Lex plus laudatur quando ratione probatur by Sushma Gowda

Origin:-  The law is more praised when it is supported by reason. Lex means law, plus means more, laudatur is praised, quando is when, ratione means by reason, probatur means it is approved. A commendable law is one which conforms to reason.

Explanation:- The law is most worthy of approval when it is consonant to reason. It is one of the best maxims which a judge can select  for the regulation of his conduct; for technicality and subtlety will then never triumph over the great law of common sense – Winchester v. Gleaves,

Illustration:- It has been said that law become more powerful and meaningful when supported with good evidence, proof, work, research etc. so people can understand it properly, and it become possible to give a judgement related to the cases. By describing it properly so that one to know why such laws are applicable to such cases including what rules and regulation one need to follow to comply with the law orders.

Case Explanation:-In the case of Porter v. Bradely Lord Kenyon rejected it and said that it would be very strange if these words had a different meaning when applied to real and personal property. If such a distinction existed in the law, it would not agree with the rule, Lex plus laudatur quando ratione probatur; but it was not founded in law. In that case the court decided that if lands be devised to A, his heirs and assigns forever ,and if he die leaving no issue behind him, then over, the limitation over is good by way of executory devise.

In the case of Roe d. Sheers vs. Jeffry,7 durn. & East,580, the testator devised lands to T.Friswell and his heirs forever;” but in case he should depart this life and leave no issue, then to Elizabeth, Mary and sarah, the three daughters of w. and M.Friswell, or the survivor or survivors of them, to be equally divided  betwixt them,share and share alike.” It was held by Lord Kenyon, that these words were equivalent to” dying without issue living at the death of the first taker, and if so ,the rule was not to be controverted.”

I cannot help but think the language of Lord Kenyon, in Porter vs. Bradly ,as applicable to this question.in speaking of Lord Macclesfield’s arguments in Forth vs.Chapman, he says:” but it is contended, that this rule is confined to chattel interests only : however, a great deal of argument is necessary to convince me,   that in the case of realty, these words shall be taken to mean an indefinite failure of issue. It would be very strange if those words had a different meaning, when applied to real and personal property. If such a distinction existed in the law, it certainly would not agree with the rule, Lex plus laudatur quando ratione probatur

Reference:- Steam Navigation co. v.Weed, 17 Barb.378,384