Selected quad for the lemma: judgement_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
judgement_n	defendant_n	matter_n	plaintiff_n	1,393	5	10.0338	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A39391	Enchiridion legum a discourse concerning the beginnings, nature, difference, progress and use of laws in general, and in particular, of the common & municipal laws of England.; Enchiridion legum.		1673 (1673)	Wing E720; ESTC R22664	57,223	150

Declaration in our Laws as the form is now used but contains both Causes in it besides there are other differences betwixt the forms used in the pleadings and declarations of both the Laws which would be too long and tedious to recite The next difference is in the Process 3. The third difference in the awarding of Process awarded in both the Laws Concerning the awarding of Process we find that with us in personal actions I mean in many of them joyning Statute Law and Common Law together In Actions personal more Process and delay permitted by our Law than by the Civil Law there are commonly awarded if the Suite be commenced in the Common Pleas summons attachment distress three capias with an exigent at the last whereby the King hath Title for the parties contumacy to his Goods and Chattels So that the plaintiffe hath now remedy by accident only and if the defendant appear and reverse the Outlary or get pardon and so answer c. which is a long time before this can be brought to pass and by this means this Suite may depend long yet the defendant never convented but at two or three years end the plaintiffe may be driven to declare anew as if he had but then begun his Suite But by the Civil Law as the Pandects shew us and Wesenbech affirmeth the Term to be now in the Empire post absentiam adversarii petat quis edictum primum mox alterum per intervallum non minus decem dierum tertium quibus propositis tunc peremptoriè impetret quod inde hoc nomen sumpsit quod perimeret disceptationem hoc est ultra non pateretur adversarium tergiversari Then if the defendant appear at the day given him by the Peremptory edict No judgment given in the absence of the plaintiffe at the Civil Law or if he do not the matter shall be discussed and judgment given for him whose part shall be found best But if the plaintiffe appear not then nothing shall be done but circumducendum erit edictum perpetuum And the peremptory edict may at the pleasure of the Judge be granted at the first by the same authority So that The interest of the plaintiffe lesse subject to prejudice in Actions personals by the Civil Law than by our Law hereby the Interest of the party who hath right is less subject to prejudice by that Law than by ours And this course of the Civil Law doth not admit so much delay as doth our Common Law For by our Law in such Cases where no Outlawry lieth in personal Actions there the Process of distress goeth out infinitely and then is there no end of the Suite as in per quae servicia quae juris clamat and such like wherein it is true that our Law severely punisheth the party which so much sheweth contumacy to the Law yet doth it no good or very little to the plaintiffe for his satisfaction But there is another difference that in Actions altogether real as Entry Escheate Right Dower and such like the remedy allowed by the Laws of England is far better for in them if at the day appointed upon the first summons the party make default and the quarto diepost be past then is there a graund cape to take his land into the hands of the King and the plaintiffe shall have it from the King by judgment if the defendant do not come to replevy it by oath that he was not summoned according to the Law or such like always remembred that Essoynes upon just occasion may herein breed much delay And herein is there much difference betwixt the Civil Law and our Law for in the Civil Law upon their peremptory edict notwithstanding the defendant A main difference betwixt the proceeding of our Law and the Civil Law in Actions real doth not appear the right shall be examined and thereupon judgment given but with us upon the default at the graund cape the plaintiffe shall have the land by judgment although the right be not examined As also upon the appearance if by oath he cannot save the first default likewise if he once appear and afterwards make default before judgment given there must be a petit cape awarded at which Writs return if he do not save the first default there shall be judgment given against him That all this was antient Law may be seen in Bractons Treatise de defaltis So that in personal actions the Civil In personal actions the Civil Law is more severe but in real more remiss than our Law of England Law hath a more severe and speedy course for recovery than the Common Law of England but in real actions it is somewhat more remiss or at the least ours is more severe For the last difference spoken of betwixt 4. The last difference is in the giving and Execution of judgment these Laws which is for the giving of judgment and Execution upon the same in real actions being in rem although the form and circumstance thereof may be divers yet in these real actions quoad substantiam effectum the difference is not very great for both Laws must make Execution of the same thing though perchance not in the same manner But for personal actions it is manifest by the course of antient and present times that for Debt ever since King Edward the third his time and damages and accompt ever since Henry the third his time in actions upon the Case ever since King Henry the 7th his time and in all actions Execution against the person after judgment by our Law in actions personal where Capias lieth in the Process before judgment there Capias ad satisfaciendum lieth after judgment to put the party in prison for Execution than the which although a more rigorous Law were by the 12 Tables whereby Corpus inter creditores secari licebat whereof Rivallius saith an example is not read in any History or other Book yet afterwards by their Lex Petilia it was decreed as Livy reporteth that no man should be for Debt nervo aut compedibus vinctus which notwithstanding was used sometimes by the violence of Vsurers and therefore sometimes renewed by the Laws Portia Sempronia Popilia and other whereby terga civium were made tanquam sacrosancta Also by the Lex Julia if the Debtor would leave his goods his Body was free as appears by the same reported in the Code But this Law Hottoman thinketh not to extend unto Banquerupts or such as are non solvendo by their own default But by the Anthentiques and Latine Law if The Civil Law more mild of latter time than ours for Execution against ones person in debt c. a man were poor by some external misfortune and not by his own means if he would ejurare copiam bonam he need not leave his goods for his Creditors nor subject himself to Prison which is so mild a Law towards Debtors that it hath no proportion