Our Legal Heritage: The First Thousand Years: 600 - 1600: King Aethelbert - Queen ElizabethReilly, S. A.
History
Our Legal Heritage: The First Thousand Years: 600 - 1600: King Aethelbert - Queen Elizabeth
Reilly, S. A.
Law -- England -- History
People took grievances outside the confines of the rigid common
law to the Chancellor, who could give equitable remedies under
authority of a statute of 1285 (described in Chapter 8). The
Chancery heard many cases of breach of faith in the "use", a
form of trust in which three parties were involved: the holder
of land, feofees to whom the holder had made it over by
conveyance or "bargain and sale", and the beneficiary or
receiver of the profits of the land, who was often the holder,
his children, relatives, friends, an institution, or a
corporation. This system of using land had been created by the
friars to get around the prohibition against holding property.
Lords and gentry quickly adopted it. The advantages of the use
were that 1) there was no legal restriction to will away the
beneficial interest of the use although the land itself could
not be conveyed by will; 2) it was hard for the King to collect
feudal incidents because the feoffees were often unknown 3) the
original holder was protected from forfeiture of his land in
case of conviction of treason if the Crown went to someone he
had not supported. Chancery gave a remedy for dishonest or
defaulting feofees.
Chancery also provided the equitable relief of specific
performance in disputes over agreements, for instance,
conveyance of certain land, whereas the common law courts
awarded only monetary damages by the writ of covenant.
Chancery ordered accounts to be made in matters of foreign trade
because the common law courts were limited to accounts pursuant
to transactions made within the nation. It also involved itself
in the administration of assets and accounting of partners to
each other.
The Chancellor took jurisdiction of cases of debt, detinue, and
account which had been decided in other courts with oathhelping
by the defendant. He did not trust the reliance on friends of
the defendant swearing that his statement made in his defense
was true. An important evidentiary difference between procedures
of the Chancery and the common law courts was that the Chancellor
could orally question the plaintiff and the defendant under
oath. He also could order persons to appear at his court by
subpoena [under pain of punishment, such as a heavy fine].
Whereas the characteristic award of the common law courts was
seisin of land or monetary damages, Chancery often enjoined
certain action. Because malicious suits were a problem, the
Chancery identified such suits and issued injunctions against
taking them to any court.
The Chancery was given jurisdiction by statute over men of great
power taking by force women who had lands and tenements or goods
and not setting them free unless they bound themselves to pay
great sums to the offenders or to marry them. A statute also
gave Chancery jurisdiction over servants taking their masters'
goods at his death.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account