 | This article has multiple issues. Please help
improve it or discuss these issues on the
talk page. (
Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
|
According to John Henry Merryman, "The Decisory Oath worked in the following way: Party A could put Party B on his oath as to a fact at issue that was within Party B's knowledge. If Party B refused to swear, the fact was taken as conclusively proved against him. If Party B swore, the fact was taken as conclusively proved in his favor." [1] Mary Gregor explains that this procedure was "designed to protect the judge from threats from the wealthy and the powerful." [2]
- ^ John Henry Merryman, The Civil Law Tradition (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1969): 126, as cited in Immanuel Kant, The Metaphysics of Morals, ed. Mary Gregor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996): 83n25 (emphasis added)
- ^ Kant, loc. cit.
 | This legal term article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
| This article has multiple issues. Please help
improve it or discuss these issues on the
talk page. (
Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
|
According to John Henry Merryman, "The Decisory Oath worked in the following way: Party A could put Party B on his oath as to a fact at issue that was within Party B's knowledge. If Party B refused to swear, the fact was taken as conclusively proved against him. If Party B swore, the fact was taken as conclusively proved in his favor." [1] Mary Gregor explains that this procedure was "designed to protect the judge from threats from the wealthy and the powerful." [2]
- ^ John Henry Merryman, The Civil Law Tradition (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1969): 126, as cited in Immanuel Kant, The Metaphysics of Morals, ed. Mary Gregor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996): 83n25 (emphasis added)
- ^ Kant, loc. cit.
|
| This legal term article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |