Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	call_v	old_a	word_n	2,108	5	3.9750	3	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