Court of Common Pleas (England)

Last updated
The Court of Common Pleas at work. The image shows pleaders and clients standing in front of seven Justices, and below them, their clerks. Common Pleas.JPG
The Court of Common Pleas at work. The image shows pleaders and clients standing in front of seven Justices, and below them, their clerks.

The Court of Common Pleas, or Common Bench, was a common law court in the English legal system that covered "common pleas"; actions between subject and subject, which did not concern the king. Created in the late 12th to early 13th century after splitting from the Exchequer of Pleas, the Common Pleas served as one of the central English courts for around 600 years. Authorised by Magna Carta to sit in a fixed location, the Common Pleas sat in Westminster Hall [1] for its entire existence, joined by the Exchequer of Pleas and Court of King's Bench. [1]

Contents

The court's jurisdiction was gradually undercut by the King's Bench and Exchequer of Pleas with legal fictions, the Bill of Middlesex and Writ of Quominus respectively. The Common Pleas maintained its exclusive jurisdiction over matters of real property until its dissolution, and due to its wide remit was considered by Sir Edward Coke to be the "lock and key of the common law". [2] It was staffed by one Chief Justice and a varying number of puisne justices, who were required to be Serjeants-at-Law, and until the mid 19th century only Serjeants were allowed to plead there.

As one of the two principal common law courts with the King's Bench, the Common Pleas fought to maintain its jurisdiction and caseload, in a way that during the 16th and 17th centuries was categorised as conservative and reactionary. Reaching an acceptable medium with the King's Bench and Exchequer of Pleas proved to be the downfall of all three courts; with several courts of near-identical jurisdiction, there was little need for separate bodies, and the superior courts of Westminster were merged by the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873 into a single High Court of Justice. [1] With an Order in Council issued on 16 December 1880, the Common Pleas Division of the High Court ceased to exist, marking the end of the Court of Common Pleas.

History

Origin

Henry II of England, who was originally thought to have created the Court of Common Pleas through a royal decree in 1178 Henry II of England.jpg
Henry II of England, who was originally thought to have created the Court of Common Pleas through a royal decree in 1178

Originally, the sole fixed "court" was the curia regis , one of the three central administrative bodies along with the Exchequer and Chancery, from which the Court of Chancery formed. [3] This curia was the king's court, composed of those advisers and courtiers who followed the king as he travelled around the country. This was not a dedicated court of law, instead a descendant of the witenagemot . [4] In concert with the curia regis, eyre circuits staffed by itinerant judges dispensed justice throughout the country, operating on fixed paths at certain times. These judges were also members of the curia, [5] and would hear cases on the king's behalf in the "lesser curia regis". [6] Gradually, the curia split into two distinct branches, the coram rege (King's Bench) and de banco (Common Bench, or Common Pleas). [7] Much academic discussion occurs over the circumstances and times of their founding. In 1178, a chronicler recorded that when Henry II:

learned that the land and the men of the land were burdened by so great a number of justices, for there were, eighteen, chose with the counsel of the wise men of his kingdom five only, two clerks three and laymen, all of his private family, and decreed that these five should hear all complaints of the kingdom and should do right and should not depart from the king's court but should remain there to hear the complaints of men, with this understanding that, if there should come up among them any question which could not be brought to a conclusion by them, it should be presented to a royal hearing and be determined by the king and the wiser men of the kingdom. [8]

This was originally interpreted as the foundation of the King's Bench, with the Court of Common Pleas not coming into existence until the granting of Magna Carta, which mandated in Section 17 that common pleas (cases between subject and subject, as opposed to cases involving the king) be heard in "some fixed place". [9] This ensured that rather than the source of justice moving from place to place as the king did, there would be a fixed location that claimants and defendants could travel to that would address their problems. [10] The later theory was that Henry II's decree created the Court of Common Pleas, not the King's Bench, and that the King's Bench instead split from the Common Pleas at some later time. [11] In the 20th century, with better access to historical documents, legal historians have come to a different conclusion. Rather than the Common Pleas being created out of the curia regis directly, it instead arose out of the Exchequer of Pleas, another body split from the curia regis. [12] By the beginning of the 13th century, a split began; chronicles from 1201 identify the "bench" and "exchequer" as distinct bodies, and records of Barons of the Exchequer and Justices of the Common Pleas show a distinct lack of overlap. [13]

The Court of Common Pleas, along with the other superior courts, sat in Westminster Hall from its creation. Due to the provisions in Magna Carta, it was bound to sit there; an apocryphal story says that Orlando Bridgeman refused to move the court a few feet to avoid the draught from the north entrance, fearing that to do so would be to infringe on Magna Carta. The court sat in a space marked off by a wooden bar (which counsel stood behind) with the court officials sitting at a large oak table covered in green cloth and the justices on a raised platform (or "bench") at the rear of the court. [14]

Struggle with the King's Bench

Sir Edmund Anderson, the conservative Chief Justice of the Common Pleas who brought the Common Pleas and King's Bench into conflict over assumpsit. Sir Edmund Anderson from NPG.jpg
Sir Edmund Anderson, the conservative Chief Justice of the Common Pleas who brought the Common Pleas and King's Bench into conflict over assumpsit .

During the 15th century, the common law courts were challenged by the civil law and equity found in the Chancery and similar courts. These courts and legal methods were much faster than the common law courts, so lawyers and claimants flocked to them. This was perceived as a threat to the common law courts, for good reason; between 1460 and 1540, the business of the common law courts significantly dropped, while the Chancery's cases rose massively in number. In reaction to this, the Court of King's Bench developed its own, faster system, intent on winning cases back, and through procedures such as the Writ of Quominus and Bill of Middlesex acquired a wider jurisdiction. [15] While this succeeded in forming an equilibrium between the old common law courts and the new courts, it was viewed with suspicion by the Common Pleas, who became highly reactionary to the changes the King's Bench attempted to introduce. [16] When the King's Bench attempted to use the Bill of Middlesex to widen its jurisdiction, the Common Pleas became increasingly conservative in its attempts to avoid ceding cases. This was limited by the fact that the three Common Pleas prothonotaries could not agree on how to cut costs, leaving the court both expensive and of limited malleability while the King's Bench became faster, cheaper and more varied in its jurisdiction. [17]

The troubles during this period are best illustrated by Slade's Case. [18] Under the medieval common law, claims seeking the repayment of a debt or other matters could only be pursued through a writ of debt in the Common Pleas, a problematic and archaic process. By 1558 the lawyers had succeeded in creating another method, enforced by the Court of King's Bench, through the action of assumpsit , which was technically for deceit. The legal fiction used was that by failing to pay after promising to do so, a defendant had committed deceit, and was liable to the plaintiff. [18] The conservative Common Pleas, through the appellate court the Court of Exchequer Chamber, began to overrule decisions made by the King's Bench on assumpsit, causing friction between the courts. [19] In Slade's Case, the Chief Justice of the King's Bench, John Popham, deliberately provoked the Common Pleas into bringing an assumpsit action to a higher court where the Justices of the King's Bench could vote, allowing them to overrule the Common Pleas and establish assumpsit as the main contractual action. [20] After the death of Edmund Anderson, the more activist Francis Gawdy became Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, which briefly led to a less reactionary and more revolutionary court. [21]

The Interregnum granted some respite to the Common Pleas, which abolished fines on original writs, hurting the King's Bench, but in 1660 the fines were reinstated and "then the very attorneys of the Common Pleas boggled at them and carried all their finable business to the King's Bench". In 1661 the Common Pleas attempted to reverse this by pushing for an Act of Parliament to abolish latitats based on legal fictions, forbidding "special bail" in any case where "the true cause of action" was not expressed in the process. The King's Bench got around this in the 1670s; the Act did not say that the process had to be true, so the court continued to use legal fictions, simply ensuring that the true cause of action was expressed in the process, regardless of whether or not it was correct. The Bill of Middlesex disclosed the true cause of action, satisfying the 1661 statute, but did not require a valid complaint. [22] This caused severe friction within the court system, and Francis North, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, eventually reached a compromise by allowing such legal fictions in the Common Pleas as well as the King's Bench. [23]

Unity and dissolution

The Court of Common Pleas in 1822 Court of Common Pleas.jpg
The Court of Common Pleas in 1822

The unintended outcome of these compromises was that by the end of Charles II's reign, all three common law courts had a similar jurisdiction over most common pleas, with similar processes. By the 18th century, it was customary to speak of the "twelve justices" of the three courts, not distinguishing them, and assize cases were shared equally between them. [24] In 1828, Henry Brougham complained that

The jurisdiction of the Court of King's Bench, for example, was originally confined to pleas of the Crown, and then extended to actions where violence was used - actions of trespass, by force; but now, all actions are admissible within its walls, through the medium of a legal fiction, which was adopted for the purpose of enlarging its authority, that every person sued is in the custody of the marshal of the court and may, therefore, be proceeded against for any personal cause of actions. Thus, by degrees, this court has drawn over to itself actions which really belong to...the Court of Common Pleas. The Court of Common Pleas, however...never was able to obtain cognizance of - the peculiar subject of King's Bench jurisdiction - Crown Pleas... the Exchequer has adopted a similar course for, though it was originally confined to the trial of revenue cases, it has, by means of another fiction - the supposition that everybody sued is a debtor to the Crown, and further, that he cannot pay his debt, because the other party will not pay him, - opened its doors to every suitor, and so drawn to itself the right of trying cases, that were never intended to be placed within its jurisdiction. [25]

The purpose of Brougham's speech was to illustrate that three courts of identical jurisdiction were unnecessary, and further that it would create a situation where the best judges, lawyers and cases would eventually go to one court, overburdening that body and leaving the others near-useless. In 1823, 43,465 actions were brought in the King's Bench, 13,009 in the Common Pleas and 6,778 in the Exchequer of Pleas. Not surprisingly, the King's Bench judges were "immoderately over burdened", the Common Pleas judges were "fully occupied in term, and much engaged in vacation also" and the Barons of the Exchequer were "comparatively little occupied either in term or vacation". [25]

In response to this and the report of a committee investigating the slow pace of the Court of Chancery, the Judicature Commission was formed in 1867, and given a wide remit to investigate reform of the courts, the law, and the legal profession. Five reports were issued, from 25 March 1869 to 10 July 1874, with the first (dealing with the formation of a single Supreme Court of Judicature) considered the most influential. [26] The report disposed of the previous idea of merging the common law and equity, and instead suggested a single Supreme Court capable of utilising both. [27] In 1870 the Lord Chancellor, Lord Hatherly, attempted to bring the recommendations into law through an Act of Parliament, but did not go to the trouble of consulting the judiciary or the leader of the Conservatives, who controlled the House of Lords. The bill ran into strong opposition from lawyers and judges, particularly Alexander Cockburn. [28] After Hatherly was replaced by Lord Selbourne in September 1872, a second bill was introduced after consultation with the judiciary; although along the same lines, it was far more detailed. [29]

The Act, finally passed as the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873, merged the Common Pleas, Exchequer, King's Bench and Court of Chancery into one body, the High Court of Justice, with the divisions between the courts to remain. [30] The Court of Common Pleas thus ceased to exist, except as the Common Pleas Division of the High Court. [31] The existence of the same courts under one unified head was a quirk of constitutional law, which prevented the compulsory demotion or retirement of Chief Justices. By sheer chance, both the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales and Chief Baron of the Exchequer died in 1880, allowing for the abolition of the Common Pleas Division and Exchequer Division by Order in Council on 16 December 1880, with their functions merged into the King's Bench Division, with the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas becoming Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales. [32]

Jurisdiction

Sir Edward Coke, who called the court "the lock and key of the common law". Edward Coke1629.jpg
Sir Edward Coke, who called the court "the lock and key of the common law".

The Common Pleas' jurisdiction was over "common pleas," cases where the king had no interest. This in practice meant cases between subject and subject, including all actions taken under praecipe to recover debts or property, which made up the vast majority of civil cases. As such, the Common Pleas "was the court which more than any other shaped the medieval common law". [33] It was the court where most students went to learn, and the majority of the early case reports come from the Common Pleas. [33] The court was called "the lock and key of the common law" by Sir Edward Coke, since throughout its history it was the only court where claims involving real property could be brought, giving it a wider remit to set precedent than the other courts. [2] For almost all of its history, Serjeants at Law and King's Serjeants were the only advocates given rights of audience in the Court of Common Pleas. [34] As part of the Court of Common Pleas the Serjeants also performed some judicial duties, such as levying fines. [35] In 1834 Lord Brougham issued a mandate which opened up pleading in the Court of Common Pleas to every barrister, Serjeant or not, and this was followed for six years until the Serjeants successfully petitioned the Queen to overturn it as invalid. [36] The Serjeants only enjoyed their returned status for another six years, however, before Parliament intervened. The Practitioners in Common Pleas Act 1846, from 18 August 1846, allowed all barristers to practice in the Court of Common Pleas. [37]

From the 13th century onwards, the Court of Common Pleas could issue its own writs, and was not dependent on the Court of Chancery, where such documents usually originated. [38] These were sealed with the Great Seal of the King until at least 1338, along with the seal of the justices; the Chancery writs had their own independent seal. Documents were, from 1350, considered acceptable if only marked with the seal of the justices. [39] In 1344, the king created a separate seal for the Common Pleas, allowing them to process cases without involving the Chancery or the king. [40] The court stood on an equal footing with the Exchequer of Pleas, Court of Chancery and King's Bench in relation to transferring cases between them. [41] Any errors on the part of the Common Pleas would be corrected by the King's Bench through a separate action brought there. [33] Thanks to the Bill of Middlesex and other legal fictions, the King's Bench gained much of the Common Pleas's jurisdiction, although the Common Pleas remained the sole place where real property claims could be brought. [15]

Structure

Justices

John Coleridge, the last Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. 1stLordColeridge.jpg
John Coleridge, the last Chief Justice of the Common Pleas.

The Common Pleas was staffed by a number of justices, under one Chief Justice. The number of Justices at any one time varied; between 1377 and 1420 there were generally four, switching to five from 1420 to 1471. From 1471 onwards, the number was fixed at three. This changed in the 19th century; provisions were made for the appointment of fourth and fifth justices in 1830 and 1868 respectively. [43] From the start of the 14th century, Justices were appointed via letters patent made under the Great Seal, and held their appointments "under the pleasure of the King". [44] Justices received the same remuneration as judges of the Exchequer of Pleas and Court of King's Bench; £1,000 in 1660, increased to £2,000 in 1759 and £4,000 in 1809. From 1799, pensions were also awarded to retiring justices. [45] The Chief Justice was one of the highest judicial officials in England, behind only the Lord High Chancellor of England and the Lord Chief Justice of the King's (or Queen's) Bench. Initially the position of Chief Justice was not an appointment; of the justices serving in the court, one would become more respected than his peers, and was therefore considered the "chief" justice. The position was formalised in 1272 with the raising of Sir Gilbert of Preston to Chief Justice, and from then on it was considered a formally appointed role similar to the positions of Chief Justice of the King's Bench and Chief Baron of the Exchequer. [46]

Both the puisne and chief justices were required to be Serjeants-at-Law, and were appointed by letters patent. The Serjeant would then be greeted by the Lord Chancellor, who would inform him of his new position; the letters patent would then be read out in court, and the new justice would swear an oath to do "justice without favour, to all men pleading before him, friends and foes alike", not to "delay to do so even though the king should command him by his letters or by word of mouth to the contrary" or "receive from anyone except the king any fee or other pension or livery nor take any gift from the pleaders before him, except food and drink of no great price". [47] The innovation of appointment by letters patent was a scheme of Edward III's to avoid the potential for bribery, by providing a method through which judges could be paid. This income was supplemented through work on commissions of assize, gaol deliveries, and oyer and terminer. The justice would also receive fees from the parties in court, through the costs of judicial writs. [48]

Other offices

William Cecil, who served as Custos Brevium. William Cecil, 1st Baron Burghley from NPG (2).jpg
William Cecil, who served as Custos Brevium.

The justices were assisted by a staff of over 50 officials, most of whom sat in Westminster Hall but also kept offices at the various Inns of Court. [50] The Chief Clerk was the Custos Brevium, appointed by the crown, but in practice clerking matters were handled by his deputy, as the office was a royal favour rather than a serious judicial appointment. [50] The crown also appointed the court chirographer, the officer responsible for noting final concords and filing records of fines. Another high-ranking clerk was the Clerk of the Outlawries, an under-clerk of the Attorney General for England and Wales, who was tasked with recording recognizances to protect the interests of the King in common law matters. In 1541 his position was replaced with the office of Clerk of the King's Process. [50] Other offices created during the reign of Henry VIII include the Clerk of the Recognizances in 1432, who recorded debts secured by recognizances and the office of Receiver of Debts, who was tasked with receiving and recording money coming into the court via debts and fines, and was first appointed in 1536. [51]

Due to their technical knowledge, the most important officers were the three Prothonotaries, the first and third of whom were appointed by the Chief Justice and the second by the Chief Justice on the advice of the Custos Brevium. They were responsible for enrolling records of litigation, including anything that raised a point of law, and were often consulted by the court due to their detailed technical knowledge. [52] The Chief Justice also appointed the Clerk of the Warrants, Clerk of the Treasury (also known as the Clerk of Hell), the Keeper of the Seal, the Clerk of Essoins and the Clerk of Acknowledgments of Fines and Recoveries (who was officially the Chief Justice's own clerk, rather than that of the court), as well as other officials. The Custos Brevium appointed the Clerk of the Juries, responsible for issuing writs of Habeas Corpus. [53]

There were four Exigenters tasked with issuing and controlling the process of declaring someone an Outlaw, with each Exigenter assigned a set of counties. The most valuable of the Exigenterships was that for London, Middlesex, Sussex, Kent, Dorset, Somerset, Devon, Cambridgeshire, Huntingdonshire, Bristol and Exeter due to the number of processes each year, with London alone handling over 100 documents a year by the mid-1550s. [53] By tradition the Exigenter for Yorkshire and the other northern counties was also Filazer for Northumberland, Westmorland, Cumberland and Newcastle, and Clerk of the King's Silver for the entire country. [53] There were also thirteen Filazers, who shared counties between them according to historical divisions, and were tasked with filing judicial writs for their counties and transferring them to the Custos Brevium for filing. A fourteenth Filazer was appointed for Monmouthshire in 1542, but other than this there were no changes to the position until the abolition of the court. [53]

The Warden of the Fleet Prison, who was also keeper of Westminster Hall, was tasked with keeping it clean and letting the shops and booths along the sides. Despite acting as gaoler to the Exchequer of Pleas, Court of Chancery and Star Chamber as part of his duties the Warden was considered an officer of the Court of Common Pleas. [51] All court officers were appointed for life, and could only be removed for misbehaviour. Despite this, the sheer number of positions meant that several came up for reappointment in each Chief Justice's tenure, and selling them could be very profitable. [53]

See also

Related Research Articles

Equity (law) Set of legal principles supplementing but distinct from the Common Law

In jurisdictions following the English common law system, equity is the body of law which was developed in the English Court of Chancery and which is now administered concurrently with the common law. In common law jurisdictions, the word "equity" "is not a synonym for 'general fairness' or 'natural justice'", but refers to "a particular body of rules that originated in a special system of courts."

Writ Formal written order issued by a body with administrative or judicial jurisdiction

In common law, a writ is a formal written order issued by a body with administrative or judicial jurisdiction; in modern usage, this body is generally a court. Warrants, prerogative writs, and subpoenas are common types of writ, but many forms exist and have existed.

Court of Chancery Court of equity in England and Wales

The Court of Chancery was a court of equity in England and Wales that followed a set of loose rules to avoid the slow pace of change and possible harshness of the common law. The Chancery had jurisdiction over all matters of equity, including trusts, land law, the estates of lunatics and the guardianship of infants. Its initial role was somewhat different: as an extension of the Lord Chancellor's role as Keeper of the King's Conscience, the Court was an administrative body primarily concerned with conscientious law. 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. Until the 19th century, the Court of Chancery could apply a far wider range of remedies than common law courts, such as specific performance and injunctions, and had some power to grant damages in special circumstances. With the shift of the Exchequer of Pleas towards a common law court and loss of its equitable jurisdiction by the Administration of Justice Act 1841, the Chancery became the only national equitable body in the English legal system.

Queens Bench

The Queen's Bench (French: Cour du banc de la Reine ; or, during the reign of a male monarch, the King's Bench, is the superior court in a number of jurisdictions within some of the Commonwealth realms. The original King's Bench, founded in 1215 in England, was one of the ancient courts of the land and is now a division of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales. In the Commonwealth, the term Queen-on-the-Bench, or King-on-the-Bench is a title sometimes used to refer to the monarch in their ceremonial role within the justice system, as the fount of justice in that justice is carried out in their name.

Judicature Acts United Kingdom legislation

The Judicature Acts are a series of Acts of Parliament, beginning in the 1870s, which aimed to fuse the hitherto split system of courts in England and Wales. The first two Acts were the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873 and the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1875, with a further series of amending acts.

Exchequer of Pleas English court

The Exchequer of Pleas, or Court of Exchequer, was a court that dealt with matters of equity, a set of legal principles based on natural law and common law in England and Wales. Originally part of the curia regis, or King's Council, the Exchequer of Pleas split from the curia in the 1190s to sit as an independent central court. The Court of Chancery's reputation for tardiness and expense resulted in much of its business transferring to the Exchequer. The Exchequer and Chancery, with similar jurisdictions, drew closer together over the years until an argument was made during the 19th century that having two seemingly-identical courts was unnecessary. As a result, the Exchequer lost its equity jurisdiction. With the Judicature Acts, the Exchequer was formally dissolved as a judicial body by an Order in Council on 16 December 1880.

The forms of action were the different procedures by which a legal claim could be made during much of the history of the English common law. Depending on the court, a plaintiff would purchase a writ in Chancery which would set in motion a series of events eventually leading to a trial in one of the medieval common law courts. Each writ entailed a different set of procedures and remedies which together amounted to the "form of action".

Assumpsit, or more fully, action in assumpsit, was a form of action at common law used to enforce what are now called obligations arising in tort and contract; and in some common law jurisdictions, unjust enrichment.

Serjeant-at-law

A Serjeant-at-Law (SL), commonly known simply as a Serjeant, was a member of an order of barristers at the English and Irish bar. The position of Serjeant-at-Law, or Sergeant-Counter, was centuries old; there are writs dating to 1300 which identify them as descended from figures in France before the Norman Conquest, thus the Serjeants are said to be the oldest formally created order in England. The order rose during the 16th century as a small, elite group of lawyers who took much of the work in the central common law courts.

The writ of quominus, or writ of quo minus, was a writ and legal fiction which allowed the Court of Exchequer to obtain a jurisdiction over cases normally brought in the Court of Common Pleas. The Exchequer was tasked with collecting the King's revenue, and the legal fiction worked by having the plaintiff in a debt case claim that he was a debtor to the king, and that the defendant's debt prevented him paying the King. As such, the defendant would be arrested, and the case heard by the Exchequer. The writ's predecessors were in use from at least 1230, and it was in common use during the 16th century. The use continued into the 19th century, until all original writs were abolished in 1883.

Plea rolls are parchment rolls recording details of legal suits or actions in a court of law in England.

Bill of Middlesex

The Bill of Middlesex was a legal fiction used by the Court of King's Bench to gain jurisdiction over cases traditionally in the remit of the Court of Common Pleas. Hinging on the King's Bench's remaining criminal jurisdiction over the county of Middlesex, the Bill allowed it to take cases traditionally in the remit of other common law courts by claiming that the defendant had committed trespass in Middlesex. Once the defendant was in custody, the trespass complaint would be quietly dropped and other complaints would be substituted.

Court of Kings Bench (England) Former English common law court

The Court of King's Bench, formally known as The Court of the King Before the King Himself, was a court of common law in the English legal system. Created in the late 12th to early 13th century from the curia regis, the King's Bench initially followed the monarch on his travels. The King's Bench finally joined the Court of Common Pleas and Exchequer of Pleas in Westminster Hall in 1318, making its last travels in 1421. The King's Bench was merged into the High Court of Justice by the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873, after which point the King's Bench was a division within the High Court. The King's Bench was staffed by one Chief Justice and usually three Puisne Justices.

Court of Kings Bench (Ireland) Former senior court of common law in Ireland

The Court of King's Bench was one of the senior courts of common law in Ireland. It was a mirror of the Court of King's Bench in England. The King's Bench was one of the "Four Courts" which sat in the building in Dublin which is still known as "The Four Courts".

<i>Slades Case</i>

Slade's Case was a case in English contract law that ran from 1596 to 1602. Under the medieval common law, claims seeking the repayment of a debt or other matters could only be pursued through a writ of debt in the Court of Common Pleas, a problematic and archaic process. By 1558 the lawyers had succeeded in creating another method, enforced by the Court of King's Bench, through the action of assumpsit, which was technically for deceit. The legal fiction used was that by failing to pay after promising to do so, a defendant had committed deceit, and was liable to the plaintiff. The conservative Common Pleas, through the appellate court the Court of Exchequer Chamber, began to overrule decisions made by the King's Bench on assumpsit, causing friction between the courts.

Exchequer of Ireland

The Exchequer of Ireland was a body in the Kingdom of Ireland tasked with collecting royal revenue. Modelled on the English Exchequer, it was created in 1210 after King John of England applied English law and legal structure to his Lordship of Ireland. The Exchequer was divided into two parts; the Superior Exchequer, which acted as a court of equity and revenue in a way similar to the English Exchequer of Pleas, and the Inferior Exchequer, which directly collected revenue from those who owed The Crown money, principally rents for Crown lands. The Exchequer primarily worked in a way similar to the English legal system, holding a similar jurisdiction. Following the Act of Union 1800, which incorporated Ireland into the United Kingdom, the Exchequer was merged with the English Exchequer in 1817 and ceased to function as an independent body, although the Irish Court of Exchequer, like other Irish courts, remained separate from the English equivalent.

The High Court of Justice in Ireland was the court created by the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Ireland) 1877 to replace the existing court structure in Ireland. Its creation mirrored the reform of the courts of England and Wales five years earlier under the Judicature Acts. The Act created a Supreme Court of Judicature, consisting of a High Court of Justice and a Court of Appeal.

The Court of Pleas of the County Palatine of Durham and Sadberge, sometimes called the Court of Pleas or Common Pleas of or at Durham was a court of common pleas that exercised jurisdiction within the County Palatine of Durham until its jurisdiction was transferred to the High Court by the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873. Before the transfer of its jurisdiction, this tribunal was next in importance to the Chancery of Durham. The Court of Pleas probably developed from the free court of the Bishop of Durham. The Court of Pleas was clearly visible as a distinct court, separate from the Chancery, in the thirteenth century.

The Court of Common Pleas of the County Palatine of Lancaster, sometimes called the Common Pleas of or at Lancaster was a court of common pleas that exercised jurisdiction within the County Palatine of Lancaster until its jurisdiction was transferred to the High Court by the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873. It was a Superior Court of Record, exercising, within the limits of the County Palatine, a jurisdiction similar to that of the superior courts of common law at Westminster.

Certain former courts of England and Wales have been abolished or merged into or with other courts, and certain other courts of England and Wales have fallen into disuse.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Common Pleas, Court of"  . Encyclopædia Britannica . 6 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 779.
  2. 1 2 Manchester (1980) p.128
  3. Baker (2002) , p. 12
  4. Baker (2002) , p. 17
  5. Baker (2002) , p. 15
  6. Kemp (1973) , p. 572
  7. Baker (2002) , p. 20
  8. Adams (1920), p. 798
  9. Hamlin (1935) , p. 202
  10. Hamlin (1935) , p. 203
  11. Adams (1920) , p. 799
  12. Kemp (1973) , pp. 565-566
  13. Turner (1977) , p. 244
  14. Baker (2002) , p. 37
  15. 1 2 Baker (2002) p.40
  16. Baker (2002) p.41
  17. Baker (2002) p.45
  18. 1 2 Simpson (2004) p.70
  19. Simpson (2004) p.71
  20. Boyer (2003) p.127
  21. Ibbetson (1984) p.305
  22. Baker (2002) p.46
  23. Baker (2002) p.47
  24. Baker (2002) p.50
  25. 1 2 Manchester (1980) p.130
  26. Manchester (1980) p.145
  27. Polden (2002) p.575
  28. Polden (2002) p.576
  29. Polden (2002) p.577
  30. Manchester (1980) p.148
  31. Manchester (1980) p.149
  32. Baker (2002) p.51
  33. 1 2 3 Baker (2002) p.38
  34. Pulling (1884) p.179
  35. Warren (1945) p.924
  36. Megarry (1972) p.21
  37. Haydn (1851) p.246
  38. Wilkinson (1927) p.397
  39. Wilkinson (1927) p.398
  40. Wilkinson (1927) p.399
  41. Bryson (2008) p.28
  42. Pugsley (2004)
  43. Sainty (1993) , p. 57
  44. Sainty (1993) p.21
  45. Sainty (1993) p.58
  46. Kiralfy (1962) p. 121
  47. Hastings (1966) p.82
  48. Hastings (1966) p.83
  49. MacCaffrey, Wallace T. (2004). "Oxford DNB article: Cecil, William (subscription needed)". Oxford University Press. Retrieved 1 July 2010.
  50. 1 2 3 Baker (2003) p.127
  51. 1 2 Baker (2003) p.128
  52. Baker (2003) p.129
  53. 1 2 3 4 5 Baker (2003) p.130

Bibliography