Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	certain_a	great_a	time_n	1,560	5	3.1037	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
B02809	Duplies to the petition and replyes given in to the Commission of Parliament for Fines and Forefaultures, by Alexander Munro of Bear-Crofts	Monroe, Alexander, fl. 1691.	1691 (1691)	Wing D2647A; ESTC R174884	15,189	18

its own Nature is of the greatest import and the most involved that is known in Law since it is almost Impossible for any Man to know distinctlie the Vniversum jus Quod defunctus habuit before he enter Heir and for which cause the dies Cretionis and Au nus Deliberandi were introduced to lessen that danger it is therefore most probable that the Romans were more prone and readie to allow Restitution against the Aditio Haereditatis and upon more slender Grounds then against any other Obligation in their Law and it is certain that in our Decisions the Lords do frequentlie sustaine defences to Elide an Odious passive Title which they would repell in other causes for the whole context of the Civil Law anent the Edict Quod metus causa makes that paragraph altogether excentrick and Irregular But 2do the great Cujace whom never Man after Justinian's time equaled in the knowledge of the Roman Law was so conscious to the absolute inconsistency of this Text with the whole Titles Quod metus causa both in the digest Cod. That he is forced in his Comentar ad l 21. § 5. Digestis quod metus causa to correct it and in stead of Verborum to Read it Verberum For says he metus est futurorum sic dicimus metum verberum qui justus est metus non verborum So that this Text being thus restored will not meet the case seing if the alique timore which follows the word verberum be not likewise corrupted it must be understood habili modo necessarly supposed to be always a justus timor scilicet ex justa causa and it is pleasant to take notice that the Replyer could not find one single grue in all the Bodie of the Civill Law which could be wreasted so much to favour the Petitioners case save this corrupt Text only and yet tho it were sincere as it cannot be He could not subsume in the terms of it neither the King nor the Lords having by Word or Write threatned the Petitioner to accept of the Money or to grant the Renunciation The other Citation is the l 11. Cod. de his quae vi c. Si per impressionem quis aliquem metueus saltem in mediocri officio constitutum rei suae in eadem provincia vel loco ubitale officium peragit sub venditionis titulo fecerit Cessionem quod emptum fuit reddatur Upon which Text the Replyer most insipidly subsums That in the Petitioners case there was aliquis metus for a Child would have adverted that the word aliquem in the Text could not construe with impressionem and did refer only to the Concustor and he is pleased to add that the Petitioner could not have disobeyed the Kings command in his Letter without the hazard of being constructed a seditious Contemner of Authority so that his taking the Money was an Act of necessity It is Replyed That the Impression mentioned there behoved to have been a just one from a sufficient Cause And albeit in this Text which is acknowledged to be sincere the word aliquem had been written aliquam as the Replyer would have it Yet the Law even in that case would regulate the Extent of that general Terme and restrict it only to a just impression the causes of which are fixed and known in Law And as it is evident from the Causes of Just Fear defined in the Text as well as from the l 10 cod hoc tit in these words accusationis institutae vel futurae metu alienationem seu promissionem factam rescindi postulantis improbum est desiderium That the hazard of being constructed a seditious Contemner of Authority was no cause of fear to which the Roman Law would allow the benefit of the Edict unless he should thereby have run the hazard of being truly guilty of Sedition So it is gross to alleadge that the Kings Letter bears a command to the Petitioner for accepting of Money or Relates to him otherwise then as the Lords of Session should find just to apply it but in this case there is no difficulty to understand that the Petitioner was abundantly secure from the hazard of contemning Authority by his forbearing to intrude any more upon that Office and suffering the Act of Parliament to be put to execution whether he had accepted of Money for so doing or granted any such Renounciation or not By all which it is plain that none of these Citations that are adduced out of Baldus Anchoranus Fulgosius Geminus Pappon Caldas Natta Alexander Arretinus Menochius and Bartolus are to the purpose And in the case the Lady Gray against the Earl of Lauderdale the Right transmitted by the Lady was a Legal Right consistent with Law the Concussor was called and insisted against and there were Acts of Force and Violence lybelled and proven such as that the Earl violently entred to the possession of these Lands disponed before any sentence in his Favours or Right made to him be the Lady Whereas in this Case tho' the Petitioner's Right had not been null by the Act of Parliament yet there was no Force or Violence done for removing him much less was he any wayes compelled to accept of Money or give such an express Renunciation of his Right and if he had been intimidate by the LORDS to accept of the Money as he was not yet a Receipt of the seven Thousand Merks had answered the Termes of the Act of Sederunt by which he is not at all ordained to Renunce And he might upon offering to consigne such a Receipt without the Renunciation have oblieged Haystoun to pay the Sum by a Charge on the Act of Sederunt upon which albeit it be plainly and positively urged that on the other Hand no manner of Execution could have followed against the Petitioner if he had not voluntarly both given Obedience and Renunced yet nevertheless there is no Reply made to this but that in those days he durst not offer to repossess himself of his Office as it is humbly conceived he dare not now a dayes albeit he might then as well as now refuse or accept Money and grant Renunciations or not as he thought fit The second Allegeance against the Concussion That the LORDS had no interest to concuss gets no better Reply For to say the KING concussed especially in an Affair wherein the Petitioner's particular Interest was not considered and which might have taken full effect without his accepting of Money and all without his giving any such Renunciation does not at all take it off and therefore needs no farther Duply To the thrid on the special Case of singular Successors It is Replyed That the Action of Restitution competent to the Party laesed is in Rem scripta and follows the thing extorted whatever Bona Fides the possessor had in the acquisition It is Duplyed That this Allegiance does not grant but only suppose the Concussion and if the Replyer had been ingenuous enough in citing the