentofsuchadebt,
wherethecreditorgetsnothingfortheuseofhismoney,isapositiveact
ofinjustice.Ontheotherhand,thereisnopositivedamagetothe
cautioner,bydelayingpaymentofthedebtinwhichhestandsengaged.
Thereis,itistrue,ariskbutseeingthecautionermakesnolegaldemand
toberelieved,itmaybepresumedthathewillinglysubmitstotherisk.
Ninthcase.Oneofthedebtsisatransactedsumthatmustbepaidataday
certain,otherwisethetransactiontobevoid:oritisasumwhichmustbe
paidwithoutdelay,topreventanirritancyfromtakingplace.Theotheris
abondeddebtwithacautioner,bearinginterest.Theindefinitepayment
mustbeappliedtomakethetransactioneffectual,ortopreventthe
irritancy.For,asintheformercase,theinterestofthecreditor,beingthe
moresubstantial,ispreferredbeforethatofthecautionerso,inthe
presentcase,theinterestofthedebtorisforthesamereasonpreferred
alsobeforethatofthecautioner.
Tenthcase.Anindefinitepaymentmadeafterinsolvencytoacreditorin
twodebts,theonewith,theotherwithoutacautioner,oughttobeapplied
proportionallytobothdebts,whateverthenatureorcircumstancesofthe
debtsmaybe:forherethecreditorandcautionerbeingequallycertantes
dedamnoevitando,oughttobearthelossequally.Itistrue,thedebtoris
moreboundtothecautionerwholenthiscreditforthedebtor'sbenefit,
thantothecreditorwholenthismoneyforhisownbenefit.But
circumstancesofthisnaturecannotweighagainstthemoresubstantial
interestofpreventinglossanddamage.
SECT.III.Injusticeofcommonlawwithrespecttorentleviedindefinitely.

BYthecommonlawofthisland,acreditorintroducedintopossession
uponawadset,oruponanassignmenttorents,mustapplytherenthe
leviestowardpaymentofthedebtwhichisthetitleofhispossession
becauseforthatverypurposeistherightgranted.Rentagainleviedby
execution,uponanadjudicationforexample,mustforthesamereasonbe
appliedtothedebtuponwhichtheexecution

Page212
proceeds.Rentthuslevied,whetherbyconsentorbyexecution,cannotbe
appliedbythecreditortoanyotherdebthoweverunexceptionable.
Butthisruleofcommonlawmayinsomecasesberigorousand
materiallyunjusttothedebtorsometimes,andsometimestothecreditor.
Ifacreditorinpossessionbyvirtueofamortgageorimproperwadset,
purchaseorsucceedtoanadjudicationthelegalofwhichiscurrent,itis
undoubtedlythedebtor'sinterestthattherentsbeappliedtothe
adjudication,inordertopreventexpiryofthelegal,ratherthantothe
wadsetwhichcontainsnoirritancynorforfeitureuponfailureofpayment.
Ontheotherhand,ifthecreditorpurchaseorsucceedtoaninfeftmentof
annualrent,uponwhichagreatsumofinteresthappenstobedue,itis
beneficialtohimthattherentsbeascribedforextinctionofthatinterest,
ratherthanforextinctionofthewadsetsumwhichbearsinterest.These
applicationscannotbemade,eitherofthem,upontheprinciplesof
commonlawandyetmaterialjusticerequiressuchapplication,whichis
fairandequitable,weighingallcircumstances.Nomanofcandorin
possessionofhisdebtor'slandbyamortgageorimproperwadset,but
mustbeashamedtoapplytherentsheleviestothewadset,whenhehas
anadjudicationthelegalofwhichisreadytoexpire.Andnodebtorof
candorbutmustbeashamedtoextinguishadebtbearinginterest,rather
thanadebtequallyunexceptionablethatisbarren.
Equitythereforestepsintocorrecttheoppressionofcommonlawinsuch
casesanditisluckythatthiscanbedonebygeneralrules,without
hazardofmakingjudgesarbitrary.Theserulesaredelineatedinthe
sectionimmediatelyforegoingandtheyallresolveintoageneral
principle,whichis,
"Thatthejudgeoughttoapplytherentssoastobemostequalwithrespect
tobothparties,andsoastopreventrigorousandhardconsequenceson
eitherside."
Butthisremedyagainsttherigorofcommonlaw,oughtnottobe
confinedtorealdebtswhichintitlethecreditortopossess.Inparticular
cases,itmaybemorebeneficialtothedebtorortothecreditor,without
hurtingeither,toapplytherentsforpaymentevenofapersonaldebt,than
forpaymentofthedebtwhichisthetitleofpossession.Whatifthe
personaldebtbeabulkyclaim,thatisrestrictedtoalessersumupon
conditionofpaymentbeingmadeatadaycertain?Itisthedebtor's
interestthattherentsbeappliedtothisdebtinthefirstplaceas,onthe
otherhand,itisthecreditor'sinterestthattheybeappliedtoapersonal
debtwhichisbarren.Acourtofequity,disregardingtherigidprinciples
ofcommonlaw,
Page213
andconsideringmattersintheviewofmaterialjustice,reasonsafterthe
followingmanner.Anadjudicationisatitleofpossession,which,upon
failureofpayment,impowersthecreditortolevythedebtoutoftherents
ofhisdebtor'sland:butifthecreditorbealreadyinpossession,an

adjudicationisunnecessary:suchatitle,itistrue,isrequisitetocomplete
theformsofthecommonlawbutequitydispenseswiththeseforms,
whentheyservenoendbuttoloadthepartiesconcernedwithexpence.
Andthuswherethequestioniswiththedebtoronly,equityrelievesthe
creditorinpossessionfromtheceremonyorsolemnityofleadingan
adjudicationupontheseparatedebtstowhichhehasright.Andno
personcanhesitateamomentabouttheequityofarule,thatisnotless
beneficialtothedebtorbyrelievinghimfromtheexpenceoflegal
execution,thantothecreditorbyrelievinghimfromtroubleandadvance
ofmoney.Thusanexecutorinpossession,isbyequityrelievedfromthe
uselessceremonyoftakingadecreeagainsthimselfforpaymentofdebt
duetohimbythedeceased:andforthatreason,anexecutormaypay
himselfatshorthand.Inthesamemanner,awadsetterinpossessionof
hisdebtor'sland,hasnooccasiontoattachtherentsbylegalexecutionfor
paymentofanyseparatedebtduetohimbytheproprietor:hispossession,
byconstructionofequity,isheldagoodtitleandbythatconstructionthe
rentsareheldtobeleviedindefinitelywhichmakeswayforthequestion,
Towhichofthedebtstheyoughttobeimputed.Thesamequestionmay
occurwherepossessionisattainedbylegalexecution,withoutconsentof
thedebtor.Acreditor,forexample,whoentersintopossessionbyvirtue
ofanadjudication,acquiresorsucceedstopersonaldebtsduebythe
samedebtor:these,ineveryquestionwiththedebtorhimself,arejustly
heldtobetitlesofpossession,togiveoccasionforthequestion,Towhat
particulardebttherentshouldbeimputed.
Havingsaidsomuchingeneral,theinterpositionofequitytoregulatethe
variouscasesthatbelongtothepresentsubject,cannotbeattendedwith
anydegreeofintricacy.Theroadisinagoodmeasurepavedbythe
labourbestowedintheprecedingsectionfortherulestherelaiddown
withregardtodebtsofalldifferentkinds,may,withverylittlevariation,
bereadilyaccommodatedtothesubjectwearenowhandling.Forthe
sake,however,ofillustratingasubjectthatisalmosttotallyoverlookedby
ourauthors,Ishallmentionafewrulesingeneral,theapplicationof
whichtoparticularcaseswillbeextremeeasy.Letmeonlypremise,what
ishintedabove,
Page214
thatthecreditorinpossessioncanstatenodebtsforexhaustingtherents,
butsuchasareunexceptionablyduebytheproprietor:foritwouldbe
againstequityaswellasagainstcommonlaw,thatanymanshouldbe
protectedinthepossessionofanother'sproperty,duringtheverytimethe
questionisdepending,whetherhebeorbenotreallyacreditor.Letsuch
debtsthenbetheonlysubjectofourspeculation.Andthefirstruleof
equityis,Thattheimputationbesomade,astopreventonbothhands
irritanciesandforfeitures.Asecondruleis,That,inparicasu,personal
debtsoughttobepaidbeforethosewhicharesecuredbyinfeftment.And
thirdly,withrespecttobothkinds,Thatsumsnotbearinginterestbe
extinguishedbeforesumsbearinginterest.
Itislaiddownabove,thatwherethelegalofanadjudicationisinhazard
ofexpiring,equitydemandsthattherentsbewhollyascribedtothe
adjudication.Butitmayhappeninsomeinstancestobemoreequitable,
thatthecreditorbeprivilegedtoapplytherentstothebygoneinterestdue
uponhisseparatedebts:andthisprivilegewillbeindulgedhim,provided

herenouncethebenefitofanexpiredlegal.
Theforegoingrulestakeplacebetweenthecreditoranddebtor.Afourth
ruletakesplaceamongcreditors.Thecreditorwhoattainspossessionby
virtueofapreferencedecreedtohiminacompetitionwithcocreditors,
cannotapplytherentstoanydebtbutwhatispreferablebeforethose
debtswhichbytheothercreditorswereproducedintheprocessof
competition:forafterusinghispreferablerighttoexcludeothers,itwould
beunjusttoapplytherentstoanydebtwhichisnoteffectualagainstthe
creditorswhoareexcluded.Thiswouldbetakinganunduepreference
upondebtsthathavenotitletoapreference.
Itwillberemarked,thathithertoIhavehadnothinginviewbutthe
possessionofasinglefund,andbywhatrulestherentsofthatfundshall
beappliedwhenthepossessorhathclaimsofdifferentkinds.But,with
verylittlevariation,theforegoingrulesmaybeappliedtothemore
involvedcaseofdifferentfunds.Acreditor,forexample,uponanentailed
estate,hastwodebtsinhispersononecontractedbytheentailer,upon
whichanadjudicationisledagainsttheentailedestateanother
contractedbythetenantintail,whichcanonlyaffecttherentsduringhis
life.Itistheinterestofthesubstitutes,thattherentsbeimputedtoward
extinctionoftheentailer'sdebt,becausetheyarenotliablefortheother.
Theinterestofthecreditorinpossessionuponhisadjudicationisdirectly
opposite:
Page215
itishisinterestthatthepersonaldebtbefirstpaid,forwhichhehasno
securitybuttherentsduringhisdebtor'slife.Hereequityisclearlyonthe
sideofthecreditor:heiscertansdedamnoevitando,andthesubstitutes
delucrocaptando.Andthiscoincideswiththesecondcasestatedinthe
foregoingsectionofindefinitepayment.
CHAP.VII.Powersofacourtofequitytoremedywhatisimperfectincommonlawwithrespectto
legalexecution.

THischapterisnaturallydivisibleintotwosections.First,Wherethe
commonlawisdefective.Second,Whereitisoppressiveorunjust.
SECT.I.Wherethecommonlawisdefective.

ITisnaturaltobelieve,anditholdsinfact,thatthedifferentexecutions
forpaymentofdebtfoundedoncommonlaw,relatetothosecasesonly
whichthemostfrequentlyoccurinpractice.Uponadebtor'sfailingto
makepayment,hislandisattachedbyanapprising,hismoveablesby
poinding,andthedebtsduehimbyarrestmentandforthcoming.But
experiencediscoveredmanyprofitablesubjectsofapeculiarnature,that
cannotbebroughtunderanyoftheforegoingexecutions.Andevenwith
respecttocommonsubjects,severalpeculiarcircumstanceswere
discoveredtowhichtheexecutionsmentionedarenotapplicable.Acourt
ofcommonlaw,whichcannotinanyarticleexceedtheboundsof
commonlaw,hasnotpowertosupplyanyofthesedefects.Thispoweris
reservedtoacourtofequityactinguponaprincipleofjusticeoftenabove
mentioned,viz.Thatwhereeverthereisarightitoughttobemade
effectual.

Thissectioncomprehendsmanyarticles.1st,Subjectsthatcannotbe
attachedbytheexecutionsofcommonlaw.2d,Circumstanceswhere
evencommonsubjectsarewithdrawnfromtheseexecutions.
Page216
3d,Theseexecutionsareinsomecasesimperfect.4th,Theyserveonlyto
makedebtseffectual,andgivenoaidtootherclaims.
ART.I.Subjectsthatcannotbeattachedbytheexecutionsofcommonlaw.

THEcommonlawisdefectivewithrespecttoavarietyofsubjectsthat
cannotbeattachedbyanyofitsexecutionsareversion,forexample,a
bondsecludingexecutors,asumofmoneywithwhichadispositionof
landisburdened,&c.Theseareallcarriedbyanadjudicationinvented
bythesovereigncourt.Theycouldnotbecarriedbyanapprisinginthe
formofcommonlaw:norcantheybecarriedbyanadjudicationputin
placeofanapprisingbytheact1672,whichbytheactitselfisconfined
toland,andtowhatrightsareproperlyaccessorytoland,real
servitudes,forexample,andsuchlike.Butthisisnotall.Thereare
manyotherrightsandprivileges,toattachwhichnoexecutionis
provided.Adebtorhas,forexample,awellfoundedclaimforvoiding
adeedgrantedbyhiminhisminoritygreatlytohishurtandlesion:but
heisbankrupt,andperverselydeclinesaprocess,becausethebenefit
mustaccruetohiscreditors:hewillneitherconveyhisprivilegeto
them,norinsistonithimself.Areductonontheheadofdeathbedisan
exampleofthesamekind.Therearemanyothers.Ifamanfailtopurge
anirritancy,thecommonlawpermitsnothiscreditorstopurgeinhis
nameandtheycannotintheirown,unlesstheprivilegebeconveyed
tothem.Acourtofequitystepsintosupplythesedefectsofcommon
lawand,withoutnecessityeitherofavoluntaryorjudicial
conveyance,intitlescreditorsatshorthandtoavailthemselvesofsuch
privileges.Theyareimpoweredtoprosecutethesamefortheirown
advantage,inthesamemannerasifthedebtorhaddonethemjustice
bymakingaconveyanceintheirfavour.
ART.II.Circumstanceswhereevencommonsubjectsarewithdrawnfromtheseexecutions.

IGIVEthefollowinginstances.First,Theapprisingsofcommonlaw
reachlandonly,ofwhichthepropertyisvestedinthedebtor.The
apprisingaminuteofsaleofland,andadispositionwithout
infeftment,wasintroducedbythesovereigncourt.
Page217
Second,AiscreditortoB,andBtoC.ThedebtduebyCtoBis
transferredtoAbyadecreeofforthcominguponanarrestmentlaidin
thehandsofC.ButwhatifbeforeAproceedtoexecutionCdie,andno
personisfoundwhowillrepresenthim?Inthiscasethereisnoplace
foranarrestmentandyetAoughtnottobedisappointedofhis
payment.Thecourtofsessionmustsupplythedefect,byadjudgingto
AthedebtduebyCtoB.
Third,Executionforpaymentofdebtproceedinguponauthorityofthe
judge,doingforthedebtorwhathehimselfoughttohavedone,

supposesalwaysamoraonthedebtor'spart:andajudgetherefore
cannotwarrantablyauthorisesuchexecutionwherethereisnomora.
Thisholdseveninaprocessforpayment.Noristhereanyfoundation
inequity,morethanatcommonlaw,foraprocessbeforethetermof
payment.Wherethedebtorisreadytofulfilhisengagementattheterm
covenanted,andisguiltyofnofailure,justicewillnotsufferhimtobe
vexedwithaprocess.Butwithrespecttoanannuity,oranysum
payableatdifferentterms,ifthedebtorbeonceinmoratomakea
processnecessaryforpaymentofapartactuallydue,adecreemaynot
onlybepronouncedforpaymentofthatpart,butalsoforwhatwill
afterwardbecomedue,supersedingexecutiontillthedebtorbeinmora.
Equitysupportsthisextensionofthecommonlaw,whichisbeneficial
tothecreditor,byeasinghimoftrouble,andnotlesssotothedebtor,
bypreventingthecoststhathewouldotherwisebesubjectedtoincase
offuturemora.
Fromtheseprinciplesitappears,thataprocessforpoindingtheground
beforethetermofpayment,oughtnottobesustained,morethana
processagainstthedebtorpersonallyforpayment.Iobserveindeed,
thataprocessofmailsanddutieshasbeensustainedafterthelegal
termofMartinmas,thoughCandlemasbethecustomarytermof
payment*.Butthereasonofthissingularityis,thatoriginally
Martinmaswastheconventionaltermofcornrent,andforthatreason
wasestablishedtobethelegalterm.Itcreptinbypracticetodelay
paymenttillCandlemas,inordertogivethetenanttimetothreshout
hiscorns.Andforsomecenturiesthisdelaywasesteemedan
indulgenceonly,notamatterofright.But,nowthatlongcustomhas
becomelaw,andthatatenantisunderstoodnottobeboundtopayhis
cornrentbeforeCandlemas,acourt,whetherofcommonlaworof
equity,willnotreadilysustaintheprocessbeforeCandlemas.
Page218
Aprocessofforthcomingisinadifferentconditionforbeingheld
necessarytocompletetherightofthearrester,itmayinthatview
proceedbeforethetermofpaymentofthedebtarrested*.Thesame
holdsinaprocessforpoindingtheground,whereitbecomes
necessarytocompleteabaseinfeftmentbymakingitpublic.
Thereisonegeneralexceptiontotheforegoingrule,Thatifadebtorbe
vergensadinopiam,executionmayinequityproceedagainsthimfor
security.Thusarrestmentinsecuritywassustainedwherethedebtor
wasindecliningcircumstances.Thedefendant'stestatorgavethe
plantiffL.1000,tobepaidattheageoftwentyoneyears.Thebill
suggested,thatthedefendantwastedtheestateandpray'dhemight
givesecuritytopaythislegacywhenduewhichwasdecreed
accordingly.
Fourth,InthecommonlawofEnglandthereisonedefectthatgives
accesstothemostglaringinjustice.Whenamandies,hisrealestateis
withdrawnfromhispersonalcreditors,andhispersonalestatefromhis
realcreditors.Thecommonlawaffordsnottoapersonalcreditor
executionagainstthelandofhisdeceaseddebtor,nortoarealcreditor
executionagainstthemoveablesandbythismeansamanmaydiein
opulentcircumstances,andyetmanyofhiscreditorsbeforfeited.

Whetherthecourtofchanceryinterposesinthiscase,Iamuncertain.In
thefollowingcaseitcannot,Iamcertain,failtointerposeandthatis
whereadebtor,havinganearprospectofdeath,bestowsallhismoney
onland,inordertodisappointhispersonalcreditors.Thecommonlaw
affordsnotaremedy,becausethepurchasinglandisalawfulactand
thecommonlawlooksnotbeyondtheactitself.Butthecourtof
chanceryisnotsocircumscribed.Iftheguiltappearfrom
circumstances,thecourtwillrelieveagainstthewrong,bydecreeing
satisfactiontothepersonalcreditorsoutoftherealestate.
Fifth,Thecommonlawreachethnomanbutwhilehecontinueswithin
theboundsofitsjurisdiction.Ifadebtorthereforebeinforeignparts,a
judgementcannotpassagainsthim,becausehecannotbecitedto
appearincourtandexecutioncannotbeissuedagainsthiseffects
withoutajudgement.Thisdefect,whichinterruptsthecourseofjustice,
isinScotlandremediedbyacitationatthemarketcross
Page219
ofEdinburgh,pierandshoreofLeith,introducedbythesovereign
court,actingupontheforegoingprinciple,Thatwhereeverthereisa
right,itoughttobemadeeffectual.InEngland,apersonabroadcannot
becitedtoappeareveninthecourtofchancery.Thiscourthowever
affordsaremedy.Itwillnotwarrantacitationagainstanypersonwho
isnotwithinthejurisdictionofthecourt:butitwillappointnoticetobe
giventothedebtorandifheappearnotinhisowndefence,thecourt
willoutofhiseffectsdecreesatisfactiontothecreditor.Thus,uponan
affidavitthatthedefendantwasgoneintoHollandtoavoidthe
plaintiff'sdemandagainsthim,andhehavingbeenarrestedonan
attachment,andaCepicorpusreturnedbythesheriff,thecourtof
chancerygrantedasequestrationoftherealandpersonalestate*.By
virtueofthesamepowersupplyingthedefectsofcommonlaw,the
courtofsessiongivesauthoritytoattachmoveablesinthiscountry
belongingtoaforeigner,inordertoconvertthemintomoneyfor
paymentofthecreditorwhoappliesfortheattachment.Wherea
debtor,lurkingsomewhereinScotland,cannotbediscovered,thecourt
ofsessionmakesnodifficultytoorderhimtobecitedatthathead
boroughwithwhichheappearstohavethegreatestconnection.
ART.III.Theseexecutionsareinsomecasesimperfect.

THEexecutionsofcommonlaw,evenwherethereissufficiencyof
effects,fallsometimesshortoftheendproposedbythem,viz.thatof
operatingpayment.IgiveforexampletheEnglishwritElegit,that
whichcorrespondsthenearesttoouradjudication.Thechiefdifference
is,thatanElegitisalegalsecurityonly,andtransfersnottheproperty
tothecreditor.Henceitfollows,thatthoughtheinterestofthedebt
exceedtherentoftheland,thecreditormustbesatisfiedwiththe
possessionandhathnomeansbythecommonlawtoobtainpayment
ofhiscapital,orinplaceofittoobtainthepropertyoftheland.Butas
inthiscasetheexecutionisobviouslyimperfect,hurtingthecreditor
withoutbenefitingthedebtor,thecourtofchancerywillsupplythe
defect,byorderingthelandtobesoldforpaymentofthedebt.

Page220
ART.IV.Theyserveonlytomakedebtseffectual,andgivenoaidtootherclaims.

BESIDEpaymentofdebt,executionissometimesnecessaryfor
makingotherclaimseffectualandherealsothecommonlawis
imperfect.Toremedythisimperfection,adjudicationsinimplement,
declaratoryadjudications,&c.wereinScotlandinventedbythe
sovereigncourt.Thefollowingcaseshewsthenecessityofa
declaratoryadjudication.
SirRobertMunro,debtortoAndrewDrummondbanker,assignedto
JohnGordon,
"intrust,andfortheuseofthesaidAndrewDrummond,"
certainsubjects,andinparticularanadjudicationledbyhimagainstMackenzie
ofRedcastle'sestate.AfterGordon'sdeath,AndrewDrummond,uponthis
adjudication,ashistitle,broughtaprocessofmailsanddutiesagainstthe
tenantsofRedcastle.Andtheobjectionwas,Thatthepursuerhavingno
conveyancefromGordon,hasnotitletocarryonthisprocess.Thejudges
agreeduponthefollowingpropositions:1st,ThatthetrustbeinggiventoJohn
Gordononly,andnottohisheirs,wasatanendbyhisdeathfortherecannot
beatrustwithoutatrustee.2d,ThatSirRobertMunrobeingdivestedbythe
trustdeed,theadjudicationreturnsnottohimbythedeathofthetrustee.3d,
Thatthoughthepersonforwhomthetrustiscreatedmayinhisownname
insistineverypersonalactionflowingfromthetrust,yetnonebutthetrustee
caninsistinanyrealactionfoundedontheadjudicationbecausethetrustee
onlyisvestedinit.Thesepointsbeingsettled,thedifficultywas,tofindouta
legalmethodforestablishingtheadjudicationinthepersonofAndrew
Drummondandthejudgescameallintothefollowingopinion,ThatAndrew
Drummond'sonlymethodwas,toraiseadeclaratoryadjudication,callingall
partiesthatmayappeartohaveinterest,viz.therepresentativesofJohn
GordonandofSirRobert,andconcludingthattheadjudicationthusleftin
medioshouldbeadjudgedtohim,inordertomakeeffectualthepurposesof
thetrust.Thiscanbedonebythecourtofsessionsupplyingdefectsincommon
law.AnactionwascompetenttoAndrewDrummondagainstJohnGordon
himself,todenudeoftheadjudicationandthedeclaratoryadjudicationcomes
inplaceofthataction*.
Thecommonlawisdefectivewithrespecttothosewhoarein
meditationefugaeinordertoavoidpaymentoftheirdebtsbutacourt
Page221
ofequitylendsahelpinghand,bygrantingwarrantforseizingthe
debtor,andincarceratinghim,unlesshefindbailforhisappearance.
Butthisisnotdonerashly,barelyuponcomplaintofthecreditor.Heis
boundfirsttogiveevidenceofhisdebt.Heisboundnexttoexplainthe
reasonsofhissuspicionandifthesebefoundgroundless,orno
sufficientcauseofsuspicion,thewarrantwillberefused.3dly,Heis
boundtogivehisoathofcredulity,thatheverilybelieveshisdebtorto
beinmeditationefugae.Butthisisnotall:heisboundtogivesecurity
fordamagesincaseofawrongousdetention*.Anddamageswillbe

awardedaccordingly,ifupontrialitbefound,eitherthathisclaimof
debtwasgroundless,orthathefailtoprovethefactsalledgedbyhim
tojustifyhissuspicionofameditatiofugae.
SECT.II.Wherethecommonlawwithrespecttoexecutionisoppressiveorunjust.

EXecutionforpaymentofdebtistheoperationofthejudgeormagistrate,
interposinginbehalfofacreditortowhomthedebtorrefusesorneglects
todojustice.Itisthedutyofadebtortoconverthiseffectsintomoneyin
ordertopayhisdebtsandifheproverefractoryorbenegligent,itisthe
dutyofthejudgetointerpose,andinhissteadtodowhathehimself
oughttohavedone.Henceitclearlyappears,thatthejudgeoughtnotto
authoriseexecutionagainstanysubjectwhichthedebtorhimselfisnot
boundtosurrendertohiscreditors,nortosellfortheirbehoof.Buta
courtofcommonlaw,confinedbygeneralrules,regardsnocircumstance
butonesingly,viz.Whetherthesubjectbelongtothedebtor:ifitbehis
property,executionissuesanditisnotconsideredwhetherthedebtorcan
justlyapplythissubjectforpaymentofhisdebts.Thisinsomecasesmay
proverigorousandunjust.Amanwhobyfraudorotherillegalmeanshas
acquiredthepropertyofasubject,isnotboundtoconveythatsubjectto
hiscreditors:onthecontrary,heisinconscienceboundtorestoreittothe
personinjured,inordertorepairthewronghehasdone.Andinsucha
case,thelawoughtnottointerposeinbehalfofthecreditors,butinbehalf
ofthepersoninjured.Acourtofequityaccordingly,correctingthe
injusticeofcommonlaw,willrefuseitsaidtothecreditorswhoought
notto
Page222
demandfromtheirdebtorwhatinconscienceheoughttorestoreto
anotherandwillgiveitsaidtothatotherforrecoveringasubjectof
whichhewasunjustlydeprived.
Havingthusgivenageneralviewofthesubject,Iproceedtoparticulars
andshallfirststateacase,whereamerchant,inimmediateprospectof
bankruptcy,purchasesgoodsandtakesdelivery,withoutanyviewof
payingtheprice.Thisisagrosscheatinthemerchant,whichbindshim
incommonjusticetorestorethegoods.Acourtofcommonlawhowever,
regardlessofthatcircumstance,willauthorisethebankrupt'screditorsto
attachthesegoodsfortheirpayment,asbeinghisproperty.Thisactof
injusticeoughttoberedressedbyacourtofequity:ifthegoodsbe
claimedbythevender,thecourtofequity,barringexecutionbythe
creditors,willdecreethegoodstoberestoredtohim.Thus,areduction
upontheheadofthefraudmentioned,wassustainedagainstthe
bankrupt'screditorsarrestingthesubjectpurchasedinthehandsofthe
persontowhomitwasdeliveredforbehoofofthepurchaser*.Mrs
Rollandobtainedacessiobonorumanno1748,andbeganagaintotrade
asformerly.Intheyear1749shepurchasedacargoofwinefromMain
andcompanyinLisbon.ShecommissionedanothercargofromthemMay
1750,whichwasarrestedatLeithbyoneofhercreditorsagainstwhom
shehadobtainedthecessiobonorum.Thevendersappearedinthe
forthcoming,andwerepreferredtothecargoforpaymentoftheprice,
uponthefollowingmedium,ThatitwasfraudulentinMrsRollandto
commissiongoodsfromherforeigncorrespondents,whenshemusthave
beenconsciousthattheywouldnothavetrustedherhadtheybeen

informedofthecessio.
Thesamemustholdwithrespecttoland,whenpurchasedfraudulently:
whenacreditorcommenceshisadjudication,thevenderwillbeadmitted
forhisinterest,andhisobjectionwillbesustainedinequity,Thatthe
landoughtnottobeadjudgedtothecreditor,buttohimthevender,in
ordertorepairthewrongdonehim.Iputanothercase.Inaprocessof
adjudication,amanwhohadpurchasedthelandbyaminuteofsale
beforetheadjudicationwascommenced,appearsforhisinterest:ought
henottobepreferred?Hisobjectionagainsttheadjudgerappearsgoodin
tworespects:itwould,inthefirstplace,beunjustintheproprietorto
grantto
Page223
hiscreditorasecurityuponthatsubjectanditisthereforeunjustinthe
creditortodemandthesecuritybylegalexecution:inthenextplace,it
wouldbeunjustinthecourttoauthoriseexecutionagainstasubject
whichthedebtorisnotboundtosurrendertohiscreditors,but,onthe
contrary,isstrictlyboundtoconveyitintermsoftheminuteofsale.
Iillustratethisdoctrinebyapplyingittoasubjectofsomeimportance
thathasbeenfrequentlycanvassedinthecourtofsession.Afactorhaving
soldhisconstituent'sgoods,tooktheobligationforthepriceinhisown
name,withoutmentioninghisconstituent.Thefactorhavingdied
bankrupt,thequestionarose,Whetherthesuminthisobligationwastobe
deemedpartofhismoveableestateaffectablebyhiscreditorsorwhether
hewastobedeemedanominalcreditoronly,andatrusteeforhis
constituent.Thecommonlaw,regardingthewordsonly,considersthe
obligationasbelongingtothedeceasedfactor:butequitytakesunder
considerationthecircumstancesofthecase,whichprovethatthe
obligationwasintendedtobetakenfactorionomine,oroughttohave
beensointendedandthatthefactor'screditorsareinequitybarredfrom
attachingasubjectwhichhewasboundtoconveytohisconstituent.The
constituentwasaccordinglypreferred*.AemploysBashisfactortosell
cloth.Bsellsoncredit,andbeforethemoneyispaiddiesbankrupt.This
moneyshallbepaidtoA,andnottotheadministratorofB:forafactoris
ineffectatrusteeonlyforhisprincipal.HughMurray,namedexecutor
inSirJamesRochead'stestament,appointedafactortoactforhim.At
clearingaccountstherewasabalanceofL.268Sterlinginthehandsof
thefactor,forwhichhegrantedbilltoMurrayhisconstituent,andofthe
samedateobtainedfromhimadischargeofthefactory.Murraythe
executorhavingdiedinsolvent,thesaidbillasbelongingtohimwas
confirmedbyhiscreditors.SirJames'snextofkinclaimedthesuminthe
billaspartofhisexecutry,orastheproduceofit.Theyurged,That
thoughthebillwastakenpayabletoMurraysingly,yetthecircumstances
ofthecaseevince,thatitwastakenpayabletohiminqualityofexecutor,
andthathewasboundtoaccountforittoSirJames'snextofkin.They
accordinglywerepreferred.Forthesamereason,ifanexecutor,instead
ofreceivingpayment,take
Page224

anewbondfromadebtorofthedeceasedwithacautioner,anddischarge
theoriginalbond,thisnewbond,beingasurrogatuminplaceofthe
former,willbeconsideredinequityaspartoftheeffectsofthedeceased
andwillnotbeaffectablebythecreditorsoftheexecutor*.Andifthe
debtbelostbythebankruptcyofthedebtorandhiscautioner,equitywill
notchargetheexecutorwithit,butwillonlydecreehimtoassignthe
security.BoylstounhavinggivenmoneytooneMakelwoodtobuya
parceloflinenclothforhim,sheboughtthegoods,butwithout
mentioningheremployer.Hercreditorshavingarrestedthesegoods,
Boylstounappearedforhisinterest.Thevenderdeposed,thathe
understoodMakelwoodtobethepurchaserforherownbehoof.She
deposeduponthecommissionfromBoylstoun,andthatwithhismoney
sheboughttheclothforhisbehoof.Thecourt,inrespectthatthegoods
beingsoldtoMakelwoodforherownbehoofbecameherproperty,
thereforepreferredhercreditorsthearresters.Thiswasactingasacourt
ofcommonlaw.ThepropertynodoubtvestedinMakelwood,becausethe
goodsweresoldanddeliveredtoherforherownbehoof:butthat
circumstanceisfarfrombeingdecisiveinpointofequity.Thecourtought
tohaveconsidered,thatthoughthetransferenceofpropertyberuledby
thewillofthevender,yetthatitdependsonthewillofthepurchaser
whethertoacceptdeliveryforhisownbehooforforbehoofofanother.
HereitclearlyappearedthatMakelwoodboughtthegoodsforbehoofof
Boylstoun,andthat,ineffect,shewastrusteeonlyinthesubject:the
legalrightwasindeedinher,buttheequitablerightclearlyinBoylstoun.
Thecourtoughttohaveconsideredfurther,thatMakelwoodhavinglaid
outBoylstoun'smoneyinpurchasingthecloth,wasboundinjusticeto
deliverittoBoylstounandthereforethatheinequityoughttohavebeen
preferredtohercreditors,eventhoughshehadbeenguiltyofmakingthe
purchaseforherownbehoof.
Suchisthereliefthatbyacourtofequityisaffordedtothepersonwho
hastheequitableclaim,whilemattersareentireandthesubjectinmedio.
Butnow,supposingtheexecutiontobecompleted,andthepropertytobe
transferredtothecreditorignorantofanyclaimagainsthisdebtor,asfor
example,byapoinding,orbyanadjudicationwithadecreedeclaringthe
legaltobeexpired,whatshallbetheoperationofequityinthiscase?In
answertothisquestion,itwillholdingeneral,withoutasingleexception,
Thatabonaside
Page225
purchaserliesnotopentoachallengeinequitymorethanatcommon
lawbecausenomancanbedeprivedofhispropertyexceptbyhis
consentorhiscrime.
Iproceedtoanotherbranchofthesubject.Executionbothpersonaland
realforpaymentofdebtisaffordedbythelawofallcountries:but
executionintendedagainsttherefractoryonlyissometimesextended
beyondtheboundsofhumanityandequityisinterposedagainstrigorous
creditors,whereitcanbedonebysomerulethatisapplicabletoallcases
ofthekind.Tworuleshavebeendiscovered,whichjudgesmaysafely
applywithouthazardofbecomingarbitrary.Thefirstgovernsthosecases
wherethereissuchapeculiarconnectionbetweenthedebtorandcreditor,
astomakekindnessorbenevolencetheirreciprocalduty.Insuchcases,if

thecreditorcarryhisexecutiontoextremity,anddeprivethedebtorof
bread,heactsincontradictiontohispositiveduty,andacourtofequity
willinterposetopreventthewrong.Theruleis,Thatacompetencymust
belefttothedebtortopreservehimfromindigence.Thus,intheRoman
law,parentshavebeneficiumcompetentiaeagainsttheirchildren,anda
patronagainsthisclient*.Amanagainsthiswife.Andthesameobtains
inanactioprosocio.Therulewasappliedbythecourtofsessionto
protectafatheragainsthischildren,February21.1745,Bonteinof
Mildovan,wheretwoformerdecisionsontheothersidewereoverruled.
Thecommonlaw,inaffordingexecutionagainstadebtor,intendsnotto
indulgetherigorofcreditorsactingindirectcontradictiontotheirduty.
Butasinmakinglawsitisimpracticabletoforeseeeverylimitation,the
rulemustbemadegeneral,leavingtoacourtofequitytomake
exceptionsinsingulareases.
Theotherruleismoregeneral,andstillmoresafeintheapplication.
Personalexecutionwascontrivedtoforcethedebtor,bytheterrorand
hardshipofpersonalrestraint,todiscoverhiseffects,andtodojusticeto
hiscreditors.Butifthesqualorcarceris,aspeciesoftorture,cannotdraw
aconfessionofconcealedeffects,theunhappyprisonermustbeheld
innocentanduponthatsupposition,personalrestraintisnotless
inconsistentwithjusticethanwithhumanity.Hencethefoundationofthe
Cessiobonorum,bywhichthedebtor,afterhisinnocenceisprovedby
thetrialofpersonalrestraint,recovershisliberty,uponconveyingtohis
creditorsallhiseffects.AndinScotlandthisactionisknownasfarback
aswehaveanywrittenlaw.
Page226
APPENDIXtoChap.VII.

WHenacreditorleadsanadjudicationforagreatersumthanisdue,itis
heldthatatcommonlawtheadjudicationistotallyvoid.Thereasongiven
is,Thatanadjudication,beinganindivisibleright,cannotsubsistinpart
andfallinpart.Atthesametimeitisadmitted,thatwherethepluris
petitioisoccasionedbyaninnocenterror,withoutanymalafidesinthe
creditor,theadjudicationoughttobesupportedasasecurityforwhatis
justlydue,notonlyinaccountingwiththedebtor,butevenina
competitionwithcocreditorsandthatinfactitreceivesthissupport
fromthecourtofsessionactingasacourtofequity.Ifthisbethetrue
foundationofthepractice,itbelongstothepresentchapterbeingan
exampleofequitycorrectingtherigorofcommonlawwithrespectto
execution.
Butthatthispracticecannotbefoundedonequity,appearstomeclear
fromthefollowingconsiderations.Inthefirstplace,itismadeevident
above,thatonecertansdedamnoevitandomaytakeadvantageofan
errorcommittedbyanother,andthatequityprohibitsnotsuchadvantage
tobetaken,exceptwherepositivegainismadebyit*.Thisruleis
applicabletothepresentcase.Acreditordemandinghispaymentina
competition,iscertansdedamnoevitandoandforthatreason,he,in
ordertoobtainpreference,maylawfullyavailhimselfofanyerror
committedbyacocreditorandtherefore,tosupportavoidadjudication
againsthim,isnotagreeabletoanyruleofequity.Inthenextplace,an
adjudicationexfacienull,asproceedingwithoutcitingthedebtor,isnot

supportedtoanyeffectwhatevereitheragainstacompetingcreditor,or
evenagainstthedebtorhimself.Noristhereanysupportgiventoan
adjudicationagainstanapparentheir,whenitproceedswithoutaspecial
charge,orwhenthelandsarenotspecifiedinthespecialcharge.This
leadsmetoreflectuponthedifferencebetweenintrinsicobjections,
whichrendertheadjudicationvoidandnull,andextrinsicobjections,
whichonlytendtorestrictit.Iftheplurispetitiobeanobjectionofthe
formersort,theadjudication,beingvoidtotallyatcommonlaw,cannot
besupportedinequity,morethananadjudicationthatproceedswithout
callingthedebtor:ifitbeanobjectionofthelattersort,theremay
possiblybeafoundationatcommonlawforsupportingtheadjudication
inpart,evenagainstacompetingcreditor,thoughtherebenofoundation
inequity.Theimportantquestionthenis,Towhichclassthisobjection
belongs?
Page227
Intrinsicobjections,generallyspeaking,resolveintoanobjectionofwant
ofpower.Ajudge,unlessthedebtorbecalledintocourt,cannotadjudge
hislandtohiscreditorandifheproceedwithoutthatsolemnity,heacts
ultravires,andtheadjudicationisvoid.Thecaseisthesame,wherean
adjudicationisledagainstanapparentheir,withoutcharginghimtoenter
totheestateofhisancestor.Todeterminewhatmustbetheeffectofa
plurispetitio,anadjudicationshallbeconsideredintwolightsfirstasa
judicialsale,andnextasapignuspraetorium.Ifamanvoluntarilygive
offlandtohiscreditorforsatisfactionofL.1000,understoodatthetime
tobedue,thoughthedebtbereallybutL.900,thesaleisnotvoidnoris
itevenvoidable.Thepropertyisfairlytransferredtothecreditor,of
whichhecannotbeforfeitedwhenheisguiltyofnofaultandallthat
remainsis,thatthequondamcreditor,nowproprietor,beboundtomake
goodthedifference.Ajudicialsaleoflandforpaymentofdebt,stands
preciselyonthesamefooting:itcannotbevoideduponaccountofa
plurispetitiomorethanavoluntarysale.Iillustratethisdoctrine,by
comparinganadjudicationconsideredasajudicialsale,withapoinding,
whichisreallyajudicialsale.Amanpoindshisdebtor'smoveablesfor
paymentofL.100,andthepoindingiscompletedbyatransferenceof
thesemoveablestothecreditor,forsatisfactionofthedebt.Itisafterward
discoveredthatL.90onlywasdue.Willthisvoidtheexecution,and
restorethegoodstothedebtor?Nopersoneverdreamedthataninnocent
plurispetitiocanhavesucheffectwithrespecttoapoinding.Bythe
originalformofthisexecution,thedebtor'sgoodswereexposedtopublic
auction,andthepricewasdeliveredtothecreditorinpaymentprotanto:
thepurchasersurelycouldnotbeaffectedbyanydisputeabouttheextent
ofthedebtandtheresultmustbethesamewherethegoodsareadjudged
tothecreditorforwantofapurchaser.Withregardtoalllegaleffectshe
isheldthepurchaserandifitshallbefoundthattheexecutionhas
proceededforagreatersumthanwasreallydue,thiscircumstancewill
foundapersonalactiontothequondamdebtor,butbynomeansarei
vindicatio.
Buttoomuchissaiduponanadjudicationconsideredasajudicialsale
forduringthelegalatleast,itisundoubtedlynotajudicialsale,buta
pignuspraetoriumonlyandthisIhavehadoccasiontodemonstrate
above*.IfamanshallgranttohiscreditorrealsecurityforL.1000,when
inrealityL.900isonlydue,willthisplurispetitiovoidtheinfeftment?

Thereisnottheleastpretextforsuchaconsequence:
Page228
thesumsecuredwillindeedberestricted,butthesecuritywillstandfirm
andunshaken.Itwillbeevidentatfirstglance,thatthesamemustbethe
caseofanadjudicationledinnocentlyforagreatersumthanisdue:a
pignuspraetoriummust,withrespecttothepresentpoint,bepreciselyof
thesamenaturewithavoluntarypledge.
Henceitclearlyappears,thatthesustaininganadjudicationforwhatis
trulydue,notwithstandingaplurispetitio,isnotanoperationofequity,to
haveplaceregularlyinthepresenttreatisebuttrulyanoperationof
commonlaw,whichsustainsnotaplurispetitiotoanyothereffectthanto
restrictthesumsecuredtowhatistrulydue,withoutimpinginguponthe
security.Noristhisavaindisputeforbesiderestingthepointuponits
truefoundation,whichalwaystendstoinstruction,itwillbefoundto
haveconsiderableinfluenceinpractice.Atpresent,anadjudication,
wherethereisaplurispetitio,isneversupportedagainstcompeting
creditorsfartherthantobeasecurityforthesumsdueinequity,striking
offallpenalties:andthispracticeisright,supposingsuchadjudicationto
benullatcommonlaw,andtobesupportedbyequityonly.Butifapluris
petitiohavenottheeffectatcommonlawtovoidtheadjudication,but
onlytorestrictthesumsecured,thereisnoplaceforstrikingoffthe
penalties,morethanwherethereisnoplurispetitio.Equityindeed
interposestorestrictpenaltiestothedamagethatthecreditorcanjustly
claimbydelayofpaymentbutthisholdsinalladjudicationsequally,not
exceptingthosethatarefreeofallobjections.
Thatitislawfulforonecertansdedamnoevitandototakeadvantageof
another'serror,isanuniversallawofnature.Thatithasplacein
covenantsisshowninaformerchapter:andthatitshouldhaveplace
amongcreditors,isevidentlyagreeabletotherulesofjustice,which
dictates,thatiftheremustbealoss,itoughttorestuponthecreditorwho
hathbeenguiltyofsomeerror,ratherthanuponthecreditorwhohath
avoidedallerror.Whenmattersoflawaretakeninatrain,andeverycase
isreducedtosomeprinciple,judgesseldomerr.Whatoccasionssomany
erroneousjudgments,isthebeingsway'dbyparticularcircumstancesin
everynewcase,withouteverthinkingofrecurringtoprinciplesorgeneral
rules.Bythismeansweareextremelyapttogoastray,carryingequity
sometimestoofar,andsometimesnotfarenough.Takethefollowing
remarkableinstance.AmongthecreditorsoftheYorkbuildingcompany,
anumberofannuitantsforlife,infeftfortheirsecurity,occupiedthefirst
placeandnextinordercametheDukeofNorfolk,infeftforavery
Page229
largesum.Theseannuitieswerefrequentlyboughtandsoldandthe
purchasers,insomeinstances,insteadofdemandingaconveyanceofthe
originalbondssecuredbyinfeftment,returnedthesetothecompany,and
tooknewpersonalbondsintheirplace,notimaginingthatbythismethod
therealsecuritywasunhinged.Thesenewbondsbeingobjectedtobythe
DukeofNorfolk,asmerelypersonal,andincapabletocompetewithhis
infeftment,thecourtpronouncedthefollowinginterlocutor:

"InrespectthattheEnglishpurchasers,ignorantofthelawsofScotland,
hadnointentiontopassfromtheirrealsecurityandthattheDukeof
Norfolk,whohadsufferednoprejudicebytheerror,oughtnottotake
advantageofitthereforefindthesaidannuitantspreferableasiftheyhad
takenassignmentstotheoriginalbonds,insteadofdeliveringthemuptothe
company."
Thiswasstretchingequitybeyondallboundsandineffectjudgingthatacreditor
isbarredbyequityfromtakingadvantageofanyerrorcommittedbyaco
creditor.Uponareclaimingpetitionaccordinglytheinterlocutorwasaltered,and
theDukeofNorfolkpreferred*.AndthisjudgementwasaffirmedintheHouse
ofLords.
CHAP.VIII.Powerofacourtofequitytoinflictpunishment,andtomitigateit.

ITisaninviolableruleinjusticeaswellasinexpediency,Thatnomanbe
allow'dtoreapthefruitsofhisfraud,nortotakebenefitbyanywronghe
hasdone.If,bythetortiousact,anotherbehurtinhisrightsorprivileges,
thereisgroundforreparationatcommonlawwhichsubjectishandledin
thebeginningofthiswork:butwrongmaybedonewithoutimpingingupon
anyrightorprivilegeofanotherandsuchwrongscanonlyberedressedina
courtofequity,byinflictingpunishmentinproportiontotheoffence.In
slightoffencesitissatisfiedwithforfeitingthewrongdoerofhisgain:in
grosseroffences,itnotonlyforseitsthegain,butsometimesinslictsa
penaltyoverandabove.Ibeginwithcasesofthefirstkind.
Amanhavingtwoestates,settlesthemuponAandB,histwosonsandA
discoveringaccidentallyadefectinhisfather'stitletotheestate
Page230
settleduponB,acquiresapreferabletitle,andclaimsthatestatefromhis
brother.Thispalpabletransgression,notonlyofgratitude,butoffilial
affection,wasnevercommittedbyanypersonwithaquietmindandyet,
upontheprinciplesofcommonlaw,thisodiousmanmustprevail.Buta
courtofequitywillinterpose,andbarhimfromtakinganybenefitfromthis
immoralact,bylimitinghisclaimtothesumlaidoutuponthepurchase.
Ifagratuitousdispositionbegrantedwithaprovisothatthedisponeeshall
performacertainfact,hisacceptanceofthedispositionsubjectshimat
commonlawtoperformance.Butletussupposethatamanmakesa
settlementofhisestate,burdeninghisheirwithalegacytoacertainperson
namedandthatafterward,inaseparatedeed,heappointsthatpersontobe
tutortohischildren.Herethelegacybeinggivenwithoutanycondition,is
dueatcommonlawwhetherthelegateeundertakethetutoryornot.But
everyonemustbesensible,thatitisanactofingratitudeinthelegateeto
declinethetrustreposedinhim,andthatheisinconscienceboundeitherto
undertakethetutoryortosurrenderthelegacy.If,therefore,hebeso
unjustastoclaimthelegacywithoutundertakingthetrust,acourtofequity
willpunishhimwiththelossofhislegacy*.Manyexamplesofthesame
kindarefoundintheRomanlaw.Alibertusclaimingalegacylefthimby
hispatron,willberemovedpersonaliobjectione,orexceptionedoli,inthe
languageoftheRomanlaw,ifhehavebeenguiltyofingratitudetohis
patronevenwheretheactofingratitudeisotherwiselaudable,aswhere

afterthedeathofthepatronthelibertusinformedagainsthimasasmuggler

.Buttheconnectionbetweenamasterandhismanumittedslavewasso
intimate,astomakeastepofthiskindbereckonedhighlyungrateful.
Again,alegateewhoconcealsatestamentinordertodisappointtheeffect
ofit,isforhisingratitudetothetestatorremovedpersonaliobjectionefrom
claiminghislegacy.Ishalladdbutoneotherexample:
"Meminisseautemoportebit,eum,quitestamentuminofficiosumimprobedixit
etnonobtinuit,idquodintestamentoaccepitperdere,etidsiscovindicari
quasiindignooblatum.Sedeidemumauferturquodtestamentodatumest,qui
usqueadsententiamjudicium,liteimproba,perseveraverit:caeterum,siante
sententiamdestititveldecessit,noneiauferturquoddatumest."

Page231
Whenamanisthusforfeitedofagoodclaim,thequestionis,Whatbecomes
ofthesubjectclaimed?whetherdothitaccruetothefisk,asbonavacantia,
orisitleftwiththepersonagainstwhomtheclaimislaid?Ulpian,inthe
textlastcited,giveshisopinionforthefiskthinkingprobablythatthe
legacybecomesasubjectwithoutaproprietorandthatifnopersoncan
claim,itmustgotothefisk.Paulustakestheotherside:
"Amittereidquodtestamentomeruit,eteum,placuit,quitutordatusexcusavit
seatutela.Sedhoclegatum,quodtutoridenegatur,nonadfiscumtransfertur,
sedfiliorelinquiturcujusutilitatesdesertaesunt*."
Andthisseemstobethemoresolidopinion.Thelegateeisnotguiltyofanywrong
withrespecttothecrown,butonlywithrespecttothetestatorandhisheir.Atthe
sametimethelegacycannotberankedinterbonavacantiaforthelegatee
continuesproprietor,andisonlybarredfromtheuseofhispropertybyan
exceptioncompetenttotheheir,andtohimalone,notagainstthelegatee'sright,but
onlytodefendhimselfagainstpayment.Thereisanadditionalreasonforthis
defenceagainstpayment,whichis,thattheheirshouldhavesomecompensationas
asolatiumforthatdistressofmindhemustfeel,whentreatedillbythosewhoowed
gratitudetohisfatherorancestor.Inourlawaccordinglythelegacyisallowedto
remainwiththeheir:equityforfeitsthewrongdoer,andbestowsthelegacyonthe
familythatisburdenedwithit.
Butsupposingbothpartiesequallycriminal,Ulpian'sopinionuponthat
suppositionseemstobewellfounded.Igiveforanexampleanobligation
grantedobturpemcausam,paidanddischarged.Herebothpartiesare
equallyguiltyandhencethemaximintheRomanlawQuodinturpicausa
potiorestconditiopossidentismeaningthattheobligeeisbarredpersonali
objectionefromdemandingpaymentandthatifpaymentbemade,the
quondamobligorisequallybarredfromclaimingrestitution.Thismaxim
mayholdbetweenthepartiesbutnotagainstthefisk.
Stellionate,whichconsistsinalieningtodifferentpersonsthesamesubject,
isacrimepunishablebystatute.IsellmylandtoAbyaminuteofsale.I
sellitasecondtimetoB,whoisfirstinfest.IfBwasignorantofmybargain
withA,hispurchasewillstandgoodinequityaswellasatcommonlaw
becausehemadealawfulpurchase,andhadnointentiontohurtA.But

supposingB,whenhemadehispurchase,tohavebeenintheknowledgeof
mybargain
Page232
withA,thequestionis,Whatshallbetheeffectofthiscircumstance?Itcan
havenoeffectatcommonlaw,whichonlyconsidersthatBispreferableby
hisfirstinfeftment,andthatAisnotmorehurtthanifhisbargainhadbeen
unknowntoB.ButitwasatortiousactinBtoreceivefrommewhatIcould
notlawfullygivehimandheispunishedforthistortiousactbyvoidinghis
purchase.Thus,ifA,havingnoticethatlandswerecontractedtobesoldto
B,purchasetheselands,suchpurchasewillbevoidedinequity*.Again,in
acaseoftwopurchasersofthesamelandinYorkshire,wherethesecond
purchaser,havingnoticeofthefirstpurchase,andthatitwasnotregistered,
wentonandpurchased,andgothispurchaseregistered,itwasdecreed,that
thefirstpurchaserwaspreferable.A,whopurchasedlandthoughheknew
thatthevenderwasbuttenantforlife,andthatthepropertywasinhisson,
soldthelandafterwardtoB,whohadnonoticeofthesettlement.Upona
billbroughtbythesonafterthedeathofhisfatheragainstAandB,itwas
decreed,ThatastoB,whowaspurchaserwithoutnotice,thebillshouldbe
dismissedbutthatAshouldaccountforthepurchasemoneyhereceived,
withinterestfromthedeathofthetenantforlifea.
Nextwhereamanpurchasesasubjectwhichheknowstobeattachedby
inchoatedexecution.Thedisponingasubjectthuslegallyattachedisnot
stellionate,becauseitcomesnotunderthedefinitionofgrantingdouble
rights.Butthedisponerisguiltyofamoralwrong,inattemptingto
disappointhiscreditor,bywithdrawingthesubjectfromhisexecution,to
whichwrongthepurchaserisaccessoryifhehadnoticeoftheexecution
andforthatreason,thoughthepurchaser'stitlebefirstcompleted,hewillbe
postponedtothecreditorinacourtofequity,asapunishmentuponhim.
Thustheporteurofabillofexchange,havingindorsedthesameforready
moneyafteritwasattachedbyanarrestmentlaidinthehandsofthe
accepter,
Page233
thearresterwaspreferredtotheonerousindorsee,forthereasonabove
mentioned,thatthelatterwhenhetooktheindorsationwasinthe
knowledgeofthearrestment*.Thisopensthefoundationofaproposition
establishedinpractice,Thatinchoatedexecutionrendersthesubject
litigious.Afteranadjudication,forexample,iscommenced,itiswrongin
thedebtortosellthelandanditiswrongforanyonetopurchase.
Weproceedtothecaseofacreditor,who,forhissecurity,takesa
conveyancetoasubjectwhichheknowswasformerlydisponedtoanother
foravaluableconsideration.Whatpleadsforthiscreditor'spreference,isthe
necessityofprovidingforhissecuritywhenhecannototherwiseobtain
payment.Butthedebtorisundoubtedlycriminalingrantingthesecurity:he
isguiltyofstellionate,andthecreditorisaccessorytothecrime.This
circumstanceoughttobarhiminequityfromtakingthebenefitofhisreal
securityagainsttheformerdisponeeforIholdittobeclearinprinciples,
thatthemotiveofpreventinglossisinnocaseasufficientexcusefordoing

anunjustact,orforbeingaccessorytoit.
Suchisthereliefthatbyequityisaffordedinfavouroftheequitableclaim
againstapurchasemademalafide.Letusnowsupposethatapurchaseis
fairlymadewithoutnotice,andthatthepropertyistransferredtothe
purchaser.Iputastrongcase,thatamanisguiltyofstellionate,byselling
hislandasecondtime,andthatthesecondpurchaser,ignorantoftheother,
obtainsthefirstinfeftment.Tomakethequestionofimportance,letitalso
besupposed,thatthepriceispaidbythefirstpurchaser,andthatthe
commonauthorisnowbankrupt.Somecircumstancesatfirstviewseemto
weighagainstthesecondpurchaser:Thecommonauthorisguiltyof
stellionateandthoughthesecondpurchaserisnotaccessorytothecrime,
hetakeshoweverthebenefitofaniniquitousdeedwhichmaybereckoned
notaltogetherfair.Butuponmaturereflectionitwillbefound,thatjustice
militatesnotagainsthim.Byobtainingthefirstinfeftmenthebecomes
proprietor:anditonlyremainstobeconsidered,whethertherebyany
groundinequityorjusticetoforfeithimofhisproperty.Suchforfeiture
cannototherwisebejustthanasapunishmentforacrime,andthereforeit
cannotbeappliedagainsttheinnocent.Henceaninviolableruleofjustice,
Thattheinnocentcannotbedeprivedoftheirpropertyunlessbytheirown
consent.Bythisrule,thesecondpurchaserfirstinfeftissecure:heissecure
bythecommonlaw,becausehehasthefirstinfeftmentandheis
Page234
securebyequity,because,havingpurchasedbonafide,heisinnocent.
Aistenantintail,remaindertohisbrotherBintail.Anotknowingofthe
entail,makesasettlementonhiswifeforlifeasajointure,withoutlevyinga
fine,orsufferingarecovery.B,whoknewoftheentail,ingrossesthis
settlement,butdoesnotmentionanythingoftheentailbecause,ashe
confessedinhisanswer,ifhehadspokeofit,hisbrother,byarecovery,
mighthavecutofftheremainder,andbarredhim.B,afterthebrother's
death,recoveredanejectmentagainstthewidowbyforceoftheentail.She
wasrelievedinchanceryandaperpetualinjunctiongrantedforthiswrong
donebyBinconcealingtheentailforiftheentailhadbeendisclosed,the
settlementwouldhavebeenmadegoodbyarecovery*.Theconnection
whichBhadwiththeparties,partlybyblood,andpartlybybeing
employedtoingrossthesettlement,madeithisdutytoinformhisbrotherof
theentail.Andhiswilfultransgressionofthisdutywasamoralwrong,
whichjustlydeprivedhimofthebenefitheprojectedtohimselfby
concealingtheentail.
Inacasethathassomeanalogytotheforegoing,thecourtofsession,asa
courtofequity,stretchedtheirpowersagreatwayfurtherfurther,Iam
persuaded,thancanbejustified.Anheiress'sinfeftmentuponaserviceto
herpredecessor,being,afterherdeath,challengedinareductionasnulland
void,withtheviewtodisappointherhusbandofhiscurtesythecourt
decreed,Thattheheiress'sinfeftmentnothavingbeenchallengedtillafter
herdeath,itwassufficienttosupportthecurtesy,uponthefollowing
groundofequity,Thathaditbeenchallengedduringherlife,thenullity
mightandwouldhavebeensupplied.Oneispronetoapprovethis
judgementandyetthereappearunsurmountabledifficulties.For,first,itis
notsaidthatthepursuerofthereductionwasintheknowledgeofthese

nullitiesduringthelifeofhispredecessortheheiress.2dly,Whatiftheyhad
beenknowntohim?Cansilencealonebeconsideredascriminal,where
thereisnootherconnectionbutthatofpredecessorandsuccessor?
Aman,contrarytoconscience,isnotsufferedtomakeadefencemorethan
tomakeaclaim.Adefendant,suedforhisrent,deposedthathehadno
lease:beingafterwardsuedtoremove,heproducedacurrentlease.Hewas
barredpersonaliobjectionefromfoundingany
Page235
defenceuponit*.Whichineffectwasforfeitinghimofhisleaseasa
punishmentforhisperjury.
Thefollowingareexampleswherethewrongdoerisnotonlyforfeitedof
hisgain,butsubjectedoverandabovetoapenalty.Aman,byaddingaseal
toanote,whichissufficientwithoutaseal,waspunishedwiththelossof
hissecurity.Andaccordinglyitisarule,
"Thatawrongfulmannerofexecutingathingshallvoidamatterthatmight
havebeenexecutedlawfully."
Abondbeingvitiatedinthesum,byasuperinductionofpoundsformerks,was
refusedtobesustainedfortheoriginalsum,butwasfoundnullintotum.Itisnot
clearinthiscasewhatwastheratiodecidendiwhetherapenaltywasintendedfor
falsifyingthebond,orwhetherthecourtmeantonlytorefuseactionuponabond
thatwasvitiatedwhichtheymightwelldo,becausethewordpoundswasan
evidentvitiation,bybeingsuperinducedoveranotherwordthatcouldnotbeknown
tobemerksbutbyconjecture.Thetryingcasewouldhavebeenareferencetothe
defender'soath,thathereallyborrowedthesumoriginallycontainedinthebond.
Wouldthecourtofsessionhaverefusedtosustainthisclaim,yeaornot?They
couldnothaverefuseduponanyotherfootingthanpermodumpoenae.Thecourtof
sessiondeniedactionuponabondthatwaspurposelyantedatedinordertosaveit
froman**inhibitiona.
Whatisthelegaleffectofbriberyintheelectionofamembertoservein
parliament,orofmagistratestoserveinboroughs?Commonlaw,with
respecttoelectors,considersonlywhetherthemanwasintitledtovote,
disregardingthemotivethatinducedhimtopreferonecandidatebefore
anotherandthereforethismattercomesunderacourtofequity.Andas
goodgovernmentrequiresafreedomandindependencyinvoting,acourtof
equitywillsetasideevery
Page236
voteobtainedbybriberyforthecandidatewhoisguiltyofbriberywillnot
bepermittedtobenefithimselfbyhiscrime:andeventhecandidate'sown
voteissetaside,thoughnotobtainedbybribery,asapunishmentjustly
inflicteduponhimforcorruptingothers.
BythecommonlawofEngland,thewife'sadulterydidnotdepriveherof
herdower,eventhoughadivorcehadfollowed*.Uponthisaccounttheact
13EdwardI.cap.34.wasmade,enacting,

"Thatifawifewillinglyleaveherhusband,andcontinuewithheradulterer,
sheshallbebarredforeverofherdower,unlessherhusbandwillingly,and
withoutcoertionofthechurch,bereconciledtoher."
ElisabethClement,afterlivingwithherhusbandforthreemonths,desertedhim,and
livedinopenadulterywithanotherman,bywhomshehadachild.Beingcited
beforethekirksessionofCrieff,sheconfessedherguilt,andsufferedpublic
penanceinpresenceofthecongregation.Afterherhusband'sdeceasesheclaimed
fromhisrepresentativesthethirdpartofhismoveables,andtheterceofhisland.
Herclaimwassustained,notwithstandingheradultery,whichwasnotdenied.What
movedthepluralityofthejudgeswas,thatsincetherewasnodivorce,thepursuer's
adulterydidnotdepriveherofherqualityofrelict,norconsequentlyofherlegal
provisions.Thismayberightatcommonlawbutitoughttohavebeenconsidered,
thatawomanwhohathbehavedsoundutifullyasawife,isjustlydeprivedofthe
privilegesofawifeandthatsheoughtnottohavetheaidofacourtofequityto
maketheseprivilegeseffectual.TheEnglishstatuterestsobviouslyuponthis
equitablefoundationandnowthattheprinciplesofequityareripened,thesame
oughttoobtainwithuswithoutastatute.
Apenaltycannotbeextendedbeyondthewordsbutitmaybelimited
withinthewordsuponcircumstancesthatinferinnocence.CaptainForbes,
whohadnotafuroflandintheshireofCromarty,washoweverbyactof
parliamentappointedcommissionerofsupplyforthatshire,underthename
anddesignationof
"CaptainJohnForbesofNew,factorupontheannexedestateofCromarty."
Acomplaintbeingexhibitedagainsthimforactingascommissionerofsupply
withouthavingthequalificationofL.100valuedrent,thecourtjudgedthathehad
notitletoact.Butinrespecthehadactedmanyyearswithoutchallengequafactor
uponthesaidestate,asformerfactorshaddone,andinrespecttheobjectionagainst
himwas
Page237
notclear,andinasimilarcasehadbeenfoundbythecourttobenoobjection,his
bonafideswassustainedtofreehimfromthepenalty.Andyetuponareclaiming
petitionthisinterlocutorwasaltered,andhewasfoundliableforthepenalty.The
judgescontinuedintheirformeropinion,thatheactedbonafidebuttheplurality
thoughtthattheyhadnopowertomitigatethestatutorypenaltywhichwasineffect
maintainingaveryabsurdproposition,Thatapunishmentmaybeinflictedonan
innocentpersonforanerrorinjudgementmerely.
Thedoctrineofbonafideswillonlyholdinstatutorypenaltiesforina
crimeagainstthelawofnaturebonafideswillneverbesupposed.Andwith
respecttostatutorypenalties,manyofthemareenactedintermsso
ambiguous,astomakeitextremelydoubtfulinwhatcasesthepenaltyis
incurred.Amanhappenstomistakethestatuteorratherhappenstojudge
differentlyfromwhatisafterwardfoundtobethemeaninginacourtoflaw:
isitconsistentwiththerulesofmorality,orofcommonjustice,tosubject
thisinnocentpersontothepenalty?

<<Previoussection Nextsection>>

PoweredbyDLXS
Tocommentorinquireaboutcontent,contacteccotcpinfo@umich.edu
Toreporterrors,contactDLPSHelp