Selected quad for the lemma: act_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
act_n	king_n	parliament_n	sovereign_a	3,527	5	9.3552	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A50719	Observations upon the 28. (i.e. 18.) Act, 23. Parl. K. James VI. against dispositions made in defraud of creditors, &c. by Sir George Mckenzie ...	Mackenzie, George, Sir, 1636-1691.; England and Wales. Laws, etc.	1675 (1675)	Wing M187; ESTC R19315	75,257	223

Action at the Laird of Garthlands instance contra Sir James Ker upon this Act of Parliament did refuse to reduce an Infeftment albeit a meer Donation and made likewise by the Grand-father to his own Grand-child and that because the granter of the Infeftment was neither at the time of the granting thereof Bankrupt and non solvendo nor was he become such since neither had the Creditor done diligence for his debt and yet it might have seem'd in reason that though dispositions where there was an onerous cause might have been sustained there was no reason to allow the same priviledge in favours of confident persons for meer Donations And upon the 10. February 1665. the Lord Loure having quarrel'd the Lady Craigs Infeftment as being an additional Joynter granted betwixt Husband and Wife to his prejudice who was a Creditor and had comprised the Estate It was answered that the disponer was neither bankrupt nor insolvendo nor did the Compriser sustain any prejudice seing the Lady was content that the Lord Loure should be preferred to his Annual-rents by vertue of his Comprysing providing he would assign the Lady to his Comprising pro tanto that she might recover as much for satisfaction of her additional Joynter which answer the Lords found relevant the Apprisers prejudice being purged as said is but they ordained the Compriser not only to be admitted to have access to the comprised Lands by assignation in manner forsaid during the Legal but they likewise declared that if the Lady redeemed not within the Legal the Lands should be irredeemable and the Lady should be totally excluded which though it was but a trysting Interloquetor do's confirm the former opinion And though it may be alleadged that a Disposition being once valid when it was first granted cannot become thereafter null by the disponers becoming thereafter insolvent yet this holds not in many cases in our Law for we find that Dispositions of less then the half of Ward-Lands without consent of the Superiour become thereafter null if as much of that Barrony be thereafter disponed as will amout to more than the half But in my opinion though the rubrick of our Statutes may found a presumptive argument for explicating the Text yet it is not authoritative for the Rubrick is not read in Parliament and it is added to the Law after it is past carelesly without debate Our Soveraign Lord with advice and consent of the Estates The legislative power of Scotland consists in the Parliament that is to say the King and three Estates of Parliament and though some think it more proper in our Law to say Our Soveraign Lord and Estates of Parliament as in all the Statutes or Acts of the 18. Par. Ja 6 then to say Our Soveraign Lord with advice and consent c. yet I conceive the King Statutes and they but consent though their consent be necessary for his touching them with the Scepter and not the being voted makes them Laws and in England the King statutes with consent of Parliament and upon their supplication and therefore I understand not Craig who Diag 8. affirms Statutes to be constitutiones trium Regni ordinum cum consensu Principis for that is just to invert the statutory words of this and many other Acts. Our old Acts being all past the last day of the Parliament did not express the statuting power in every Act for in effect they were all but branches of one Act and run Item that c. and many of these Acts bear It is statute by the Parliament and the King forbids as Acts. 13. 14. 1 Par. Ja. 1. which Intimats that though the Parliament statutes suffragando consentiendo yet the King only doth statute sanciendo prohibendo Sometimes our Acts bear It is statute by the hail Parliament and sometimes It is statute and ordained without mentioning either King or Parliament sometimes also they bear the determination of Parliament without speaking of the King which was either where the King was to perform what was statuted as 23. Act Par. 1. Ja. 1. It is statute and ordained that our Soveraign Lord shall gar mend his money And by the 6 Act 3 Par. Ja. 2. The Estates has concluded that the King shall ride thorow the Realme or else when the Estates are only to grant what is statuted as in Commissions granted for uniting the two Kingdoms But I find one Statute bear the King statuting without mentioning the Estates of Parliament viz. Act 19. Sess. 1. Par. 1. Ch. 2. but this is but meer inadvertance Ratifies and confirms an Act of the Lords of Session c. This was originally an Act past by the Lords of Session when they do sit judicially at which time it is marked in their books of sederunt such and such men did sit Thus the Hebrews disigned the books of the Old Testament by the first words and thus we still mark the Laws from the first words and thus the old books of our Law are called Regiam Majestatem because they begin so His Majesty at the first institution of the Colledge of Justice did allow the Lords of Session to conclude upon sick Rules Statutes and Ordinances as shall be thought by them expedient to be observed and keeped in their manner and order of proceeding at all times as they devise conform to reason equity and justice his Grace shall ratifie and approve the same These are the words of the 43. Act 5. Par. Ja. 5. to the which Act I think this act relates but it would appear both by that Act and by the power as here repeated that the Lords of Session have only power to make orders relating to the regulation of their own house and to the forms of Process For this was indeed necessary for explication of their Jurisdiction and possibly was implyed in their very constitution without any expresse warrand arg l 2. ff de jurisdict but it seems that this general power cannot authorize them to make Statutes and Acts relating to the material distribution of Justice such as that all Writs should be null except subscribed before witnesses though they might have ordained that Papers under the hands of their own Clerks should be so subscribed for if they could make Statutes as to any thing else besides the forms of their own house there needed no Parliament for their Statutes might bind all the people in all things and yet it may be objected that by this argument the Lords of Session could not have made this Law declaring Contracts amongst the Leidges to be null that touching upon one of the fundamentals of humane society albeit they might have declared such a nullity receiveable by way of exception for that concerned only form of Process But the Answer to this is that the Lords in making this Act did not introduce jus novum a new Law but only adapted to our practice the old Roman or Civil Law which they might have followed in their decisions without making any new

them And as Aulus Gellius observes lib. 5. cap. 13. in officiis apud majores ita observatum est primum tutela deinde hospiti deinde clienti tum cognato postea affini And as Dionis halic lib. 2. Ant Rom. observes the Patron was obliedged clienti jura interpretari lites pro eo suscipere And this was common to both that they could never accuse nor bear Witness against one another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And on the Laws of the twelve Tables was patronus si clienti fraudem fecerit sacer esto So sacrilegious a thing was it then held to reveal the Clients secrets But thereafter this mutual dependence and friendship became so suspect to the Roman Emperours that none were allowed to be Patrons but Lawyers whose power the Magistrates needed not suspect and who were presumed to be men so legal and of such integrity that they would advice nothing but what was just And therefore betwixt these continued the Trust and mutual assurance that was required betwixt the old Patrons and their Clients Though Advocats be now known to antequaries for distinction under the term of patroni secundarii Whereas it is urged that it is the interest of the Common-wealth that truth be discovered To this it is answered that it is indeed the interest of the Common-wealth to discover the truth as far as that can be done in a convenient and lawful way for it is likewise the interest of the Common-wealth not to unseal the secrets of privat persons and thereby to render all Trust and Commerce suspect And notwithstanding of this Argument the Law has exempted men from deponing against themselves and against many others who are enumerat l. 4. ff de testibus and of which we have very many instances in our Law Rei publicae quidem interest crimina impunita non esse sed rei publica quoque interest pietatis necessitudinis officia sarta tecta conservari sine quibus nihil sanctum haberi potest nec inviolatum And Cicero lib. 3. de offic does elegantly affirm non igitur patria prestabit omnibus officiis sed ipsi patriae conducit pios cives habere Advocats are persons whose Breeding obliedges them to admire Justice as Musicians do Musick or as a man does that Countrey in which he lives and they having given their Oath de fideli at their admission to give their Clients advice according to the Laws they cannot be presumed to have advised any thing against the Law And it is known that they offend in this so infrequently if at all that it may seem fiter not to inquire into such cases that seldom occure then by inquiry to introduce a jealousie betwixt parties who need such strict intimacy And as no Gentleman is desired to divulge his friends secrets much lesse should the Law require this from Advocats since it has obliedged them to imploy Advocats and to entrust them with their secrets And though men may be suspect when they debate for their own interest and advantage yet what interest can Advocats have here save that of their Clients for the Client and not the Advocat suffers by the discovery and the Common-wealth being only a collective body of Clients in effect the Common-wealth is prejudged because Clients are prejudged And though a Decision in the Parliament of Paris be commonly alledged upon this point 18. June 1580. in the case of one Barbine yet all that was there decided was que l'advocat conseil pourroit estre ouy par for me de tesmoinage So that the Advocats have there been willing but were not forced And the parties objections were there reserved for the Decision beares Sauf a la partie ses reproches So that they were but examined before answer Nor can an Advocat be thus said to conceal truth since he is only said to conceal who may be forced to depon And if Clients know that their Advocats may be forced to depon against them they will keep their secrets or propose their doubts under borrowed names and thus the design of finding out truth will be disappointed And the Argument altogether eluded some urge that Advocats may be forced to depon upon the having of their Clients Papers And that by many Decisions they have been oft forced to give them up after full debates wherein a special priviledge upon the account of their imployment has been pretended from which they infer that they may be also examined upon what past betwixt their Clients and them But to this the easie and just answer is that an Advocat can be no further obliedged to deliver his Clients Papers then the Client himself could have been but neither the one nor the other could be forced to deliver up any Papers but such as the Pursuer is in Law allowed an interest in and in so far as they are the pursuers Papers Nor are such Papers as ought to be exhibited to be accounted secrets and Advocats are obliedged here not as Advocats but as ordinary Subjects But I will not decide this weighty point ACT XXVIII A Ratification of an Act of the Lords of Counsel and Session made in July 1620. against unlawful Dispositions and Alienations made by Dyvours and Bankrupts OUR SOVERAINE LORD with advice and consent of the ESTATES conveened in this present Parliament ratifies approves and for his Highnesse and His Successours perpetually confirmes the Act of the Lords of Counsel and Session made against Dyvours and Bankrupts at Edinburg the 12. day of July 1620 and ordaines the same to have and take full effect and execution as a necessary and profitable Law for the weal of all his Highness Subjects Of the which Act the tenor followeth THE LORDS Of Counsel and Session understanding by the grievous and just complaints of many of his majesties good subjects that the fraud malice and falshood of a number of Divours and Bankrupts is become so frequent and avowed and hath already taken such progresse to the over-throw of many honest mens fortunes and estates that it is likely to dissolve trust commerce and faithful dealing amongst Subjects Whereupon must ensue the ruine of the whole Estate if the godlesse deceites of those be not prevented and remedied who by their apparent Wealth in Lands and Goods and by their show of Conscience Credit and Honestie drawing into their hands upon trust the Money Merchandize and Goods of well-meaning and credulous persons do no wayes intend to repay the same but either to live ryotously by wasting of other mens substance or to enrich themselves by that subtil stealth of true mens goods and to withdraw themselves and their goods forth of this Realme to elude all execution of Justice And to that effect and in manifest defraud of their Creditors do make simulate and fraudful alienations dispositions and other securities of their Lands Reversions Teyndes Goods Actions Debts and others belonging unto them to their Wives Children Kinsmen alleyes and other confident and interposed persons without any