Court of Chancery - Knowledge (XXG)

659: 1592:. The Chancery had administered this area of law from an early period, since it primarily concerned the holding of land – a form of trust. Since these were mainly dealt with orally there are few early records; the first reference comes from 1582, when a curator was appointed to deal with the property of an infant. While the common law courts regularly appointed guardians, the Chancery had the right to remove them, replace them or create them in the first place. Similarly, while there were actions against guardians which the child could undertake in the common law courts, these were regularly undertaken in the Court of Chancery. This jurisdiction was first regularly recognised from 1696 onwards, and its main focus was the welfare of the child. As such, wards of the court had certain principles: their estates had to be administered under the supervision of the Court, they had to be educated under the same supervision, and any marriage had to be sanctioned by the Court. 40: 537:

saving the cost of a Commissioner of Oaths, and cases were to be heard in the order they were accepted by the court. Parliament also fixed the fees that officers could charge, in an attempt to reduce the expense of a case. The following year, Parliament appointed a commission to look at court reform; this made many recommendations, but none that directly affected the Chancery. In August 1653 another debate took place in Parliament, lasting two days, in which a paper titled "Observations concerning the Court of Chancery" was circulated; this concerned the costs, workings, and officers of the Court. A second paper was given out, "for the regulation or taking away of the Court of Chancery, and settling the business of Equity according to the original and primitive constitution of it; and for taking away all unnecessary fees, offices and officers and formalities now used, and for the speedy dispatch of business".

358:

court; if it was, the clerk who issued it would lose his job and the lord chancellor would be fined £100. The king gave evasive answers to the requests, and made no decision. The Commons did succeed in making some changes to the court's procedure, however; in 1394 the King assented to their request that victorious defendants in the court have their costs recompensed from the other side, and in 1341 the king, on their application, allowed the lord chancellor to send cases directly to the common law courts, to avoid the common law judges having to waste time travelling. Kerly suggests that many complaints from the Commons came from lawyers of the common law, aggrieved at the Chancery's extended jurisdiction that overlapped with that of the common law. These complaints from the Commons did not prevent the court from successfully functioning; in 1393, for example, it was considered prominent enough that the

408: 1889:. He was almost as powerful as the lord chancellor, and had wielded judicial power since the time of Edward I. He was sometimes known as the "vice-chancellor", and was given the title "The Right Worshipful". The master of the rolls assisted the court's judges in forming judgments, and regularly sat in place of the lord chancellor. The first reference to the Master of the Rolls comes from 1286, although it is believed that the position probably existed before that; the first reference to his having independent judicial authority is from 1520. The master of the rolls had six clerks, who helped keep the records; they were independently accountable for any mistakes. These were initially solicitors for the people suing in the court, and no other counsel was allowed, but by the time of 1781:; even after the Court became independent around 1345, petitions were addressed to "the king and others". By the time of Edward IV, however, petitions were issued in the name of the lord chancellor and the Court of Chancery. In the early years, the lord chancellor made most of the decisions himself; he summoned the parties, set a date for hearings, addressed questions from the parties to the case and announced the verdict. He regularly called for assistance from the common law judges, who complained that this prevented them from doing the work of the common law courts, and early records frequently say that the decision was made "with the advice and consent of the justices and servants of our Lord the King in the Chancery". 312: 1465:, he decided to fuse the courts and the procedure. The final draft provided that all of the existing superior courts would be fused into one court consisting of two levels; one of first instance, one appellate. The court of first instance, to be known as the High Court of Justice, would be subdivided into several divisions based on the old superior courts, one of which, the Chancery Division, would deal with equity cases. All jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery was to be transferred to the Chancery Division; Section 25 of the act provided that, where there was conflict between the common law and equity, the latter would prevail. An appeal from each division went to the appellate level, the 646:, a number of expensive honorary positions had been created, and on many occasions court officers had not known what the correct fees were. At the same time, proceedings had grown to several thousand pages in length, necessitating additional expense. The Committee concluded "that the interest which a great number of officers and clerks have in the proceedings of the Court of Chancery, has been a principal cause of extending bills, answers, pleadings, examinations and other forms and copies of them, to an unnecessary length, to the great delay of justice and the oppression of the subject". They recommended that a list of permissible fees be published and circulated to the court officials. 533:

next, so as in some cases there had been five hundred orders and faire more as some affirmed". The Court spent a long time on each case, which, combined with the backlog, made the pursuit of a case extremely expensive. This was exacerbated by the appointment to the Court of useless, highly paid officials by the lord chancellor or master of the rolls, many of whom were their friends. The chancellor and master both openly sold these roles, whose exorbitant pay is more surprising considering that their duties were normally such that could be easily performed by solicitor's clerks, and that they were usually performed by underclerks, not by the officials.

213: 374:

from being an administrative body with some judicial functions to "one of the four central courts of the realm ... the growth in the number of is a primary indicator of the changing position of Chancery". This increasing role was assisted by the changing function of the court: until the late 14th century, private parties could not bring cases to the Chancery as they could to the other courts, while by the 15th century the number of private cases had increased to the point where there were many complaints in Parliament. Marsh writes that another reason for the Chancery's growing influence was the remedies available; through orders of

1620:. Essentially, an owner of land could dispose of it by granting the right to use it and collect fees to another, not just by selling it. This was not valid at the common law courts but was in the Court of Chancery; the lord chancellor is reported as having said, in 1492, "where there is no remedy at common law there may be good remedy in conscience, as, for example, by a feoffment upon confidence, the feoffor has no remedy by common law, and yet by conscience he has; and so, if the feoffee transfers to another who knows of this confidence, the feoffor, by means of a subpoena, will have his rights in this Court". After the reign of 992: 890: 1292: 1221: 1063: 732: 1796:, the execution of acts of Parliament and any case in which an officer of the Court of Chancery was involved. Records show that he enrolled recognizances and contracts, and also issued writs commanding a sheriff to enforce them. Carne considers that this common law jurisdiction was likely down to a failure to separate the common law jurisdiction and the equity jurisdiction possessed by the lord chancellor, a failure that continued into the 16th century; Sir Edward Coke wrote that in the Chancery there was both an ordinary court and an "extraordinary" one. 578:, for the first time, there was a type of common law appeal where the nature of the evidence in the initial trial was taken into account, which reduced the need to go to the Court of Chancery. As a result, the nature of the Court of Chancery changed; rather than being a major corrective system for the common law, it became primarily concerned with the administration and protection of rights, as opposed to the common law courts, which were mainly concerned with the remedy and retribution of problems. This was further enforced by the 856: 516:, but without any tangible result. Even so, future lord chancellors were more cautious; when Francis Bacon succeeded Ellesmere, he made sure to prevent the misuse of injunctions. Horowitz writes that this was not just limited to Bacon, and that "after the dramatic confrontations between Lord Chief Justice Coke and Lord Chancellor Ellesmere, chancellors took care to circumscribe the Court's corrective jurisdiction and to focus more narrowly on territories they had staked out as peculiarly their own". 267:. And if the affairs are so great, or if they are of grace, that the chancellor and the others cannot do it without the king, then they shall bring them with their own hands to the king to know his pleasure; so that no petitions shall come before the king, and his Council, but by the hands of his said chancellor, and the other chief ministers; so that the king and his Council may, without the load of other business, attend to the great business of his realm, and of other foreign countries. 1833: 1570:. They were divided into two categories – idiots, "who have no glimmering of reason from their birth and are, therefore, by law, presumed never likely to attain any", and lunatics, "who have had understanding but have lost the use of it". Lunatics and idiots were administered separately by the lord chancellor under his two prerogatives; the appeal under the king's prerogative went directly to the king, and under the Lands of Lunaticks Act 1324 to the 4042: 1714:, however, claimed that the Chancery's jurisdiction to award damages was not derived "from any authority, but from conscience", and rather than being statutory was instead due to the lord chancellor's inherent authority. As a result, General Orders were regularly issued awarding the innocent party additional costs, such as the cost of a solicitor on top of the costs of responding to the other party's false statements. 541:

working attorneys and clerks and not overseeing officers" would be appointed, and the Bar would elect two supervising Chief Clerks to advise on points of practice. A far-reaching and heavily criticised draft, this was eventually replaced by an even more thorough-going bill. The judges would be six Masters, who would sit in groups of three and be appointed by Parliament, assisted by a Chief Clerk. All

296:. The early Court of Chancery dealt with verbal contracts, matters of land law and matters of trusts, and had a very liberal view when setting aside complaints; poverty, for example, was an acceptable reason to cancel a contract or obligation. Complaints were normally brought via a bill or petition, which had to show that the common law did not provide a remedy for the problem. The Chancery 4018: 1381:. He observed that at the time he was writing there was a case before the Chancery court "which was commenced nearly twenty years ago ... and which is (I am assured) no nearer to its termination now than when it was begun". He concluded that "If I wanted other authorities for Jarndyce and Jarndyce, I could rain them on these pages, to the shame of a parsimonious public". 1369:

each year, while the Court heard and dismissed 3,833, many of them from the previous backlog. Much of this work was carried out by the growing number of clerks, however, and members of the legal profession became concerned about the "famine" of equity judges. Despite these reforms, it was still possible for Charles Dickens, writing in 1853 in the preface to his novel

4030: 1874:. After the conquest they gradually lost their authority, and became advisers and assistants to the lord chancellor. It was the masters who started court cases, issuing the initial writs without which parties could not begin cases in the common law courts. In addition, they took depositions and acted as secretaries to the lord chancellor, maintaining the 1566:. c. 10), which gave the King (and therefore the chancellor) custodianship of lunatics and their land; the Lord chancellor exercised the first right directly and the second in his role as head of the Court of Chancery. This jurisdiction applied to any "idiots" or "lunatics", regardless of whether or not they were British, or whether their land was within 622:

to have his case dismissed could not do so until he had paid the full costs, rather than the nominal costs that were previously required; at the same time, the reforms the act made to common-law procedure (such as allowing claims to be brought against executors of wills) reduced the need for parties to go to equity for a remedy. Legal historian

334:; academic William Carne considers this a key moment in confirming the independence of the Court of Chancery. The chancellor and his clerks often heard the cases directly, rather than having them referred to the council itself; occasionally a committee of lay and church members disposed of them, assisted by the judges of the common law courts. 562:, those judges and officials sacked under Cromwell were reinstated, with little modern progression; as Kerly puts it, "unjust judges presided again, and rank maladministration invaded the offices". The situation was much improved, nonetheless, because many of the faults were down to the machinery of the court rather than the spirit, which 1909:, and creating an Accountant-General to oversee the financial aspects of the court. In 1813 the first vice-chancellor was appointed to deal with the increasing number of cases submitted to the Court. With the backlog growing larger, two more were appointed in 1841 under the Court of Chancery Act 1841 ( 598:. After disputes which lasted into the next Parliament, this second measure was dropped, but the right to hear equity appeals was confirmed. Horowitz writes that despite these changes, one of the academic certainties is that the problems which had dogged the court for the last two centuries persisted; 1717:

The Court became more cautious about awarding damages during the 16th and 17th centuries; lord chancellors and legal writers considered it a common law remedy, and judges would normally only award damages where no other remedy was appropriate. Damages were sometimes given as an ancillary remedy, such

839:

c. 5) (under which Wigram had been appointed) meant that it provided for two life appointments to the court, not two open positions; after the retirement or death of the judges, no more could be appointed. Again, the backlog became a problem, particularly since the lord chancellor was distracted with

691:

The first major reforms were the appointment of a vice-chancellor in 1813 to hear cases, and the extension of the Master of the Rolls' jurisdiction in 1833 to hear any and all cases. In 1824 a Chancery Commission was appointed to oversee the Court, which the political opposition maintained was simply

536:

In 1649, during the English Civil War, Parliament published a series of orders to reform the Court. Most were from the doctrines set out by Francis Bacon as lord chancellor, but there were some more modern reforms: counsels to the defendants could deliver pleas, rather than defendants in person, thus

1704:

For as much as People be compelled to come before the King's Council, or in the Chancery by Writs grounded upon untrue Suggestions; that the Chancellor for the Time being, presently after that such Suggestions be duly found and proved untrue, shall have Power to ordain and award Damages according to

1577:

Idiots and lunatics had their land looked after by a court-appointed administrator, and any profits went into a trust fund to support the insane person. Due to the vested interest of the king (who would hold the lands) the actual lunacy or idiocy was determined by a jury, not by an individual judge.

1368:

c. 80) abolished the masters in Chancery, allowing all cases to be heard directly by judges instead of bounced back-and-forth between judges and masters. As a result of these reforms the court became far more efficient, and the backlog decreased; in the 1860s an average of 3,207 cases were submitted

649:

The recommendations were not immediately acted on, but in 1743 a list of permissible fees was published, and to cut down on paperwork, no party was required to obtain office copies of proceedings. The permissible fees list contained over 1,000 items, which Kerly describes as "an appalling example of

621:

c. 3) in 1706 which "became the most important act of law reform which the 18th century produced". The act significantly amended the existing law and court procedure, and while most of it was aimed at the common-law courts, it did affect the Chancery. For equity, the act provided that a party trying

589:

from the Chancery. Before this there had been no records of appeals to the Lords, and a committee had concluded that there was no precedent to give the Lords jurisdiction over equity matters, except when problems and cases were sent directly to Parliament (as occasionally had been the case). In 1660

532:

estimated the backlog to be around 16,000 cases. This was partly due to the incompetence of the judges, and partially due to the procedure used; evidence was re-heard up to three times and orders were issued and then over-ruled, only to be issued again: "what was ordered one day was contradicted the

488:

as mercy and justice be the true supports of our Royal Throne; and it properly belongeth to our princely office to take care and provide that our subjects have equal and indifferent justice ministered to them; and that when their case deserveth to be relieved in course of equity by suit in our Court

373:

rule (1461–85), when the number of cases submitted each year quadrupled. He gives complaints about the perversion of justice in the common law courts, along with growing mercantile and commercial interests, as the main reason for the growth, arguing that this was the period when the Chancery changed

279:

the chancellor dedicated set days to hearing pleas, as documented in the records of the Parliament of Lincoln in 1315, which also show that some cases were heard by his personal staff, the Chancery, and not by the chancellor. By 1320 requests were regularly sent there, and heard by the judges of the

1904:

From an early period, the Court was also assisted by two registrars, who enrolled decrees of the court and orders; their books documented the legal precedent set by the court. At the same time, two examiners were appointed to assist the master of the rolls in examining witnesses. The positions were

1445:

introduced a bill to create a single, unified High Court of Justice. The bill was a weak one, not containing any provision addressing which court would deal with the common law and which with equity, and was also silent on the structure of the court, as Hatherley believed the difference between the

540:

Parliament eventually proposed dissolving the court as it then stood and replacing it with "some of the most able and honest men", who would be tasked with hearing equity cases. Rather than the mass of clerks on the staff, a sufficient number of "godly, able, honest and experienced clerks, which be

471:

came before Ellesmere, who issued a judgment that directly contradicted English law based on the "Law of God". Coke and the other judges over-ruled this judgment while Ellesmere was ill, taking the case as an opportunity to completely overthrow the lord chancellor's jurisdiction. Ellesmere appealed

394:

Chancery English, used in official documents, can be seen as the beginnings of Standard English – a national standard of spelling and grammar. By the 15th century, the City of Westminster had been the seat of government administration for about three centuries. After about 1430, the use of English

1818:

was the first "proper" lord chancellor from the Court of Chancery's point of view, having recorded his decisions and followed the legal doctrine of precedent. Marsh writes that the use of clergymen as lord chancellors had a tremendous influence on the Court's actions, tracing the idea of following

1539:

Initially, the Court of Chancery would not entertain a request to administer an estate as soon as a flaw in the will was discovered, rather leaving it to the ecclesiastical courts, but from 1588 onwards the Court did deal with such requests, in four situations: where it was alleged that there were

574:, particularly the "liberal" values and feelings it stirred up, was the continuous modernisation and improvement of the common law courts, something that reduced the interference of the lord chancellor in common law matters, except in areas where they had wildly divergent principles and law. Under 566:

soon rectified. Upon appointment as lord chancellor he immediately published a new issue of the Orders for the Regulation of the Practice of the Court of Chancery. This was based on the code set by the Cromwellian Commissioners, and limited the fees charged by the court and the amount of time they

439:

a case at the end of Elizabeth I's reign which seems to indicate that the chancellor's prerogative had been overturned, when the judges (without opposition from the monarch) allowed a claim to proceed despite the lord chancellor's implied jurisdiction. At the same time, the common-law judges ruled

1722:

in 1588, where the defendant had disposed of waste inside the plaintiffs woods. As well as an injunction to prevent the defendant dumping waste in the woods, damages were also awarded to pay for the harm to the woods." This convention (that damages could only be awarded as an ancillary remedy, or

687:

are seen by academic Duncan Kerly to have had much to do with the criticism, and the growing wealth of the country and increasing international trade meant it was crucial that there be a functioning court system for matters of equity. While the upper classes had been struggling with the Court for

357:

regularly complained about the work of the court, and in 1390 it petitioned the king to pronounce that the court could not act contrary to the common law, nor annul a judgment without due process. At the same time, it asked that no writ could be issued that would compel a man to appear before the

237:

and anyone else the monarch allowed to attend. Its jurisdiction was virtually unlimited, with executive, judicial and legislative functions. This large body contained lawyers, peers, and members of the church, many of whom lived far from London. It soon became apparent that it was too unwieldy to

637:, Chancery procedure was further reformed with a pair of orders published in 1741 and 1747, which mandated that a claimant who brought his case to court and had it dismissed immediately should pay full costs to the other side, rather than the 40 shillings previously paid, and that parties filing 1343:

Some further procedural reforms were undertaken in the 1850s. In 1850, a new set of Chancery orders were produced by the lord chancellor, allowing masters to speed up cases in whatever way they chose and allowing plaintiffs to file a claim, rather than the more expensive and long-winded bill of

670:

Despite these small reforms, the 18th century ended with continuous and unrestrained attacks on the Court. Although complaints had been common since the time of Elizabeth I, the problems had become more unrestrained, at the same time as politically neutral law reformers first arose in any great

1735:

held that "except in very special cases, it was not the course of proceeding in Equity to file a Bill for specific performance of an agreement; praying in the alternative, if it cannot be performed, an issue, or an inquiry before the Master, with a view to damages. The plaintiff must take that

426:

that plaintiffs in the common-law courts could not execute judgments given by the common-law judges if the lord chancellor felt their claim was "against conscience". This had been vehemently opposed by the common-law judges, who felt that if the lord chancellor had the power to override their

1535:

to dispose of their land, something that fell under the jurisdiction of the lord chancellor anyway. In addition, in relation to the discovery and accounting of assets, the process used by the Court of Chancery was far superior to the ecclesiastical one; as a result, the Court of Chancery was

1511:

courts did not recognise such trusts, and so it fell to equity and to the Court of Chancery to deal with them, as befitting the common principle that the Chancery's jurisdiction was for matters where the common law courts could neither enforce a right nor administer it. The use of trusts and

1397:

was writing that there was "almost unanimity" of opinion that the existence of two separate systems was "the parent of most of the defects in the administration of our law". Much of the impetus for fusion came from pressure groups and lawyers' associations. They partially succeeded with the

700:

be merged with the Chancery, and that a fourth judge be appointed to hear the additional cases. A year later, when the common law courts were each gaining a judge, he repeated his proposal, but the bill was strongly opposed by judges who maintained that the court backlog did not justify the

1446:

common law and equity was one of procedure, not substance. As a result, the bill was heavily opposed from two sides: those who opposed fusion, and those who supported fusion but felt the provisions were too weak and vague to be of any use. As a result, the bill was eventually withdrawn.

1905:

regularly and openly sold by the master of the rolls and lord chancellor – masters in Chancery went for £6,000 in 1625. To avoid the sale of offices, and due to the corruption of many court officials, an act was passed that year requiring that fees be paid directly into the

1582:

the lord chancellor had a right to appoint a commission to investigate the insanity of an individual; as part of his role as Keeper of the king's conscience, however, he would only do this when it was beneficial to the lunatic, not simply because somebody had been found insane.

1751:

held that if a plaintiff starts an action in a court of equity for specific performance and damages are also appropriate, the court of equity may choose to award damages. This authorisation was limited to certain circumstances, and was again not regularly used. Eventually, the

1506:

of the 12th century, when noblemen travelled abroad to fight in the Holy Land. As they would be away for years at a time it was vital that somebody could look after their land with the authority of the original owner. As a result, the idea of joint ownership of land arose. The

133:

in the mid-14th century, at which time it consisted of the lord chancellor and his personal staff, the Chancery. Initially an administrative body with some judicial duties, the Chancery experienced an explosive growth in its work during the 15th century, particularly under the

493:

Coke's challenge to the Chancery is seen by academic Duncan Kerly as helping him lose his position as a judge, and until its dissolution the Court of Chancery could overrule judgments issued in the common-law courts. This was not the end of the dispute, however; in his

1865:

ceased to sit as Officers, however, the composition of the court became more solid. From an early period, the lord chancellor was assisted by twelve Clerks in Chancery, known as the Masters in Chancery. It was said that these positions had existed since before the

1178:, not by the lord chancellor, and that they would be paid wages.) Through the abolition of sinecures, taking into account the wages and pension, this saved the court £21,670 a year. The government had initially intended the 1832 bill to go further and abolish the 186:

was appointed to deal with the Chancery's increasing backlogs, and two more vice-chancellors were appointed in 1841. Lord chancellors sold offices of the Chancery for much of its history, raising large amounts of money. Many of the clerks and other officials held

1653:

and if expecting the party that breached the contract to carry out his obligations was viable. Injunctions, on the other hand, are remedies which prevent a party from doing something (unlike specific performance, which requires them to do something). Until the

545:

would be allowed to submit cases to the court, with cases to be heard within 60 days. The party that lost the case was to pay full fees to the other side; the fees would be set ludicrously low. This bill was never put into effect, as Parliament was dissolved.

1823:

in the Court back to the chancellors' Christian roots. Following the dissolution of the Court of Chancery in 1873, the lord chancellor failed to have any role in equity, although his membership of other judicial bodies allowed him some indirect control.

253:

The Chancery started as the personal staff of the lord chancellor, described as "a great secretarial bureau, a home office, a foreign office, and a ministry of justice". The earliest reference to legal issues being sent to him is from 1280, when

1461:. While still cautious, Selborne's bill was far more structured than Hatherley's, and contained more detail on what was to be done. Rather than fusing the common law and equity, which he saw as impracticable since it would destroy the idea of 262:

all petitions which touch the Seal shall come first to the chancellor; and those which touch the Exchequer, to the exchequer, and those which touch the justices, or the law of the land, to the justices; and those which touch the Jews, to the

1913:

c. 5), although this provided for two life appointments, not two new positions; when the new vice-chancellors died, there could be no replacements. With the dissolution of the Court in 1873, the position of vice-chancellor ceased to exist.

1709:

This did not extend to every case, but merely to those which had been dismissed because one party's "suggestions proved untrue", and was normally awarded to pay for the innocent party's costs in responding to the party that had lied.

641:

should pay £50 for the privilege. At the same time, a review of the Court's costs and fees was undertaken by a Parliamentary Committee. The Committee reported that fees and costs had increased significantly since the last review under

194:

The 19th century saw the abolition of many sinecure offices and the institution of a wage and pension for the lord chancellor to curb the sale of offices; and later the right to appoint officials was transferred from the chancellor to

395:

in administrative documents replaced French which had been used since the Norman conquest. Consequently, the written English that developed at the Court of Chancery eventually became a standard, both in its style of handwriting ('

156:) onwards the Court was severely criticised for its slow pace, large backlogs, and high costs. Those problems persisted until its dissolution, despite being mitigated somewhat by reforms, particularly during the 19th century. 688:

centuries, and regarded it as a necessary evil, the growing middle and merchant classes were more demanding. With increasing court backlogs, it was clear to many law reformers and politicians that serious reform was needed.

1612:. Carne suggests that, as the Court had long been able to deal with such situations, the 1601 act was actually just the declaration of pre-existing custom. This is illustrated by the chancellor's original jurisdiction over 1624:, if the charitable land were to be sold (or land were to be sold to create the charity) the Court of Chancery was the only place this could be done, as ecclesiastical and probate courts did not have a valid jurisdiction. 1669:

c. 27), which gave it that right, but in some special cases it had been able to provide damages for over 600 years. The idea of damages was first conceived in English law during the 13th century, when the

1161:

offices within the court and provided a pension and pay rise for the lord chancellor, in the hope that it would reduce the need for the chancellor to make money by selling court offices) and then through the

1648:

matters, an order by the court which requires the party in breach of contract to perform his obligations. The validity of the contract as a whole was not normally considered, only whether there was adequate

1481:, the lord chancellor retained his other judicial and political roles, and the position of vice-chancellor ceased to exist, replaced by ordinary judges. The Chancery Division remains to this day part of the 528:, the Court of Chancery was being criticised extensively for its procedure and practice. During the 16th century the Court was vastly overworked; Francis Bacon wrote of 2,000 orders being made a year, while 1938: 818:

As a result of the new appointments, the court backlog was significantly reduced – the court processed 1,700 cases in 1846–49 compared to 959 in 1819–24 – but it rose again after the death of

1740:, in which Chancellor Kent held that "though equity, in very special cases, may possibly sustain a bill for damages, on a breach of contract, it is clearly not the ordinary jurisdiction of the court". 3518:

A history of the Court of chancery; with practical remarks on the recent commission, report, and evidence, and on the means of improving the administration of justice in the English courts of equity

489:

of Chancery, they should not be abandoned and exposed to perish under the rigor and extremity of our laws, we ... do approve, ratifie and confirm, as well the practice of our Court of Chancery.

1426:

the authority to use equitable remedies, although it was rarely used. The lord chancellors during this period were more cautious, and despite a request by the lawyers' associations to establish a

178:

For much of its existence the court was formally led by the lord chancellor, assisted by the judges of the common-law courts. The staff of the court included a large number of clerks, led by the

4087: 326:

By 1345 the lord chancellor began to be seen as the leader of the Court of Chancery, rather than as a representative of the king, and writs and bills were addressed directly to him. Under

1558:

The Chancery's jurisdiction over "lunatics" came from two sources: first, the king's prerogative to look after them, which was exercised regularly by the lord chancellor, and second, the

365:

According to many academics, the Court of Chancery really began to expand its caseload during the 15th century; Margaret Avery reports a massive increase in cases during the 1440s, while

97:. Thus the Court of Chancery had a far greater remit than the common-law courts (whose decisions it had the jurisdiction to overrule for much of its existence) and was far more flexible. 3682: 1678:

provided for damages in certain circumstances. Despite what is normally assumed by academics, it was not just the common law courts that could grant damages under these statutes; the

1756:

gave the Court full jurisdiction to award damages; the situation before that was so limited that lawyers at the time commented as if the Court had not previously been able to do so.

4092: 1727:, for example, it was held that where there was sufficient evidence of harm, the Court could award damages in addition to specific performance and other remedies. This changed with 1973: 692:

to protect it; the membership included the lord chancellor, the master of the rolls and all senior Chancery judges. Some significant reforms were proposed; in 1829, for example,

280:

common law courts, with the rules used to settle cases being those of "law or reason", sometimes simply "reason", a far more liberal and adjustable approach than the common law.

1309:

An Act to abolish the Office of Master in Ordinary of the High Court of Chancery, and to make Provision for the more speedy and efficient Despatch of Business in the said Court.

308:, where it sat almost continually until its dissolution. Before this, justice was difficult to dispose because the lord chancellor had to travel with the King wherever he went. 4102: 1123: 345:

The Chancery and its growing powers soon came to be resented by Parliament and the nobility; Carne says that it is possible to trace a general "trend of opposition" during the

191:; the holders, in lieu of wages, charged increasingly exorbitant fees to process cases – one of the main reasons for the high cost of bringing a case to the Court of Chancery. 1356:

c. 87) gave all court officials salaries, abolished the need to pay them fees and made it illegal for them to receive gratuities; it also removed more sinecure positions. The

1893:

claimants were allowed their own counsel. The master of the Rolls and his clerks were housed in the Rolls Office, along with the Six Clerks' clerks, who numbered sixty. The

1661:

Damages is money claimed in compensation for some failure by the other party to a case. It is commonly believed that the Court of Chancery could not grant damages until the

1723:

where no others were available) remained the cause until the 18th and early 19th centuries, when the attitude of the Court towards awarding damages became more liberal; in

1520:" a severe blow to these forms of conveyancing" and made the law in this area far more complex. The court's sole jurisdiction over trusts lasted until its dissolution. 1186:, who attacked them in the House of Commons for doing effectively sinecure work for high fees that massively increased the expense involved in cases. As a result, the 451:, was not dissuaded, and maintained that he had the jurisdiction to oversee decisions of the common-law courts and matters of freehold. In 1614, he heard the case of 431:'s reign, with the judges increasing in strength; the lord chancellor was no longer a clergyman whom it was risky to offend, while the judges had grown in stature. 1810:

in 1371, probably due to pressure from Parliament. The precedent of appointing legally trained Lord Chancellors was not followed strongly, although others such as

907:

An Act to abolish certain Sinecure Offices connected with the Court of Chancery, and to make Provision for the Lord High Chancellor on his Retirement from Office.

658: 852:

suggested three more vice-chancellors and "an Appellate Tribunal in Chancery formed of two of the vice chancellors taken in rotation", but this came to nothing.

1523:

From its foundation, the Court of Chancery could administer estates, due to its jurisdiction over trusts. While the main burden in the 16th century fell on the

626:

writes that despite these legislative enactments, the tally of which "begins to look quite impressive", the old problems continued, albeit less frequently; one

1814:

did hold the office; one lord chancellor is said to have been appointed because the Queen was impressed with his skill at dancing. According to William Carne,

1536:

regularly used by beneficiaries. The common law courts also had jurisdiction over some estates matters, but their remedies for problems were far more limited.

1897:

were abolished in 1843, the masters in Chancery in 1852, and when the Court of Chancery was abolished, the master of the rolls moved to the newly established

3675: 582:, which confirmed Chancery principles across the board, allowing people to receive the same treatment in the common law courts as they did in the Chancery. 1183: 859: 4072: 795: 258:, annoyed with the number of cases coming to him which could have been dealt with by other elements of his administration, passed a statute saying that: 508:

that "the excess of Jurisdiction in Chancery, in examining Judgments at Common Law" was one of the largest abuses of the law. In the late 17th century

275:, but at the time the chancellor had no specific jurisdiction to deal with them; the cases were referred to him only as a matter of convenience. Under 39: 3860: 3202:

Carne, William Lindsay (1928). "A Sketch of the History of the High Court of Chancery from the Chancellorship of Wolsey to That of Lord Nottingham".

1182:, but the Clerks successfully lobbied to prevent this. This did not save them, however; in 1842 the "nettle" of the Six Clerks Office was grasped by 4067: 3793: 1600:

The lord chancellor had, since the 15th century, been tasked with administering estates where the estate was to be used for charitable purposes. In

1571: 845: 586: 3970: 3850: 3722: 3668: 382:, the court could not only rectify previous wrongs but prevent future wrongs from occurring, while the common law courts were limited to awarding 594:

claimed for itself the right of appellate jurisdiction over equity matters, and also the right of original jurisdiction to hear equity cases at

3965: 3652: 1314: 1243: 1085: 1014: 912: 754: 481: 3596: 3506: 3357: 3269: 3248: 1815: 1438: 448: 411: 3865: 3727: 1898: 1470: 1466: 1458: 602:, written in 1701, listed 25 different procedures, areas and situations which contributed to the problems of high fees and slow processes. 427:

decisions, parties to a case would flock to the Court of Chancery. The dispute over the pre-eminence of the lord chancellor continued into

164: 160: 3717: 3161:

Carne, William Lindsay (1927). "A Sketch of the History of the High Court of Chancery from Its Origin to the Chancellorship of Wolsey".

1711: 1605: 1478: 849: 634: 3813: 1784:

In one period, particularly under Edward III, the lord chancellor also possessed some common law jurisdiction, able to hear cases for

1527:, their powers over administrators and executors was limited, regularly necessitating the Court of Chancery's involvement. Before the 614: 563: 496: 456: 121: 90: 31: 3918: 3870: 3565: 3542: 3449: 3376: 3151: 2638: 1442: 1775:

The lord chancellor was the official head of the Court of Chancery. For much of its early existence he was closely linked with the

311: 1419: 422:

featured a dispute between the Court of Chancery and common-law courts over who held pre-eminence. It had been the practice under

3803: 1296: 1225: 1067: 996: 894: 736: 693: 650:

the abuses which the unrestrained farming of the Offices of the Court, and the payment of all officials by fees had developed".

4097: 3783: 1836: 1807: 247: 1608:

suggested that the jurisdiction of the Court over charity matters came from its jurisdiction over trusts, as well as from the

3778: 3691: 3928: 1375:, to bemoan the inefficiencies of the Court of Chancery. His novel revolves around a fictional long-running Chancery case, 701:

additional expense of a fourth judge. Eventually, two more vice-chancellors were appointed in 1841, and a decade later two

342:

as master of the rolls between 1381 and 1386, and notes that this period also saw the first complaints about the Chancery.

1806:, who was appointed in 1341 and held the office for two years. His successors were again clerics until the appointment of 1732: 1406:, which gave both courts access to the full range of remedies. Until then, the common-law courts were limited to granting 610: 399:') and in its grammar and vocabulary. By the 1440s and 1450s comparative regularisation of spelling had begun to emerge. 4008: 848:, leaving a maximum of three Chancery judges who were available to hear cases. Further structural reforms were proposed; 3923: 3403: 3139: 1650: 1434: 591: 335: 183: 100:

Until the 19th century, the Court of Chancery could apply a far wider range of remedies than common law courts, such as

709:. These are described by Lobban as "hasty reactions to mounting arrears" rather than the result of long-term planning. 407: 3933: 3913: 3768: 3324: 3313:

Horowitz, Henry (1996). "Continuity or Change in the Court of Chancery in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries?".

1933: 1753: 1748: 1662: 1403: 1009:

An Act for the Regulation of the Proceedings and Practice of certain Offices of the High Court of Chancery in England.

950: 841: 706: 354: 3648: 3419:

Lobban, Michael (Autumn 2004). "Preparing for Fusion: Reforming the Nineteenth-Century Court of Chancery, Part II".

1616:, which came from his original status as a clergyman, as charity had been originally enforced by the Church and the 550:

did appoint a Commission to institute similar provisions in 1654, but the Commission refused to perform its duties.

4082: 4062: 3394:

Lobban, Michael (Spring 2004). "Preparing for Fusion: Reforming the Nineteenth-Century Court of Chancery, Part I".

3315: 3281: 1953: 1948: 1943: 1655: 1586:

The law courts' jurisdiction over the guardianship of children is said to have come from the king's prerogative of

1399: 585:

A major reform to the Court happened soon after the restoration, with the introduction of a right of appeal to the

4077: 3892: 3608: 1959: 1811: 1688: 1559: 473: 44: 242:

was formed to deal with the regular business of the country, and this soon split into various courts: first the

62:

that followed a set of loose rules to avoid a slow pace of change and possible harshness (or "inequity") of the

3808: 1609: 1137: 501: 1174:. c. 94). (which changed the appointments system so that masters in Chancery would henceforth be appointed by 467: 159:

Attempts at fusing the Chancery with the common law courts began in the 1850s, and finally succeeded with the

1799:

Most of the early lord chancellors were members of the clergy; the first legally trained lord chancellor was

3617: 1441:

again brought the problem of having two separate court systems to Parliament's attention, and in March 1870

595: 571: 3256:

D., T.W. (April 1862). "The Jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery to Enforce Charitable Uses (Continued)".

630:

of the time claimed that going to the Court with a case worth anything less than £500 was a waste of time.

338:

argues that it was the late 14th century that saw Chancery procedure become fixed, citing the work done by

3885: 3747: 1854: 1393:

dismissed it as "suicide" in 1852, the idea gained mainstream credibility, and by the end of the year the

702: 441: 234: 212: 679:, had trained as a Chancery advocate and were well aware of the Chancery's procedure. The success of the 3880: 3732: 1697: 1675: 1482: 1389:

The idea of fusing the common-law and equity courts first came to prominence in the 1850s; although the

1377: 1304: 1233: 1075: 1004: 902: 744: 575: 509: 455:, dictating that Glanvil should be imprisoned for deceit; this was over-ruled by Sir Edward Coke in the 264: 168: 3752: 3469: 1966: 1645: 1633: 1617: 1550:

assets from a husband; and where the deceased's debts had to be paid before the legacies were valid.

1524: 1411: 1145:

The 1830s saw a reduction in the "old corruption" that had long plagued the court, first through the

824: 643: 638: 542: 375: 366: 145:); academics attribute this to its becoming an almost entirely judicial body. From the time of Queen 101: 414:, who worked to maintain the Chancery's ability to override the common law courts as lord chancellor 300:

were in French, and later English, rather than the Latin used for common law bills. In the reign of

175:– one of three divisions of the High Court – succeeding the Court of Chancery as an equitable body. 3855: 3737: 3170: 1886: 1840: 1658:, the Court of Chancery was the only body qualified to grant injunctions and specific performance. 1474: 559: 423: 272: 255: 179: 827:. Shadwell, appointed under the 1831 act of Parliament, could be replaced, but a principal in the 3991: 3938: 3875: 3798: 3498: 3336: 3301: 3239:

D., T.W. (January 1862). "The Jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery to Enforce Charitable Uses".

3227: 3190: 1785: 1679: 1499: 1462: 697: 676: 419: 243: 113: 71: 3986: 3474: 127:

Academics estimate that the Court of Chancery formally split from and became independent of the

1882:"; it was not until the reign of Edward III that they were referred to as Masters in Chancery. 3629: 3592: 3571: 3561: 3538: 3521: 3502: 3478: 3455: 3445: 3428: 3407: 3382: 3372: 3353: 3293: 3219: 3182: 3147: 3127: 2634: 1671: 1567: 1544:

to give a bond to creditors (which could not be done in the ecclesiastical courts); to secure

820: 579: 525: 172: 94: 59: 964: 3818: 3621: 3328: 3285: 3211: 3174: 1666: 1528: 1427: 1365: 1353: 1319: 1248: 1198:

c. 103) was passed in the same year that abolished the office of the Six Clerks completely.

1171: 1154: 1019: 917: 663: 315: 305: 288:

The Chancery came to prominence after the decline of the Exchequer, dealing with the law of

75: 3442:

History of the Court of Chancery and of the rise and development of the doctrines of equity

3908: 3712: 3490: 1923: 1906: 1867: 1803: 1770: 1579: 1517: 1454: 547: 432: 223:

The Court of Chancery originated, as did the other high courts before 1875, in the Norman

86: 55: 2212:

2nd ed. (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 1998. Orig. publ. 1992), pp. 247–250, quoting J. Fisher

3124:

The doctrine of equity: a commentary on the law as administered by the Court of chancery

4034: 4022: 3557: 1800: 1789: 1588: 1195: 1090: 855: 684: 359: 79: 3606:

Tucker, P. (2000). "The Early History of the Court of Chancery: A Comparative Study".

3467:

McDermott, Peter M. (1992). "Jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery to award damages".

17: 4056: 3340: 3305: 1928: 1890: 1696:

and recover damages for the value of the land". A statute passed during the reign of

1450: 680: 623: 618: 484:. Both recommended a judgment in Ellesmere's favour, which the Monarch made, saying: 477: 461: 396: 370: 230: 135: 3585: 229:

or King's Council, maintained by most early rulers of England after 1066. Under the

124:, the Chancery became the only national equitable body in the English legal system. 3823: 1793: 1423: 1332: 1261: 1103: 1032: 930: 772: 339: 289: 117: 67: 3660: 4041: 3742: 1878:. In the early years they were almost always members of the clergy, called the " 1871: 1849: 1820: 1777: 1371: 529: 428: 346: 225: 146: 129: 1080:

An Act for abolishing certain Offices of the High Court of Chancery in England.

600:

Observations on the Dilatory and Expensive Proceedings in the Court of Chancery

4046: 3625: 3289: 1894: 1875: 1637: 1508: 1415: 1179: 863: 500:, Coke suggested that the Monarch's decree was unlawful, and his contemporary 379: 327: 319: 301: 293: 105: 63: 3633: 3482: 3459: 3432: 3411: 3386: 3297: 3223: 3186: 1885:

The twelve Masters in Chancery were led by one of their number, known as the

3575: 3131: 1832: 1621: 1613: 1563: 1546: 1513: 1175: 672: 627: 350: 276: 196: 3649:

Chancery Proceedings: Equity Suits from 1558 – Legal Records Information 22

3525: 3369:

An historical sketch of the equitable jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery

1792:, as well as other cases in which the King was a party. He heard cases on 1503: 1158: 271:

Records show dozens of early cases being sent to the lord chancellor and

216: 188: 3554:

The Judges of England 1272–1990: a list of judges of the superior courts

3773: 3231: 3194: 1910: 1693: 1641: 1541: 1532: 1407: 836: 799: 759: 675:

of the common law, ignorant of the court's workings, but some, such as

383: 349:

period, particularly from members of the clergy, who were more used to

109: 1449:

In 1873, the idea was resurrected – again by Palmer, who was now

1705:

his Discretion, to him which is so troubled unduly, as afore is said.

1469:. These provisions were brought into effect after amendment with the 1118: 945: 787: 3215: 3178: 1700:

specifically gave the Chancery the right to award damages, stating:

749:

An Act to make further Provisions for the Administration of Justice.

514:

An Enquiry into the Jurisdiction of the Chancery in Causes of Equity

3332: 1238:

An Act for the Relief of the Suitors of the High Court of Chancery.

238:

deal with the nation's day-to-day business. As a result, a smaller

30:

This article is about the English civil court. For other uses, see

1831: 854: 657: 406: 310: 219:, during whose reign the chancellor's jurisdiction was established 211: 38: 2199:

2nd ed. (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 1998. Orig. publ. 1992), p. 250.

1632:

The Court of Chancery could grant three possible remedies –

297: 93:, the court was an administrative body primarily concerned with 3664: 1939:

Court of Chancery of the County Palatine of Durham and Sadberge

1437:

had gone some way toward procedural reform, in February 1867,

330:

it became practice to consider the Chancery separate from the

866:

in Parliament and successfully had their positions abolished.

613:, following his dismissal as lord chancellor, introduced the 459:, who demanded that Glanvil be released and issued a writ of 1861:

and "those who ought to be summoned". As the members of the

705:

were tasked with hearing appeals from the Court through the

696:

proposed unsuccessfully that the equity jurisdiction of the

662:

The Court of Chancery in the early 19th century, sitting in

318:, where the Court sat almost continuously from the reign of 3272:(1935). "Some Notes on the Office of Master of the Rolls". 85:

Its initial role differed somewhat: as an extension of the

1540:

insufficient assets; where it was appropriate to force a

167:, which dissolved the Chancery and created a new unified 1736:

remedy, if he chooses it, at Law." This was followed by

1686:

in 1453, for example, it is stated that "I shall have a

389: 1682:

and Court of Chancery both had the right to do so. In

440:

that the Chancery had no jurisdiction over matters of

4006: 1974:

Court of Chancery of the County Palatine of Lancaster

1743:

The Court's right to give damages was reiterated in

1516:

became common during the 16th century, although the

1124:

Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925

66:. The Chancery had jurisdiction over all matters of 3979: 3958: 3951: 3901: 3843: 3836: 3761: 3705: 3698: 2736: 2734: 2137: 2135: 1331: 1326: 1313: 1303: 1277: 1260: 1255: 1242: 1232: 1206: 1136: 1129: 1117: 1112: 1102: 1097: 1084: 1074: 1048: 1031: 1026: 1013: 1003: 977: 963: 956: 944: 939: 929: 924: 911: 901: 875: 809: 786: 781: 771: 766: 753: 743: 717: 27:

Court of equity in England and Wales (c. 1350–1875)

3584: 520:Attempted reform under the Commonwealth of England 390:Chancery's role in development of Standard English 182:, who regularly heard cases on his own. In 1813 a 1473:, and the Court of Chancery ceased to exist. The 4088:Former courts and tribunals in England and Wales 512:attempted to renew this controversy in his book 112:in special circumstances. With the shift of the 472:to the Monarch, who referred the matter to the 353:than equity. From the reign of Richard II, the 1853:, the officers were fluid; they could include 292:, something more fluid and adaptable than the 233:, the council was made up of the monarch, the 4093:Courts and tribunals established in the 1340s 3676: 2633:. New York: Hurd and Houghton. p. viii. 369:suggests that the real expansion came during 8: 1644:. The remedy of specific performance is, in 1420:County Courts (Equity Jurisdiction) Act 1865 4103:Courts and tribunals disestablished in 1875 3264:(6). University of Pennsylvania Law Review. 2470: 2468: 2431: 2429: 2401: 2399: 2287: 2285: 2275: 2273: 2271: 1410:, and the Chancery was limited to granting 116:towards a common law court and loss of its 3955: 3840: 3702: 3683: 3669: 3661: 3050: 3048: 3046: 2335: 2333: 1430:to look at fusion, they refused to do so. 1274: 1203: 1045: 974: 872: 796:Rules of the Supreme Court (Revision) 1965 714: 2125: 2123: 570:An effect of the Civil War and resulting 3794:Court for Divorce and Matrimonial Causes 3144:An Introduction to English Legal History 2697: 2695: 1494:Trusts and the administration of estates 474:attorney general for the prince of Wales 4013: 2561: 2559: 2557: 2555: 2545: 2543: 1984: 1157:. c. 111) (which abolished a number of 362:sent two cases there to be dealt with. 3591:(12th ed.). Sweet & Maxwell. 2937: 2935: 482:Attorney General for England and Wales 43:The Court of Chancery in the reign of 3352:(6th ed.). Routledge-Cavendish. 3249:University of Pennsylvania Law Review 2629:Dickens, Charles (1868) . "preface". 2197:From Old English to Standard English, 1360:Master in Chancery Abolition Act 1852 1279:Master in Chancery Abolition Act 1852 1138:Text of statute as originally enacted 965:Text of statute as originally enacted 246:, to deal with finance, and then the 7: 3210:(10). Virginia Law Review: 589–619. 3122:Adams, John; Robert Ralston (1855). 2210:From Old English to Standard English 1899:Court of Appeal of England and Wales 1471:Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1875 1467:Court of Appeal of England and Wales 165:Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1875 161:Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873 3427:(3). University of Illinois Press. 1348:Suitors in Chancery Relief Act 1852 1208:Suitors in Chancery Relief Act 1852 1149:Lord Chancellor's Pension Act 1832 877:Lord Chancellor's Pension Act 1832 615:Administration of Justice Act 1705 497:Institutes of the Lawes of England 304:, the court found a fixed home at 122:Administration of Justice Act 1841 32:Court of Chancery (disambiguation) 25: 4073:1875 disestablishments in England 3919:Chief Justice of the Common Pleas 1847:When the Court was a part of the 447:The lord chancellor of the time, 82:and the guardianship of infants. 4040: 4028: 4016: 3804:Court of Great Sessions in Wales 2218:An Anthology of Chancery English 1459:Supreme Court of Judicature bill 1297:Parliament of the United Kingdom 1290: 1226:Parliament of the United Kingdom 1219: 1068:Parliament of the United Kingdom 1061: 997:Parliament of the United Kingdom 990: 951:Public Service Pensions Act 2013 895:Parliament of the United Kingdom 888: 840:the appellate cases through the 737:Parliament of the United Kingdom 730: 4068:1340s establishments in England 1843:to sit in the Court of Chancery 403:Competition with the common law 250:, to deal with "common" cases. 151: 140: 91:Keeper of the King's Conscience 3779:Court for Crown Cases Reserved 3692:Judiciary of England and Wales 3371:. Cambridge University Press. 108:, and had some power to grant 1: 1656:Common Law Procedure Act 1854 1602:Bailiff of Burford v Lenthall 1400:Common Law Procedure Act 1854 322:until its dissolution in 1875 3924:Chief Baron of the Exchequer 3440:Marsh, Alfred Henry (1890). 3404:University of Illinois Press 1435:Chancery Regulation Act 1862 1166:Chancery Regulation Act 1833 979:Chancery Regulation Act 1833 3934:Justice of the Common Pleas 3929:Justice of the King's Bench 3914:Lords of Appeal in Ordinary 3769:Court of Appeal in Chancery 3325:University of Chicago Press 2689:Lobban (Autumn 2004) p. 596 2680:Lobban (Autumn 2004) p. 595 2671:Lobban (Autumn 2004) p. 594 2662:Lobban (Autumn 2004) p. 585 2653:Lobban (Autumn 2004) p. 584 2619:Lobban (Spring 2004) p. 425 2610:Lobban (Spring 2004) p. 424 2601:Lobban (Autumn 2004) p. 582 2583:Lobban (Autumn 2004) p. 579 2574:Lobban (Autumn 2004) p. 570 2565:Lobban (Spring 2004) p. 569 2549:Lobban (Spring 2004) p. 422 2537:Lobban (Spring 2004) p. 390 2519:Lobban (Spring 2004) p. 416 2510:Lobban (Spring 2004) p. 409 1934:Court of Chancery (Ireland) 1828:Other officers of the Court 1754:Chancery Amendment Act 1858 1749:Court of Appeal in Chancery 1663:Chancery Amendment Act 1858 1560:Lands of Lunaticks Act 1324 1477:was transferred to the new 1404:Chancery Amendment Act 1858 842:Court of Appeal in Chancery 707:Court of Appeal in Chancery 235:Great Officers of the Crown 4119: 3316:Journal of British Studies 3282:Cambridge University Press 3126:. T. & J. W. Johnson. 2592:Lobban (Autumn 2004) p.573 1954:New York Court of Chancery 1949:Michigan Court of Chancery 1944:Delaware Court of Chancery 1768: 1272:United Kingdom legislation 1201:United Kingdom legislation 1190:Court of Chancery Act 1842 1050:Court of Chancery Act 1842 1043:United Kingdom legislation 972:United Kingdom legislation 870:United Kingdom legislation 831:Court of Chancery Act 1841 719:Court of Chancery Act 1841 712:United Kingdom legislation 671:number. Many critics were 506:Eight Centuries of Reports 29: 3893:Common Serjeant of London 3609:English Historical Review 3533:Ramjohn, Mohamed (1998). 3348:Hudson, Alastair (2009). 3290:10.1017/S0008197300124675 1960:Subpoena ad testificandum 1870:, sitting as part of the 1554:Insanity and guardianship 1289: 1284: 1218: 1213: 1060: 1055: 989: 984: 887: 882: 729: 724: 3809:Court of High Commission 3535:Sourcebook on Trusts Law 2902:McKendrick (2007) p. 455 2884:McKendrick (2007) p. 451 1684:Cardinal Beaufort's case 1610:Charitable Uses Act 1601 3626:10.1093/ehr/115.463.791 3618:Oxford University Press 3516:Parkes, Joseph (1828). 2986:McDermott (1992) p. 659 2977:McDermott (1992) p. 658 2968:McDermott (1992) p. 657 2959:McDermott (1992) p. 656 2950:McDermott (1992) p. 654 2941:McDermott (1992) p. 653 2929:McDermott (1992) p. 652 2866:D (January 1862) p. 142 2857:D (January 1862) p. 141 1880:clericos de prima forma 572:Commonwealth of England 465:. Two years later, the 4098:14th century in London 3886:Recorder of Manchester 3748:High Court of Chivalry 3421:Law and History Review 3396:Law and History Review 3367:Kerly, Duncan (1890). 3072:Hanworth (1935) p. 327 2027:Parkes (1828) p. 29-30 1844: 1707: 1502:originated during the 1485:of England and Wales. 867: 667: 567:could take on a case. 491: 415: 323: 269: 220: 118:equitable jurisdiction 47: 18:High Court of Chancery 3881:Recorder of Liverpool 3861:Court of Appeal judge 3814:Court of King's Bench 3784:Court of Common Pleas 3653:The National Archives 3552:Sainty, John (1993). 3444:. Carswell & co. 3274:Cambridge Law Journal 3258:American Law Register 3241:American Law Register 3204:Virginia Law Register 3163:Virginia Law Register 2875:D (April 1862) p. 321 2462:Horowitz (1996) p. 27 2444:Horowitz (1996) p. 26 2309:Horowitz (1996) p. 25 1835: 1702: 1618:ecclesiastical courts 1525:ecclesiastical courts 1483:High Court of Justice 1378:Jarndyce and Jarndyce 858: 661: 592:Convention Parliament 543:justices of the peace 486: 468:Earl of Oxford's Case 457:Court of King's Bench 410: 314: 260: 248:Court of Common Pleas 215: 169:High Court of Justice 42: 3583:Peel, Edwin (2007). 3470:Law Quarterly Review 3063:Sainty (1993) p. 144 2177:Tucker (2000) p. 800 2168:Tucker (2000) p. 792 1967:Subpoena duces tecum 1855:doctors of civil law 1720:Browne v Dom Bridges 1634:specific performance 1412:specific performance 683:and the writings of 376:specific performance 284:Rise and early years 265:justices of the Jews 102:specific performance 3856:Master of the Rolls 3738:Court of Protection 3587:The Law of Contract 3475:Sweet & Maxwell 3171:Virginia Law Review 3108:Kerly (1890) p. 271 3099:Kerly (1890) p. 174 3090:Carne (1927) p. 418 3081:Carne (1927) p. 417 3054:Carne (1927) p. 416 3031:Carne (1928) p. 592 3022:Carne (1928) p. 591 3013:Carne (1927) p. 415 3004:Carne (1927) p. 412 2995:Carne (1927) p. 411 2911:Ramjohn (1998) p. 6 2893:Adams (1855) p. 243 2848:Carne (1928) p. 601 2839:Adams (1855) p. 637 2830:Carne (1928) p. 606 2821:Carne (1928) p. 605 2812:Adams (1855) p. 657 2803:Adams (1855) p. 656 2794:Adams (1855) p. 655 2785:Adams (1855) p. 654 2776:Adams (1855) p. 653 2767:Carne (1928) p. 608 2758:Carne (1928) p. 607 2749:Carne (1928) p. 600 2740:Carne (1928) p. 599 2728:Adams (1855) p. 153 2719:Hudson (2001) p. 42 2710:Hudson (2001) p. 41 2701:Kerly (1890) p. 294 2528:Kerly (1890) p. 272 2501:Kerly (1890) p. 265 2492:Kerly (1890) p. 264 2483:Kerly (1890) p. 179 2474:Kerly (1890) p. 178 2453:Kerly (1890) p. 173 2435:Kerly (1890) p. 168 2423:Kerly (1890) p. 171 2414:Kerly (1890) p. 167 2405:Kerly (1890) p. 166 2393:Kerly (1890) p. 164 2384:Kerly (1890) p. 163 2375:Kerly (1890) p. 161 2357:Kerly (1890) p. 158 2348:Kerly (1890) p. 157 2339:Kerly (1890) p. 156 2327:Kerly (1890) p. 155 2318:Kerly (1890) p. 154 2300:Kerly (1890) p. 116 2291:Kerly (1890) p. 115 2279:Kerly (1890) p. 114 2265:Kerly (1890) p. 111 2256:Kerly (1890) p. 110 2247:Kerly (1890) p. 109 2141:Carne (1927) p. 414 2129:Carne (1927) p. 413 2117:Baker (2002) p. 103 2108:Carne (1927) p. 410 2099:Carne (1927) p. 405 2072:Carne (1927) p. 404 2063:Carne (1927) p. 403 2018:Carne (1927) p. 400 2009:Carne (1927) p. 392 2000:Carne (1927) p. 391 1887:master of the rolls 1841:Master of the Rolls 1747:in 1855, where the 1531:, many people used 1475:Master of the Rolls 560:English Restoration 524:By the time of the 453:Courtney v. Glanvil 273:master of the rolls 256:Edward I of England 180:master of the rolls 3992:Admiralty Advocate 3939:Justice of Chester 3876:Recorder of London 3851:Lord Chief Justice 3799:Court of Exchequer 3753:Magistrates' Court 3499:Palgrave Macmillan 3040:Marsh (1890) p. 71 2920:Peel (2007) p. 992 2366:Kerly (1890) p.159 2238:Kerly (1890) p.108 2229:Kerly (1890) p.107 2186:Marsh (1890) p. 46 2159:Kerly (1890) p. 40 2150:Kerly (1890) p. 37 2090:Kerly (1890) p. 31 2081:Kerly (1890) p. 30 2054:Kerly (1890) p. 28 2045:Kerly (1890) p. 27 2036:Kerly (1890) p. 26 1845: 1788:and the repeal of 1786:petitions of right 1680:Exchequer of Pleas 1672:Statutes of Merton 1614:feoffments to uses 868: 823:and retirement of 698:Court of Exchequer 677:Sir Samuel Romilly 668: 420:Elizabethan period 416: 324: 244:exchequer of pleas 221: 114:Exchequer of Pleas 48: 4083:English civil law 4063:Court of Chancery 4004: 4003: 4000: 3999: 3971:Solicitor General 3947: 3946: 3832: 3831: 3789:Court of Chancery 3651:Research Guides. 3598:978-0-421-94840-2 3508:978-0-230-01883-9 3359:978-0-415-49771-8 3350:Equity and Trusts 2208:Dennis Freeborn, 2195:Dennis Freeborn, 1991:Marsh (1890) p. 6 1857:, members of the 1745:Phelps v Prothero 1667:21 & 22 Vict. 1568:England and Wales 1366:15 & 16 Vict. 1354:15 & 16 Vict. 1341: 1340: 1320:15 & 16 Vict. 1285:Act of Parliament 1270: 1269: 1249:15 & 16 Vict. 1214:Act of Parliament 1172:3 & 4 Will. 4 1155:2 & 3 Will. 4 1143: 1142: 1113:Other legislation 1056:Act of Parliament 1041: 1040: 1020:3 & 4 Will. 4 985:Act of Parliament 970: 969: 940:Other legislation 918:2 & 3 Will. 4 883:Act of Parliament 816: 815: 782:Other legislation 725:Act of Parliament 580:Statute of Frauds 526:English Civil War 173:Chancery Division 95:conscientious law 78:, the estates of 60:England and Wales 52:Court of Chancery 16:(Redirected from 4110: 4078:Courts of equity 4045: 4044: 4033: 4032: 4031: 4021: 4020: 4019: 4012: 3966:Attorney General 3956: 3866:High Court judge 3841: 3819:Court of Probate 3703: 3685: 3678: 3671: 3662: 3637: 3602: 3590: 3579: 3548: 3529: 3520:. Longman Rees. 3512: 3497:(7th ed.). 3491:McKendrick, Ewan 3486: 3463: 3436: 3415: 3390: 3363: 3344: 3309: 3265: 3252: 3235: 3198: 3157: 3146:. Butterworths. 3135: 3109: 3106: 3100: 3097: 3091: 3088: 3082: 3079: 3073: 3070: 3064: 3061: 3055: 3052: 3041: 3038: 3032: 3029: 3023: 3020: 3014: 3011: 3005: 3002: 2996: 2993: 2987: 2984: 2978: 2975: 2969: 2966: 2960: 2957: 2951: 2948: 2942: 2939: 2930: 2927: 2921: 2918: 2912: 2909: 2903: 2900: 2894: 2891: 2885: 2882: 2876: 2873: 2867: 2864: 2858: 2855: 2849: 2846: 2840: 2837: 2831: 2828: 2822: 2819: 2813: 2810: 2804: 2801: 2795: 2792: 2786: 2783: 2777: 2774: 2768: 2765: 2759: 2756: 2750: 2747: 2741: 2738: 2729: 2726: 2720: 2717: 2711: 2708: 2702: 2699: 2690: 2687: 2681: 2678: 2672: 2669: 2663: 2660: 2654: 2651: 2645: 2644: 2626: 2620: 2617: 2611: 2608: 2602: 2599: 2593: 2590: 2584: 2581: 2575: 2572: 2566: 2563: 2550: 2547: 2538: 2535: 2529: 2526: 2520: 2517: 2511: 2508: 2502: 2499: 2493: 2490: 2484: 2481: 2475: 2472: 2463: 2460: 2454: 2451: 2445: 2442: 2436: 2433: 2424: 2421: 2415: 2412: 2406: 2403: 2394: 2391: 2385: 2382: 2376: 2373: 2367: 2364: 2358: 2355: 2349: 2346: 2340: 2337: 2328: 2325: 2319: 2316: 2310: 2307: 2301: 2298: 2292: 2289: 2280: 2277: 2266: 2263: 2257: 2254: 2248: 2245: 2239: 2236: 2230: 2227: 2221: 2206: 2200: 2193: 2187: 2184: 2178: 2175: 2169: 2166: 2160: 2157: 2151: 2148: 2142: 2139: 2130: 2127: 2118: 2115: 2109: 2106: 2100: 2097: 2091: 2088: 2082: 2079: 2073: 2070: 2064: 2061: 2055: 2052: 2046: 2043: 2037: 2034: 2028: 2025: 2019: 2016: 2010: 2007: 2001: 1998: 1992: 1989: 1529:Statute of Wills 1428:royal commission 1362: 1361: 1350: 1349: 1294: 1293: 1280: 1275: 1223: 1222: 1209: 1204: 1192: 1191: 1184:Thomas Pemberton 1168: 1167: 1151: 1150: 1131:Status: Repealed 1065: 1064: 1051: 1046: 994: 993: 980: 975: 958:Status: Repealed 892: 891: 878: 873: 860:Thomas Pemberton 833: 832: 811:Status: Repealed 734: 733: 720: 715: 355:House of Commons 316:Westminster Hall 306:Westminster Hall 155: 154: 1558–1603 153: 144: 143: 1461–1485 142: 21: 4118: 4117: 4113: 4112: 4111: 4109: 4108: 4107: 4053: 4052: 4051: 4039: 4029: 4027: 4017: 4015: 4007: 4005: 3996: 3987:King's Advocate 3975: 3943: 3909:Lord Chancellor 3897: 3828: 3757: 3728:Court of Appeal 3713:Court of equity 3694: 3689: 3655:. 2 March 2007. 3645: 3640: 3605: 3599: 3582: 3568: 3551: 3545: 3532: 3515: 3509: 3489: 3466: 3452: 3439: 3418: 3393: 3379: 3366: 3360: 3347: 3312: 3268: 3255: 3238: 3216:10.2307/1108266 3201: 3179:10.2307/1108431 3160: 3154: 3138: 3121: 3117: 3112: 3107: 3103: 3098: 3094: 3089: 3085: 3080: 3076: 3071: 3067: 3062: 3058: 3053: 3044: 3039: 3035: 3030: 3026: 3021: 3017: 3012: 3008: 3003: 2999: 2994: 2990: 2985: 2981: 2976: 2972: 2967: 2963: 2958: 2954: 2949: 2945: 2940: 2933: 2928: 2924: 2919: 2915: 2910: 2906: 2901: 2897: 2892: 2888: 2883: 2879: 2874: 2870: 2865: 2861: 2856: 2852: 2847: 2843: 2838: 2834: 2829: 2825: 2820: 2816: 2811: 2807: 2802: 2798: 2793: 2789: 2784: 2780: 2775: 2771: 2766: 2762: 2757: 2753: 2748: 2744: 2739: 2732: 2727: 2723: 2718: 2714: 2709: 2705: 2700: 2693: 2688: 2684: 2679: 2675: 2670: 2666: 2661: 2657: 2652: 2648: 2641: 2628: 2627: 2623: 2618: 2614: 2609: 2605: 2600: 2596: 2591: 2587: 2582: 2578: 2573: 2569: 2564: 2553: 2548: 2541: 2536: 2532: 2527: 2523: 2518: 2514: 2509: 2505: 2500: 2496: 2491: 2487: 2482: 2478: 2473: 2466: 2461: 2457: 2452: 2448: 2443: 2439: 2434: 2427: 2422: 2418: 2413: 2409: 2404: 2397: 2392: 2388: 2383: 2379: 2374: 2370: 2365: 2361: 2356: 2352: 2347: 2343: 2338: 2331: 2326: 2322: 2317: 2313: 2308: 2304: 2299: 2295: 2290: 2283: 2278: 2269: 2264: 2260: 2255: 2251: 2246: 2242: 2237: 2233: 2228: 2224: 2207: 2203: 2194: 2190: 2185: 2181: 2176: 2172: 2167: 2163: 2158: 2154: 2149: 2145: 2140: 2133: 2128: 2121: 2116: 2112: 2107: 2103: 2098: 2094: 2089: 2085: 2080: 2076: 2071: 2067: 2062: 2058: 2053: 2049: 2044: 2040: 2035: 2031: 2026: 2022: 2017: 2013: 2008: 2004: 1999: 1995: 1990: 1986: 1982: 1924:Court of equity 1920: 1907:Bank of England 1868:Norman Conquest 1830: 1773: 1771:Lord Chancellor 1767: 1765:Lord chancellor 1762: 1731:in 1810, where 1630: 1598: 1580:Lunacy Act 1845 1556: 1518:Statute of Uses 1496: 1491: 1479:Court of Appeal 1457: – as the 1455:lord chancellor 1439:Roundell Palmer 1387: 1359: 1358: 1347: 1346: 1344:complaint. The 1299: 1291: 1278: 1273: 1228: 1220: 1207: 1202: 1196:5 & 6 Vict. 1189: 1188: 1165: 1164: 1148: 1147: 1132: 1091:5 & 6 Vict. 1070: 1062: 1049: 1044: 999: 991: 978: 973: 959: 897: 889: 876: 871: 850:Richard Bethell 830: 829: 812: 805: 739: 731: 718: 713: 656: 639:bills of review 608: 556: 548:Oliver Cromwell 530:Sir Edward Coke 522: 433:Sir Edward Coke 405: 392: 367:Nicholas Pronay 286: 210: 205: 184:vice-chancellor 150: 139: 87:lord chancellor 56:court of equity 35: 28: 23: 22: 15: 12: 11: 5: 4116: 4114: 4106: 4105: 4100: 4095: 4090: 4085: 4080: 4075: 4070: 4065: 4055: 4054: 4050: 4049: 4037: 4025: 4002: 4001: 3998: 3997: 3995: 3994: 3989: 3983: 3981: 3977: 3976: 3974: 3973: 3968: 3962: 3960: 3953: 3949: 3948: 3945: 3944: 3942: 3941: 3936: 3931: 3926: 3921: 3916: 3911: 3905: 3903: 3899: 3898: 3896: 3895: 3890: 3888: 3883: 3878: 3873: 3868: 3863: 3858: 3853: 3847: 3845: 3838: 3834: 3833: 3830: 3829: 3827: 3826: 3821: 3816: 3811: 3806: 3801: 3796: 3791: 3786: 3781: 3776: 3771: 3765: 3763: 3759: 3758: 3756: 3755: 3750: 3745: 3740: 3735: 3730: 3725: 3720: 3715: 3709: 3707: 3700: 3696: 3695: 3690: 3688: 3687: 3680: 3673: 3665: 3657: 3656: 3644: 3643:External links 3641: 3639: 3638: 3603: 3597: 3580: 3566: 3558:Selden Society 3549: 3543: 3530: 3513: 3507: 3487: 3464: 3450: 3437: 3416: 3391: 3377: 3364: 3358: 3345: 3333:10.1086/386095 3310: 3270:Hanworth, Lord 3266: 3253: 3236: 3199: 3158: 3152: 3136: 3118: 3116: 3113: 3111: 3110: 3101: 3092: 3083: 3074: 3065: 3056: 3042: 3033: 3024: 3015: 3006: 2997: 2988: 2979: 2970: 2961: 2952: 2943: 2931: 2922: 2913: 2904: 2895: 2886: 2877: 2868: 2859: 2850: 2841: 2832: 2823: 2814: 2805: 2796: 2787: 2778: 2769: 2760: 2751: 2742: 2730: 2721: 2712: 2703: 2691: 2682: 2673: 2664: 2655: 2646: 2639: 2621: 2612: 2603: 2594: 2585: 2576: 2567: 2551: 2539: 2530: 2521: 2512: 2503: 2494: 2485: 2476: 2464: 2455: 2446: 2437: 2425: 2416: 2407: 2395: 2386: 2377: 2368: 2359: 2350: 2341: 2329: 2320: 2311: 2302: 2293: 2281: 2267: 2258: 2249: 2240: 2231: 2222: 2201: 2188: 2179: 2170: 2161: 2152: 2143: 2131: 2119: 2110: 2101: 2092: 2083: 2074: 2065: 2056: 2047: 2038: 2029: 2020: 2011: 2002: 1993: 1983: 1981: 1978: 1977: 1976: 1970: 1963: 1956: 1951: 1946: 1941: 1936: 1931: 1926: 1919: 1916: 1829: 1826: 1816:Thomas Egerton 1812:Nicholas Bacon 1801:Robert Parning 1790:letters patent 1769:Main article: 1766: 1763: 1761: 1758: 1725:Lannoy v Werry 1712:Lord Hardwicke 1629: 1626: 1606:Lord Hardwicke 1597: 1594: 1589:parens patriae 1572:House of Lords 1555: 1552: 1498:The idea of a 1495: 1492: 1490: 1487: 1443:Lord Hatherley 1386: 1383: 1339: 1338: 1335: 1329: 1328: 1324: 1323: 1317: 1311: 1310: 1307: 1301: 1300: 1295: 1287: 1286: 1282: 1281: 1271: 1268: 1267: 1264: 1258: 1257: 1253: 1252: 1246: 1240: 1239: 1236: 1230: 1229: 1224: 1216: 1215: 1211: 1210: 1200: 1141: 1140: 1134: 1133: 1130: 1127: 1126: 1121: 1115: 1114: 1110: 1109: 1108:10 August 1842 1106: 1100: 1099: 1095: 1094: 1088: 1082: 1081: 1078: 1072: 1071: 1066: 1058: 1057: 1053: 1052: 1042: 1039: 1038: 1037:28 August 1833 1035: 1029: 1028: 1024: 1023: 1017: 1011: 1010: 1007: 1001: 1000: 995: 987: 986: 982: 981: 971: 968: 967: 961: 960: 957: 954: 953: 948: 942: 941: 937: 936: 935:15 August 1832 933: 927: 926: 922: 921: 915: 909: 908: 905: 899: 898: 893: 885: 884: 880: 879: 869: 846:House of Lords 814: 813: 810: 807: 806: 804: 803: 792: 790: 784: 783: 779: 778: 777:5 October 1841 775: 769: 768: 764: 763: 757: 751: 750: 747: 741: 740: 735: 727: 726: 722: 721: 711: 694:Lord Lyndhurst 685:Jeremy Bentham 655: 652: 635:Lord Hardwicke 619:4 & 5 Ann. 607: 606:Further reform 604: 596:first instance 587:House of Lords 564:Lord Clarendon 555: 552: 521: 518: 449:Lord Ellesmere 412:Lord Ellesmere 404: 401: 391: 388: 360:House of Lords 285: 282: 209: 206: 204: 201: 26: 24: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4115: 4104: 4101: 4099: 4096: 4094: 4091: 4089: 4086: 4084: 4081: 4079: 4076: 4074: 4071: 4069: 4066: 4064: 4061: 4060: 4058: 4048: 4043: 4038: 4036: 4026: 4024: 4014: 4010: 3993: 3990: 3988: 3985: 3984: 3982: 3978: 3972: 3969: 3967: 3964: 3963: 3961: 3957: 3954: 3950: 3940: 3937: 3935: 3932: 3930: 3927: 3925: 3922: 3920: 3917: 3915: 3912: 3910: 3907: 3906: 3904: 3900: 3894: 3891: 3889: 3887: 3884: 3882: 3879: 3877: 3874: 3872: 3871:Circuit judge 3869: 3867: 3864: 3862: 3859: 3857: 3854: 3852: 3849: 3848: 3846: 3842: 3839: 3835: 3825: 3822: 3820: 3817: 3815: 3812: 3810: 3807: 3805: 3802: 3800: 3797: 3795: 3792: 3790: 3787: 3785: 3782: 3780: 3777: 3775: 3772: 3770: 3767: 3766: 3764: 3760: 3754: 3751: 3749: 3746: 3744: 3741: 3739: 3736: 3734: 3731: 3729: 3726: 3724: 3723:Privy Council 3721: 3719: 3718:Supreme Court 3716: 3714: 3711: 3710: 3708: 3704: 3701: 3697: 3693: 3686: 3681: 3679: 3674: 3672: 3667: 3666: 3663: 3659: 3654: 3650: 3647: 3646: 3642: 3635: 3631: 3627: 3623: 3619: 3615: 3611: 3610: 3604: 3600: 3594: 3589: 3588: 3581: 3577: 3573: 3569: 3567:0-85423-129-3 3563: 3559: 3555: 3550: 3546: 3544:1-85941-186-X 3540: 3537:. Routledge. 3536: 3531: 3527: 3523: 3519: 3514: 3510: 3504: 3500: 3496: 3492: 3488: 3484: 3480: 3476: 3472: 3471: 3465: 3461: 3457: 3453: 3451:0-665-09917-7 3447: 3443: 3438: 3434: 3430: 3426: 3422: 3417: 3413: 3409: 3405: 3401: 3397: 3392: 3388: 3384: 3380: 3378:0-8377-2331-0 3374: 3370: 3365: 3361: 3355: 3351: 3346: 3342: 3338: 3334: 3330: 3326: 3322: 3318: 3317: 3311: 3307: 3303: 3299: 3295: 3291: 3287: 3283: 3279: 3275: 3271: 3267: 3263: 3259: 3254: 3250: 3246: 3242: 3237: 3233: 3229: 3225: 3221: 3217: 3213: 3209: 3205: 3200: 3196: 3192: 3188: 3184: 3180: 3176: 3172: 3168: 3164: 3159: 3155: 3153:0-406-93053-8 3149: 3145: 3141: 3137: 3133: 3129: 3125: 3120: 3119: 3114: 3105: 3102: 3096: 3093: 3087: 3084: 3078: 3075: 3069: 3066: 3060: 3057: 3051: 3049: 3047: 3043: 3037: 3034: 3028: 3025: 3019: 3016: 3010: 3007: 3001: 2998: 2992: 2989: 2983: 2980: 2974: 2971: 2965: 2962: 2956: 2953: 2947: 2944: 2938: 2936: 2932: 2926: 2923: 2917: 2914: 2908: 2905: 2899: 2896: 2890: 2887: 2881: 2878: 2872: 2869: 2863: 2860: 2854: 2851: 2845: 2842: 2836: 2833: 2827: 2824: 2818: 2815: 2809: 2806: 2800: 2797: 2791: 2788: 2782: 2779: 2773: 2770: 2764: 2761: 2755: 2752: 2746: 2743: 2737: 2735: 2731: 2725: 2722: 2716: 2713: 2707: 2704: 2698: 2696: 2692: 2686: 2683: 2677: 2674: 2668: 2665: 2659: 2656: 2650: 2647: 2642: 2640:1-60329-013-3 2636: 2632: 2625: 2622: 2616: 2613: 2607: 2604: 2598: 2595: 2589: 2586: 2580: 2577: 2571: 2568: 2562: 2560: 2558: 2556: 2552: 2546: 2544: 2540: 2534: 2531: 2525: 2522: 2516: 2513: 2507: 2504: 2498: 2495: 2489: 2486: 2480: 2477: 2471: 2469: 2465: 2459: 2456: 2450: 2447: 2441: 2438: 2432: 2430: 2426: 2420: 2417: 2411: 2408: 2402: 2400: 2396: 2390: 2387: 2381: 2378: 2372: 2369: 2363: 2360: 2354: 2351: 2345: 2342: 2336: 2334: 2330: 2324: 2321: 2315: 2312: 2306: 2303: 2297: 2294: 2288: 2286: 2282: 2276: 2274: 2272: 2268: 2262: 2259: 2253: 2250: 2244: 2241: 2235: 2232: 2226: 2223: 2219: 2215: 2211: 2205: 2202: 2198: 2192: 2189: 2183: 2180: 2174: 2171: 2165: 2162: 2156: 2153: 2147: 2144: 2138: 2136: 2132: 2126: 2124: 2120: 2114: 2111: 2105: 2102: 2096: 2093: 2087: 2084: 2078: 2075: 2069: 2066: 2060: 2057: 2051: 2048: 2042: 2039: 2033: 2030: 2024: 2021: 2015: 2012: 2006: 2003: 1997: 1994: 1988: 1985: 1979: 1975: 1971: 1969: 1968: 1964: 1962: 1961: 1957: 1955: 1952: 1950: 1947: 1945: 1942: 1940: 1937: 1935: 1932: 1930: 1929:Chancery Lane 1927: 1925: 1922: 1921: 1917: 1915: 1912: 1908: 1902: 1900: 1896: 1892: 1891:Francis Bacon 1888: 1883: 1881: 1877: 1873: 1869: 1864: 1860: 1856: 1852: 1851: 1842: 1838: 1834: 1827: 1825: 1822: 1817: 1813: 1809: 1808:Robert Thorpe 1805: 1802: 1797: 1795: 1794:recognizances 1791: 1787: 1782: 1780: 1779: 1772: 1764: 1759: 1757: 1755: 1750: 1746: 1741: 1739: 1734: 1730: 1726: 1721: 1715: 1713: 1706: 1701: 1699: 1695: 1691: 1690: 1685: 1681: 1677: 1673: 1668: 1664: 1659: 1657: 1652: 1651:consideration 1647: 1643: 1639: 1635: 1627: 1625: 1623: 1619: 1615: 1611: 1607: 1603: 1595: 1593: 1591: 1590: 1584: 1581: 1575: 1573: 1569: 1565: 1561: 1553: 1551: 1549: 1548: 1543: 1537: 1534: 1530: 1526: 1521: 1519: 1515: 1510: 1505: 1501: 1493: 1488: 1486: 1484: 1480: 1476: 1472: 1468: 1464: 1460: 1456: 1452: 1451:Lord Selborne 1447: 1444: 1440: 1436: 1431: 1429: 1425: 1424:county courts 1421: 1417: 1413: 1409: 1405: 1401: 1396: 1392: 1384: 1382: 1380: 1379: 1374: 1373: 1367: 1363: 1355: 1351: 1336: 1334: 1330: 1325: 1321: 1318: 1316: 1312: 1308: 1306: 1302: 1298: 1288: 1283: 1276: 1265: 1263: 1259: 1254: 1250: 1247: 1245: 1241: 1237: 1235: 1231: 1227: 1217: 1212: 1205: 1199: 1197: 1193: 1185: 1181: 1177: 1173: 1169: 1160: 1156: 1152: 1139: 1135: 1128: 1125: 1122: 1120: 1116: 1111: 1107: 1105: 1101: 1096: 1092: 1089: 1087: 1083: 1079: 1077: 1073: 1069: 1059: 1054: 1047: 1036: 1034: 1030: 1025: 1021: 1018: 1016: 1012: 1008: 1006: 1002: 998: 988: 983: 976: 966: 962: 955: 952: 949: 947: 943: 938: 934: 932: 928: 923: 919: 916: 914: 910: 906: 904: 900: 896: 886: 881: 874: 865: 862:attacked the 861: 857: 853: 851: 847: 843: 838: 834: 826: 822: 808: 801: 797: 794: 793: 791: 789: 785: 780: 776: 774: 770: 765: 761: 758: 756: 752: 748: 746: 742: 738: 728: 723: 716: 710: 708: 704: 703:lord justices 699: 695: 689: 686: 682: 681:Code Napoleon 678: 674: 665: 664:Lincoln's Inn 660: 654:Victorian era 653: 651: 647: 645: 640: 636: 631: 629: 625: 624:Wilfrid Prest 620: 616: 612: 605: 603: 601: 597: 593: 588: 583: 581: 577: 573: 568: 565: 561: 553: 551: 549: 544: 538: 534: 531: 527: 519: 517: 515: 511: 510:Robert Atkyns 507: 503: 502:David Jenkins 499: 498: 490: 485: 483: 479: 478:Francis Bacon 475: 470: 469: 464: 463: 462:habeas corpus 458: 454: 450: 445: 443: 438: 435:cites in his 434: 430: 425: 421: 413: 409: 402: 400: 398: 397:Chancery hand 387: 385: 381: 377: 372: 368: 363: 361: 356: 352: 348: 343: 341: 337: 333: 329: 321: 317: 313: 309: 307: 303: 299: 295: 291: 283: 281: 278: 274: 268: 266: 259: 257: 251: 249: 245: 241: 236: 232: 231:feudal system 228: 227: 218: 214: 207: 202: 200: 198: 192: 190: 185: 181: 176: 174: 170: 166: 162: 157: 148: 137: 136:House of York 132: 131: 125: 123: 119: 115: 111: 107: 103: 98: 96: 92: 88: 83: 81: 77: 73: 69: 65: 61: 57: 53: 46: 45:King George I 41: 37: 33: 19: 3952:Law Officers 3824:Star Chamber 3788: 3774:Assize Court 3658: 3613: 3607: 3586: 3553: 3534: 3517: 3495:Contract Law 3494: 3468: 3441: 3424: 3420: 3399: 3395: 3368: 3349: 3320: 3314: 3277: 3273: 3261: 3257: 3244: 3240: 3207: 3203: 3166: 3162: 3143: 3123: 3115:Bibliography 3104: 3095: 3086: 3077: 3068: 3059: 3036: 3027: 3018: 3009: 3000: 2991: 2982: 2973: 2964: 2955: 2946: 2925: 2916: 2907: 2898: 2889: 2880: 2871: 2862: 2853: 2844: 2835: 2826: 2817: 2808: 2799: 2790: 2781: 2772: 2763: 2754: 2745: 2724: 2715: 2706: 2685: 2676: 2667: 2658: 2649: 2630: 2624: 2615: 2606: 2597: 2588: 2579: 2570: 2533: 2524: 2515: 2506: 2497: 2488: 2479: 2458: 2449: 2440: 2419: 2410: 2389: 2380: 2371: 2362: 2353: 2344: 2323: 2314: 2305: 2296: 2261: 2252: 2243: 2234: 2225: 2217: 2213: 2209: 2204: 2196: 2191: 2182: 2173: 2164: 2155: 2146: 2113: 2104: 2095: 2086: 2077: 2068: 2059: 2050: 2041: 2032: 2023: 2014: 2005: 1996: 1987: 1965: 1958: 1903: 1884: 1879: 1862: 1858: 1848: 1846: 1837:John Romilly 1798: 1783: 1776: 1774: 1744: 1742: 1738:Hatch v Cobb 1737: 1728: 1724: 1719: 1716: 1708: 1703: 1687: 1683: 1660: 1631: 1601: 1599: 1587: 1585: 1576: 1557: 1547:femme covert 1545: 1538: 1522: 1497: 1489:Jurisdiction 1453:and the new 1448: 1432: 1394: 1390: 1388: 1376: 1370: 1357: 1345: 1342: 1337:30 June 1852 1333:Royal assent 1262:Royal assent 1187: 1163: 1146: 1144: 1104:Royal assent 1033:Royal assent 931:Royal assent 828: 817: 773:Royal assent 690: 669: 648: 632: 609: 599: 584: 569: 557: 539: 535: 523: 513: 505: 495: 492: 487: 466: 460: 452: 446: 436: 417: 393: 364: 344: 340:John Waltham 331: 325: 287: 270: 261: 252: 239: 224: 222: 193: 177: 158: 128: 126: 99: 84: 70:, including 51: 49: 36: 3743:Crown Court 3620:: 791–811. 3284:: 313–331. 3173:: 391–421. 3140:Baker, J.H. 2631:Bleak House 1872:Witenagemot 1850:curia regis 1839:, the last 1821:natural law 1778:curia regis 1692:against my 1646:contractual 1638:injunctions 1562:(Ruffhead: 1416:injunctions 1385:Dissolution 1372:Bleak House 1266:1 July 1852 1119:Repealed by 946:Repealed by 821:Shadwell VC 788:Repealed by 611:Lord Somers 554:Restoration 429:Elizabeth I 380:injunctions 347:Plantagenet 226:curia regis 171:, with the 147:Elizabeth I 130:curia regis 106:injunctions 89:'s role as 4057:Categories 3733:High Court 3556:. Oxford: 1980:References 1895:Six Clerks 1876:plea rolls 1733:Lord Eldon 1729:Todd v Gee 1698:Richard II 1676:Gloucester 1578:Under the 1509:common law 1433:After the 1305:Long title 1234:Long title 1180:Six Clerks 1076:Long title 1005:Long title 903:Long title 864:Six Clerks 745:Long title 673:barristers 576:Charles II 558:After the 418:The early 336:John Baker 328:Richard II 320:Edward III 302:Edward III 294:common law 64:common law 3634:0013-8266 3483:0023-933X 3460:276334548 3433:0738-2480 3412:0738-2480 3387:213543694 3341:143853191 3327:: 24–57. 3306:144982031 3298:0008-1973 3224:1547-1357 3187:1547-1357 1622:Edward IV 1596:Charities 1564:17 Edw. 2 1422:gave the 1391:Law Times 1176:the Crown 825:Wigram VC 644:Charles I 628:barrister 504:wrote in 351:Roman law 277:Edward II 197:the Crown 189:sinecures 3837:Justices 3576:29670782 3493:(2007). 3142:(2002). 3132:60727816 1918:See also 1760:Officers 1689:subpoena 1628:Remedies 1533:feoffees 1504:Crusades 1315:Citation 1244:Citation 1159:sinecure 1086:Citation 1015:Citation 920:. c. 111 913:Citation 844:and the 755:Citation 666:Old Hall 442:freehold 424:Henry VI 217:Edward I 163:and the 80:lunatics 76:land law 4035:History 4023:England 4009:Portals 3959:Current 3844:Current 3706:Current 3616:(463). 3526:6248969 3473:(108). 3232:1108266 3195:1108431 2220:(1984). 1911:5 Vict. 1694:feoffee 1642:damages 1542:legatee 1408:damages 1022:. c. 94 837:5 Vict. 800:SI 1965 760:5 Vict. 437:Reports 384:damages 371:Yorkist 208:Origins 203:History 120:by the 110:damages 3980:Former 3902:Former 3762:Former 3699:Courts 3632: 3595: 3574: 3564: 3541: 3524: 3505: 3481: 3458: 3448: 3431: 3410: 3385: 3375: 3356: 3339: 3304: 3296: 3230: 3222: 3193: 3185: 3150: 3130: 2637: 2214:et al. 1718:as in 1463:trusts 1418:. The 1093:c. 103 802:/1776) 633:Under 480:, the 290:equity 72:trusts 68:equity 54:was a 3402:(2). 3337:S2CID 3323:(1). 3302:S2CID 3280:(3). 3247:(3). 3228:JSTOR 3191:JSTOR 3169:(7). 1863:curia 1859:curia 1500:trust 1395:Times 1327:Dates 1322:c. 80 1256:Dates 1251:c. 87 1098:Dates 1027:Dates 925:Dates 767:Dates 332:curia 298:writs 240:curia 3630:ISSN 3593:ISBN 3572:OCLC 3562:ISBN 3539:ISBN 3522:OCLC 3503:ISBN 3479:ISSN 3456:OCLC 3446:ISBN 3429:ISSN 3408:ISSN 3383:OCLC 3373:ISBN 3354:ISBN 3294:ISSN 3220:ISSN 3183:ISSN 3148:ISBN 3128:OCLC 2635:ISBN 1972:The 1674:and 1640:and 1514:uses 1402:and 762:c. 5 590:the 476:and 378:and 104:and 50:The 4047:Law 3622:doi 3614:115 3329:doi 3286:doi 3212:doi 3175:doi 1414:or 74:, 58:in 4059:: 3628:. 3612:. 3570:. 3560:. 3501:. 3477:. 3454:. 3425:22 3423:. 3406:. 3400:22 3398:. 3381:. 3335:. 3321:35 3319:. 3300:. 3292:. 3276:. 3262:10 3260:. 3245:10 3243:. 3226:. 3218:. 3208:13 3206:. 3189:. 3181:. 3167:13 3165:. 3045:^ 2934:^ 2733:^ 2694:^ 2554:^ 2542:^ 2467:^ 2428:^ 2398:^ 2332:^ 2284:^ 2270:^ 2216:, 2134:^ 2122:^ 1901:. 1804:SL 1636:, 1604:, 1574:. 444:. 386:. 199:. 152:r. 141:r. 4011:: 3684:e 3677:t 3670:v 3636:. 3624:: 3601:. 3578:. 3547:. 3528:. 3511:. 3485:. 3462:. 3435:. 3414:. 3389:. 3362:. 3343:. 3331:: 3308:. 3288:: 3278:5 3251:. 3234:. 3214:: 3197:. 3177:: 3156:. 3134:. 2643:. 1665:( 1364:( 1352:( 1194:( 1170:( 1153:( 835:( 798:( 617:( 149:( 138:( 34:. 20:)

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index