1793.
plead in bar, and the merits shall be determined upon issue or demurrer, as in suits between subject and subject. If the Attorney-General confesses to suggestion there is no occasion for a commission, his admission of the truth of the facts being equally conclusive as if they had been found by a jury.—See 3
Blackstone’s Commentaries 256. and 4
Com. Dig. 458. and the authorities there cited. Though the above mentioned indorsement be the usual one, Lord
Somers in the course of his voluminous search; discovered a variety of other answers to what he considered were unquestionable petitions of right; in respect to which he observes: “The truth is, the manner of answering petitions to the person of the
King was very various; which variety did sometimes arise from the conclusion of the party’s petition; sometimes from the nature of the thing; and sometimes from favour to the person; and according as the indorsement was, the party was sent into
Chancery, or one of the other Courts. If the indorsement was general,
soit droit fait al partie, it must be delivered to the Chancellor of
England, and then a commission was to go to find the
right of the party; and that being found, so that there was a record for him, thus warranted, he is let in to interplead with the
King; but if the indorsement was special, then the proceeding was to be according to the indorsement in any other Court. This is fully explained by
Stamford (Staundfort) in his treatise of the
Prerog. c. 23. The case
Mich. 10
H. 4. 4.
no. 8. is full as to this matter. The
King recovers in a
Quare impedit by default against one who was never summoned; the party cannot have a
writ of deceit without a petition. If then, says the book, he concludes his petition, generally “que le Roy lui face droit” (that the
King will cause right to be done) and the answer is general, it must go into the
Chancery, that the right may inquired of by commission; and, upon the inquest found, an original writ must be directed to the Justices to examine the
deceit; otherwise the Justices, before whom the suit was, cannot meddle: But if he conclude his petition especially,
that it may please his Highness to command his Justices to proceed to the examination, and the indorsement be accordingly,
that had given the Justices a jurisdiction. They might in such a case have proceeded upon the petition without any commission, or any writ to be sued out; the petition and answer indorsed giving a sufficient jurisdiction to the Court to which it was directed. And as the book I have mentioned proves this, so many other authorities may be cited.” He accordingly mentions many other instances, immaterial to be recited here, particularly remarking a very extraordinary difference in the case belonging to the revenue, in regard to which he said, he thought there was not an instance to be found where petitions were answered,
soit droit fait aux parties (let right be done
to
