1069:, which passed from being a popular court, known for its efficient justice, to be seen as a tool of repression. As has been seen, many similar criticisms were made of the Court of Chancery, despite the fact that its conscience jurisdiction was hardening into Equity. There was a further complaint the Chancery was becoming corrupt and inefficient. It is certain that the Court had a terrible backlog. In the early part of the 17th century its backlog was estimated to be between 16,000 and 35,000 cases, with Chancellor making around 2,000 orders per year. This meant it was common for litigant to have to make 'gifts' to officials in order for their cases to proceed speedily through the courts. These corrupt practices became so common that the officials came to see them as customary fees which they were entitled to collect.
374:
52:
516:
550:, who often faced increasingly expensive foreign wars, were determined to protect and increase their revenue from these rights as lord. Some scholars have called this phenomenon, "Fiscal Feudalism". In 1529, Henry VIII proposed a bill that would restore feudal incidents where land had been conveyed to the use of executing the landowners will but only at one third of the levels that the Common Law demanded. The House of Commons rejected the bill in 1531, at which point the King threatened that if they would not accept his proposal he would seek to enforce his feudal rights as far as the Law allowed. Within the circles of the King's legal advisers the view came to prevail that Uses of land were deceitful and thus were actually contrary to conscience to enforce. To this end, in 1532,
1021:
585:. While a clause in the statute ratified the validity of all wills of land prior to Lord Dacre's case, the main provision of the statute was to abolish absolutely the power to bequeath land by will. It did this via a legal fiction called 'executing the Use'. The statute could not simply abolish uses because that would have given an enormous windfall to all the lawyers or friends who held the land for the beneficial landowners. Instead the statute mandated that where a person held land for the benefit or to the use of another person, this other person was to be held, for all intents and purposes, as if they held (or were seised of) the land directly. This meant the intended
1121:
between them to be resolved by the chief master. The orders further demanded that all cases be heard in the order in which they were filed and on the day appointed for the hearing, even if that would have meant the Court had to sit in the evenings; though the
Masters were allowed to not sit on Saturday afternoons. The Commissioners would still persist in their opposition to the reforms. Despite the fact that Parliament, in the later years of the Commonwealth, would once again consider how to best reform the Chancery, the Monarchy and thus the old officials and most of their practices were restored before they could settle on a satisfactory scheme.
954:
852:
578:. Thus, when the case came up in 1535 Audley and Cromwell summoned the common law judges to discuss the case. After initially dividing evenly on the question, Henry VIII "coaxed or coerced" them to unanimously agree with his (extreme) position that uses of land intended to allow for wills of land were fraudulent and thus should not be enforced by the Chancery, or indeed the Common Law. This had the effect of invalidating any and all wills of land. Furthermore, however, this decision threw into question all previous wills of land that had been common to make for over a century.
997:
1086:
1133:, who was appointed as Lord Chancellor upon Charles II coming to the throne, promulgated a new code of orders for the Court which built on the Cromwellian code. Eg, Clarendon's code ordered that a master's ruling should not be questioned unless the appellant paid forty shillings (two pounds), which served to stem the tide of appeals against orders. While the driving force behind Clarendon's reforms was to protect the interests of officeholders, there was some initial success at improving the efficiency of the court.
923:. Coke, controversially, was of the view that "the court of King's Bench is the school of the law and ought to correct the abuses of other courts". This included the Court of Chancery and sought to place his court above that of Ellesmere. This was the end of the Earl's case. Nonetheless, the two jurisdictions, Chancery and Common Law were now in direct conflict, as they ordered the imprisonment and subsequent release of defendants for following each other's orders.
748:
691:
the use of B.' Alternatively, A could convey to X 'to the use of Y to the use of B'. Under either of these arrangements the
Statute would execute the initial Use (i.e. either X or Y would immediately stand seised to the use of B), but the second Use was not, allowing therefore for the creation of Uses of land so long as an intermediary was inserted before the intended beneficiary. The first reported case where this arrangement was enforced in Chancery was
501:
however, allowed for creative solutions e.g. those excluded by the rules, such as younger sons, daughters, illegitimate children could be provided for. Likewise, the provisions for widows could be enlarged and charities could be gifted to as well as debts paid off from land. This was achieved by a dying testator conveying land to feoffees, which could be friends, legal advisers or other local gentry, to the use of executing his will.
863:
1077:
progress of cases proudly slow and confusing as orders made the Master were often reviewed and changed by the
Chancellor, bogging the cases down and increasing costs astronomically. Likewise, Chancellors insisted on having all the facts ascertained before reaching any conclusion, however trivial, as at this time their decisions were final. This meant cases would have to adjourn often whenever a new fact arose so that
1082:
charge of making copies of proceedings came to enjoy an arrangement were litigants were forced to pay them to make a certain minimum number of copies of all cases papers, even if the litigants did not want some of these copies. Likewise, since they were paid by the page their handwriting and margins grew so large that, what would have normally taken six pages was written in forty pages' worth.
37:, in the situation where one person held legal title to property but the courts decided it was fair just or "equitable" that this person be compelled to use it for the benefit of another. This recognised as a split between legal and beneficial ownership: the legal owner was referred to as a "trustee" (because he was "entrusted" with property) and the beneficial owner was the "beneficiary".
604:, the break with the Roman Catholic Church, but also the Statute of Uses. While the Pilgrimage was itself unsuccessful, the idea that a loophole or work around the prohibition of wills of land could be found began to take hold in legal circles. By 1540 it became clear that lawyers were close to finding a way to evade the Statute of uses and indeed some lawyers were even imprisoned in the
1117:
several pamphlets criticising the Court had circulated, reforms were proposed in a bill that would have seen the process become more efficient and direct with the creation of a Chief Clerk to handle most of the procedure and with heavy penalties for refusing to answer or appear in court (a novelty). The bill never became law as
Parliament delegated its authority on Cromwell in 1654.
1036:
cases in the
Chancery were being cited in argument regularly. While this was not universally accepted, the use of precedent in the Chancery was increasingly accepted and expected. Chancellors also reacted to this development by giving more detailed reasons for their decisions more and more often. This allowed cases that were alike to be treated alike. This process culminated with
946:, to rule that Coke had made a mistake and that, since the Lord Chancellor represented the King and the King was above reproach by his judges, the jurisdiction of the Chancery was above and unimpeachable by that of the Common Law judges. Coke would be dismissed as Chief Justice, and indeed as a judge altogether a few months afterwards for a separate but similar dispute about
382:
conceptions of what was just in a particular case. It is important to remark that originally they were seen as merely addressing particular cases and could neither affect parties not named in the decrees the
Chancellor gave nor change the law. These decrees 'enjoined' the parties to act in a particular way, giving rise to Equity's distinctive remedy: the
421:(a kind of tenure where the tenant was obliged to perform manorial duties to his lord who left the original deeds in the manorial roll) wanted to convey his land to another the procedure until 1925 was to surrender the land to the lord. He then held it for the benefit of the transferee until the lord admitted him as his feudal tenant.
463:). Furthermore, the Church courts had jurisdiction over wills (which regularly employed uses). Indeed as Baker notes in 1375, a group of feoffees (i.e. those to whom land was transferred to hold for the benefit of another) were excommunicated for breaching the conditions of the use they were supposed to execute.
797:, anybody the Chancellor imprisoned pursuant to his injunction. Nonetheless, relations were generally harmonious. By the Tudor period, frictions were beginning to increase. There was a growing sense in Common Law legal circles that 'conscience' was an unsatisfactory way to resolve cases. e.g., the author of
535:. Under these doctrines, the Crown had the right to enjoy the profit of the tenant's land until he was of age (21) and to select a suitable marriage for the ward, something that could involve a profitable transaction for the Crown as it was allowed to sell the right to marry a rich heir. Likewise, under
1035:
This growing 'course' became increasingly inflexible. In 1617, the Lord
Chancellor, Francis Bacon appointed an official reporter for the first time. This reporter sat at his feet and took notes of his judgements, allowing them to be easily and comprehensively cited. By the second half, of the century
968:
sought to foster better relations with the Common Law judges, preventing the open hostility from arising again. Thus even if the King James's ruling of 1616 would come to be seen as illegal, the supremacy of Equity would eventually prevail when the different jurisdictions were amalgamated in the 19th
473:
The 15th century, not only saw the work of the
Chancery come to be characterised by the Use, but it began to give the Use some of the hallmarks of an interest in property. e.g.while it was still purely based on the conscience of the feoffee, where all of the feoffees died, the heir of the last one to
349:
Despite this, the Kings were accepted to retain the right to administer justice in special cases where common law was 'deficient' and the matter in question did not involve 'life, limb or property'. The way this special grace was administered was through a petition to the King. Most of the petitions
1234:
During that time the streams of common law and equity have flown together and combined so as to be indistinguishable the one from the other. We have no longer to ask ourselves: what would the courts of common law or the courts of equity have done before the
Judicature Act? We have to ask ourselves:
982:
Equity is a roguish thing: for law we have a measure, know what to trust to; equity is according to the conscience of him that is
Chancellor, and as that is larger or narrower, so is equity. ‘Tis all one, as if they should make his foot the standard for the measure we call a Chancellor's foot; what
933:
This was something that Coke had encouraged the prisoners to do. The jury that heard the case dismissed it but not before Coke made them go back to reconsider their verdict three times and when they insisted he told the sheriff (in charge of summoning juries) to bring a "wiser jury" next time. This
662:
The 1536 statute meant, that these Uses were executed immediately upon the contract of sale being agreed thus passing title to the that before certain critical things could be done. This included investigating whether the seller actually had good title to the land but also conveyed title before the
690:
when the nomenclature changed. Another category of Use that was excluded from the application of the Statute of 1536 was the "double Use" or the 'Use upon a Use'. There were two main variations of this type of Use. Under the first, land owned by A would be conveyed to X 'to the use of X himself to
685:
While the Statute of Uses ended the practice of creating uses as a means of creating valid wills of land, the Statute was not held to execute all Uses. This would serve as the birthplace of the trust. Some Uses had active duties the feoffees had to fulfill, such as managing an estate or collecting
1116:
and tasked them with reforming the court. However, when the House of Commons took up law reform in 1650, they proposed no changes in the Chancery. It has been suggested that a possible reason for this was the large and power lobby that was formed by Chancery officeholders. In any event, and after
1081:
could be taken. When the case was heard again, much time had to be wasted in repeating the arguments that had already been made. Likewise, since Chancery officials were not paid a salary but rather made their living from fees, there was no incentive to process cases efficiently. Eg. the clerks in
654:
of 1290, there remained a requirement to be actually present on the land and for a symbolic object (like a piece of earth or a key) to pass between the parties doing the transfer. The Chancery had long implied a Use where a vendor contracted to sell land to a purchaser so that the former held the
389:
Before 1400, a lot of the petitions involved cases where a feudal superior abused their privileged position for which the plaintiff sought redress. Between 1400 and 1600 however, it is possible to detect a shift. The Chancellor still decided the cases solely on his conscience, but recourse to his
1120:
Cromwell would issue orders for some of the reforms to be adopted, but the Commissioners refused to heed his orders. Cromwell's orders preserved the Chief Clerk and would have appointed six masters (judges) to sit daily until all cases before the court had been dealt with, with any disagreement
500:
By 1502, Frowyk CJ remarked that most English land was held subject to a use. The reason for this was that it enabled landowners to circumvent the Common Law's strict rules of succession. Under these rules land was not devisable by will but was instead always inherited by the heir-at-law. Uses,
1076:
could only sit when the Chancellor was absent, meaning he often could only sit in the evenings and his decisions were always subject to review by the Chancellor, which encouraged unnecessary appeals by litigants hoping for a different result to any decision the Master might make. This made the
1007:
The early modern period and the 17th century in particular, was critical in the shifting from a system based purely on the Chancellor's conscience to one based on predicable (if perhaps sometimes flexible) rules as Equity is today. Indeed, the idea of the Chancellor's conscience being the sole
504:
Indeed, this practice of conveying to feoffees became so common that not only was it done shortly before death but it could be done long before during the life of the landowner, and the transfer simply to the use of the landowner. This still gave the landowner all the control he needed as the
381:
Medieval Lords Chancellor tended to be either senior clerics (Bishops and Archbishops) or experienced lawyers. Thus, when asked to deal with petitions asking for some special redress from the common law they did so from their own conscience, often drawing wisdom from Biblical or Philosophical
1031:
Baker has also identified the sheer volume of work that the Chancery was increasingly asked to undertake as a factor that contributed to this process of 'hardening'. As the Chancellors came to be "faced with thousands of petitions they could not help but develop routine attitudes to commonly
734:, generally draw a line between uses/trusts created before the Statute of Uses, calling them Uses, and those created after, calling them Trusts, following the common words of conveyance cited above. Thus, the 'pedigree' of the modern trust can be directly linked to those post-Statute Uses.
612:
on possible ways to achieve this. This fear of losing the revenues resulted in the King offering the House of Commons a compromise similar to the one he had offered in 1529. A bill was introduced and this time it would pass successfully through the House of Commons to become the
454:) without recourse in the Common Law courts. Initially, uses would have been a mere matter of morality. It was only by appointing several notable local people, threatened with the shame of depriving another of their inheritance, that due execution of the use could be guaranteed.
530:
Furthermore, the use as a method of evading the feudal law of succession to land threatened the revenue of the Crown. Lords, particularly the Crown, had certain rights over their tenants' land sometimes called 'incidents of tenure'. Some of the most important were wardship and
390:
court ceased being an exceptional matter and started to become more normal. Indeed, by 1579 it had become a busy court that was regularly sending away poor litigants, which would have been the staple of its earlier business, in order to address more substantial disputes.
807:
Doctor of Law and a student of the common law, heavily criticised the interference of the Chancellor in the justice being imparted in the Common Law courts. It particularly condemned 'conscience' as a deficient and fickle standard by which to administer justice.
766:'. Around this time the jurisdiction also came under increased scrutiny due to a perception that deciding cases according to the conscience of one man was arbitrary and contrary to the Common Law. These concerns reached their zenith during the Chancellorship of
334:, but in its original conception it meant only that English subjects were entitled to be dealt and judged according to the English Common Law and that the King could not create new courts that contradicted or opposed the Common Law as developed in the courts of
663:
purchase price was handed over. While this was thought to be inconvenient, the advantage of being able, for the first time, to convey land privately and at a distance was too large. Thus, Parliament hastily passed in 1536 an emergency piece of legislation, the
782:
The reliance on the conscience of the Chancellor as the way cases were decided made the relationship between the Equity and the Common Law susceptible to the personal relationship between the Chancellor and the Common Law Judges. For example, in 1482 a
436:(1230), did not prevent them from enjoying the benefits of said land like rents and free accommodation. While a statute of 1391 prohibited the creation of uses for the benefit of religious corporations as these violated the several statutes of
774:, did much to close the growing enmity between the Chancellor and the Common Law judges, by the mid-1550s the practice of Court of Chancery had become both too distinct from the law and too embedded to disappear or merge with the Common Law.
449:
The Common Law, would not take notice of uses one effect of this as Baker notes, is that uses could be utilised to put land outside the reach of creditors. Another effect, is that it left those entitled to the benefit of the land (called the
617:. This piece of legislation gave landowners the explicit right to make common law wills over a maximum of two thirds of their land, forcing them to let their heirs-at-law inherit one third, thus preserving one-third of the feudal incidents.
686:
and distributing income, or paying debts. These 'active' Uses could not be executed automatically by the Statute and were thus excluded. Amongst these charitable uses were able to continue undisturbed directly becoming what are now called
1155:
would again see its workload and backlog reach astronomic proportions. Part of the cause for this was the unrelenting increase in the court's business. In turn this was caused by the explosion the use of trusts saw over the 18th century.
1221:
896:
those that Ellesmere had committed to prison for contempt of Court for enforcing their common law judgements. In Coke's orthodox view, plaintiffs should seek equitable remedies only before judgement was entered at common law.
279:
and enabled a testator to leave property to one person who was obliged to hand it over to another. While they were much older they only began to create enforceable legal obligations around the time of the beginning of
440:
that gave the Crown oversight over donations of land to the Church. This was particularly important as the King had the right to charge a fee for issuing a licence that would allow a donor to gift land to the Church.
1719:
1016:
of the previous century. This intellectual pressure began to slowly harden Equity from purely based on the conscience of one man and to start to resemble a system of rules by the start of the 17th century18
620:
This compromise was successful in preserving a substantial amount of revenue through the late Tudor and early Stuart period. Fiscal feudalism would die, however, with the abolition of the Monarchy in the
1182:
by entrusting their shares to a board of trustees in exchange for shares of equal value with dividend rights; these boards could then enforce a monopoly. However, trusts were used in this case because a
596:
The statute was very successful in restoring the Crown's feudal revenues and its draftsmanship was later much admired. It was profoundly unpopular however. In particular, it contributed to the 1536
1267:
1032:
recurring cases." Nonetheless, these 'routine attitude' built on an earlier tradition of a procedural 'course' that developed and that over the 16th century came to encompass doctrinal matters.
2214:
The Lord Keeper had the same rights and jurisdiction as the Chancellor but was seen as a lesser office. Sometimes they were appointed in between Chancellors and sometimes as permanent officers.
292:, which were previously seen as merely morally binding. They had the advantage that whereas only the testator's heir could be charged with a legacy, legatees themselves could be charged with
512:, but this still required them to answer to a suit in Chancery, which could be cumbersome and expensive. Despite attempts in the late 15th century to resolve this, this complaint remained.
1646:
1129:
The restoration of the Stuart monarchy mean there would be no wholesale reform of the Court of Chancery. Nonetheless, it was recognised that some changes would be necessary and desirable.
1065:
was the perceived sense that the King was arbitrary and was ruling despotically. This criticism sometimes arose from the behaviour of his courts. The most notable example was that of the
470:'s moral right, creating the modern trust in the process. It is impossible to date the exact time at which the Chancery began enforcing uses, "but it was well established by the 1420s".
362:. As it became usual to delegate the petitions to the Lord Chancellor it became common for petitioners to simply address the Lord Chancellor directly and not the King giving rise to the
1273:
848:(appointed in 1614), began to increasingly antagonise the Common Law judges. They began to allow cases to be heard in Chancery after judgment had been given by a Common Law judge.
505:
feoffees were obliged to execute his instruction both while alive but also by his will, since this interest under a use came to be seen as devisable legal interest under a will.
650:
to the transferee of land. While the requirement of the ceremony had relaxed over the centuries, and indeed the transferor's feudal lord had not been involved since the statute
322:
The origin of the trust has to be traced to medieval England, where a distinction arose between the 'regular "course of the common law" ' and the practices and rulings that the
1700:
386:. While the Common Law almost invariably awarded money damages, Equity was able to force defendants to act a particular way on penalty of being imprisoned for contempt court.
354:, can be seen as 'the beginning of newer jurisdictions'. As the number of these petitions grew, it became common for the King to delegate addressing the petitions to either
1603:
983:
an uncertain measure would this be! One Chancellor has a long foot, another a short foot, a third an indifferent foot; ‘tis the same thing in the Chancellor's conscience.
2205:
Eg. through a statute of 1484 (1 Ric.3 c 1), feoffees could transfer good title to the land to a purchaser who bought from them so long as the cestui could have done so.
1012:
to make the famous comment above, which is now commonly cited in legal circles as "The Chancellor's foot". The criticism predated Selden, it is evident in the treatise
706:
These double Uses became commonplace in the first few decades after the Statue of Wills and by the 18th century Baker notes it had become common form to convey thus:
600:. This was an uprising that started in Yorkshire and spread across the North which sought to reverse some of Henry VIII's most controversial policies, such as the
350:(also known as 'bills') received no special redress but in some truly exceptional cases there would be some special treatment or dispensation which according to
1785:
926:
The matter was resolved when two plaintiffs brought prosecutions against Chancery officials and lawyers (including some close to Ellesmere) for the crime of
656:
1477:
432:
that monks organised in abbeys and priories allowed them to own property through the abbey or priory. This oath of poverty, as confirmed by the papal bull
508:
Purchasers of land however, often complained that they could be burdened by uses unknown to them. The Chancery would, consider them innocent if they were
692:
1799:
1040:'s famous statement that he could not decide cases according to his own private conscience, but that "the conscience by which I must proceed is merely
730:. The change of nomenclature from Use to Trust was not immediate and is not clear cut, but rather it was a gradual process. Contemporary scholars like
424:
This holding of land for the benefit of another was found to be helpful when conveying land to those who were forbidden to own any. In particular, the
2060:
An historical sketch of the equitable jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery : being the Yorke prize essay of the University of Cambridge for 1889
303:(living) trusts which apply the creator lives and would develop in England in the Middle Ages that created the basis for the modern English trust.
296:. They also allowed those would otherwise have been ineligible to inherit (like proscribed persons and foreigners) to inherit from the testator.
1914:
459:
1044:
and tied to certain measures." Thus, Equity "hardened into a kind of law" such that large areas of its jurisdiction, like the law relating to
242:
1191:
without a "special act of the legislature". Holding companies were used after the restriction on owning other companies' shares was lifted.
1227:
836:, who was appointed as Chancellor in 1596. Despite the fact that Ellesmere had been an 'able common lawyer by training', he, alongside his
726:
This type of conveyance to create a trust would indeed be the most usual until 1926 when the Statute of Uses was finally abolished by the
581:
This decision and the confusion it caused made Commons agree to a new version of the bill the King had presented in 1529. This became the
919:, a man called Gooch, was imprisoned by the Lord Chancellor for refusing to answer to the proceedings in Chancery. Gooch thus brought a
873:
This practice of reopening cases was plainly illegal. It was contrary to both a 1597 decision of all the Common Law judges sitting in
551:
457:
There are some evidences that there may be recourse in the Ecclesiastical courts, as they dealt with breaches of oaths (also called
1160:
466:
Uses were a matter of good conscience, it was the Court of Chancery, however, it was suited to pick up the mantle of enforcing the
373:
51:
428:
swore an oath of poverty that meant they could not own land directly. Furthermore, as Baker notes, Franciscan friars lacked the
515:
1898:
1406:
1371:
1024:
855:
833:
413:. However, the Lord Chancellor would hold that somebody was bound by good conscience to hold some land they had the right to
570:
An opportunity to restore the full force of the English feudal law of inheritance (and thus the King's incidents) came when
1927:
784:
908:
915:
to some lands. The same title had already been determined by a Common Law court in a previous case and so the Master of
1130:
970:
343:
2146:
1835:
1336:
409:
According to common law there was only one person who said to have a right to land, which was the person entitled to
235:
574:
died in 1533. He had left a will of land through a Use and had thus deprived the King of his rights to wardship and
1020:
815:, some Tudor Chancellors like Wolseley had become increasingly antagonistic and dismissive towards the Common Law.
687:
680:
2162:
417:(for the benefit of another). At first, these nascent trusts were intended to be temporary. e.g. when a tenant by
2257:
1113:
571:
479:
339:
886:
601:
478:, began to emerge in the 1450s. However in early 1465, there was something that strongly resembles the modern
762:
saw a change in nomenclature such that the justice being administered by the Chancellor began to be known as '
555:
335:
1390:
916:
667:. This provided that where a Use was created by a bargain, it was not to be executed unless it was made by
351:
228:
2275:
1478:"The Franciscan Friars, the Feoffment to Uses, and Canonical Theories of Property Enjoyment before 1535"
2064:
1827:
1320:
874:
2280:
170:
902:
827:
727:
355:
1398:
1363:
1101:
851:
622:
91:
2179:
It is important to note that, while many Medieval Chancellors were not only clerics but trained
953:
1201:
799:
2136:
1072:
The very procedure of the Chancery further encouraged waste, inefficiency and corruption. The
703:
and had conveyed land to a lawyer 'to his use' but secretly on trust to be reconveyed to her.
2285:
947:
943:
731:
664:
841:
832:
Tension between the two jurisdictions would reach an extreme, during the Chancellorship of
804:
543:
175:
66:
34:
8:
1195:
1164:
1073:
938:. The relationship between Coke and James I was already strained. Thus, when prompted by
878:
837:
597:
509:
475:
165:
122:
1978:
1286:
1258:
1037:
1013:
626:
196:
155:
150:
145:
136:
26:
2227:
it was around £14,000, roughly equivalent to the interest on the Queen's foreign debt.
2193:
2142:
1970:
1894:
1831:
1402:
1367:
1332:
1253:
1206:
1163:
from the Court of Chancery. This was controversial, with the House of Commons during
1152:
1062:
845:
787:
threatened to contradict an injunction issued the Chancellor by releasing, through a
767:
751:
700:
542:
These rights were an important source of income for the cash-short English monarchs.
367:
363:
312:
191:
96:
1112:
Instead of one Lord Chancellor, Cromwell and the House of Commons appointed several
1962:
1489:
1324:
1291:
1179:
1085:
1078:
996:
614:
609:
429:
366:. This process of petitioning the King also served to create other courts like the
206:
2058:
1328:
1188:
1097:
1089:
696:
643:
605:
582:
559:
359:
323:
101:
86:
81:
2192:
Poor litigants largely shifted their business to courts like the aforementioned
1048:
were clearly regulated by rules as certain as those provided by the Common Law.
674:
625:, when feudal incidents were abolished, a measure that was confirmed during the
589:
would always die owning the land, thus owing feudal incidents to the King (or a
1314:
1249:
935:
912:
271:
261:
1493:
2269:
1974:
1262:
1240:
1175:
965:
957:
939:
890:
793:
651:
211:
1151:
Despite Clarendon's reforms, over the 18th and 19th centuries, however, the
699:
had fled to Poland to avoid persecution as a protestant during the reign of
1355:
1066:
1045:
763:
759:
281:
43:
22:
803:, an early 16th century legal treatise structured as a dialogue between a
558:
and Lord Chancellor the following year. Furthermore, the King's Secretary
2224:
1268:
Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to Trusts and on their Recognition
1184:
1009:
1000:
988:
882:
866:
771:
747:
425:
331:
327:
127:
106:
1982:
1951:""Cardozo's Foot": The Chancellor's Conscience and Constructive Trusts"
1950:
1244:
1235:
what should we do now so as to ensure fair dealing between the parties?
928:
590:
547:
519:
451:
383:
276:
160:
30:
2180:
399:
266:
216:
1966:
1104:, the jurisdiction and practice of the Chancery was soon reviewed.
437:
418:
285:
76:
71:
862:
539:, the Crown could claim the profits of an heir's land for a year.
2163:
Federal Commerce Ltd v Molena Alpha Inc; (The “Nanfri”): CA 1978
2138:
The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business
1141:
647:
410:
2196:
which provided a fast and cheap way to redress their disputes.
1051:
393:
675:
Active Uses and the Use upon a Use: Birth of the Modern Trust
299:
These testamentary devices however, did not develop into the
326:
gave. This notion of 'regular course' not only derived from
1222:
Federal Commerce & Navigation Co Ltd v Molena Alpha Inc
818:
788:
671:
and until it was enrolled at one of the Common Law Courts.
668:
490:
269:
had a well-developed concept analogous to the trust called
1187:
could not own other companies' stock and thereby become a
1159:
Partly as a reaction to the increased amount of work, the
632:
16:
Historical development of Chancery jurisdiction and trusts
2141:. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. pp. 319–320.
655:
land to the use of the latter. This was analogous to the
444:
330:, but would parenthetically become the broader idea of
1178:" emerged in the 19th century when industries created
2165:, published 29 August 2021, accessed 8 September 2023
1136:
646:, conveyancing required a formal ceremony to deliver
565:
317:
2256:Equivalent to £309.97 in August 2022, according to
2247:
Ie. impeaching the judgements of the King's judges.
964:Ellesmere's death in 1617 and his replacement with
1169:
2267:
2183:, their court was never an ecclesiastical court.
1161:House of Lords claimed an appellate jurisdiction
934:outraged Ellesmere, who complained to the King,
742:
29:, which sought to correct the strictness of the
21:The law of trusts was constructed as a part of "
358:or to a particular official most commonly, the
1056:
770:(1515–29). While his successor as Chancellor,
2134:
1142:The Court becomes a victim of its own success
869:, Chief Justice of the King's Bench (1613-16)
255:
236:
1096:These abuses and complaints meant that when
1061:Part of the background to and causes of the
911:, had sued the College in Chancery claiming
510:unaware of the use and had paid for the land
1052:Early reforms: Commonwealth and Restoration
889:(appointed 1613), began releasing, through
562:was appointed Master of the Rolls in 1534.
404:
394:Uses of land as direct precursors to trusts
2258:the Bank of England's inflation calculator
1888:
1313:Johnston, David (2015). "11: Succession".
1114:Commissioners of the Great Seal of England
976:
657:modern Vendor-Purchaser Constructive Trust
243:
229:
25:", a body of principles that arose in the
1893:. Barry Rose Law Publishers. p. 93.
1124:
737:
474:die remained bound. Likewise, rules like
1824:The Reinvention of Magna Carta 1216-1616
1395:An Introduction to English Legal History
1312:
1084:
1019:
995:
952:
861:
850:
812:
746:
718:and his heirs, in trust nevertheless of
514:
491:Henry VIII, fiscal feudalism and the Use
372:
637:
633:History of the Use post-Statute of Uses
2268:
2076:
2074:
2052:
2050:
2010:
2008:
1948:
1858:
1856:
1739:
1737:
1713:
1711:
1687:
1685:
1683:
1681:
1624:
1622:
1589:
1587:
1475:
485:
377:Court of Chancery in the 18th century.
2056:
1821:
1771:
1769:
1767:
1717:
1568:
1566:
1556:
1554:
1526:
1524:
1514:
1512:
1389:
1360:The Principles of Equity & Trusts
1354:
1146:
1107:
1025:Heneage Finch, 1st Earl of Nottingham
714:and his heirs unto and to the use of
445:The Chancery's role in enforcing Uses
1928:Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873
1891:Sir Edward Coke: A Force for Freedom
1432:
1430:
1420:
1418:
1385:
1383:
1350:
1348:
1316:The Cambridge Companion to Roman Law
1308:
1306:
1008:deciding factor provoked the jurist
2071:
2047:
2005:
1853:
1850:(1615) 1 Ch Rep 1, (1615) 21 ER 485
1734:
1708:
1678:
1647:Military Tenures Abolition Act 1660
1619:
1584:
942:, the King was willing, sitting in
900:The matter came to a head with the
877:and to a statute from the reign of
525:
306:
288:charged the Consuls with enforcing
33:. The trust was an addition to the
13:
1764:
1563:
1551:
1521:
1509:
1137:18th and 19th century developments
1003:, 17th century jurist and polymath
971:Senior Courts of England and Wales
948:whether the King was above the law
566:Lord Dacre's case and the Statutes
318:Emergence of the Court of Chancery
14:
2297:
2135:Chandler, Jr., Alfred D. (1977).
1427:
1415:
1380:
1345:
1303:
1231:1 QB 927, Lord Denning MR stated
887:Chief Justice of the King's Bench
785:Chief Justice of the King's Bench
2057:Kerly, Duncan Mackenzie (1890).
1274:Principles of European Trust Law
1213:
681:Charitable trusts in English law
495:
50:
2250:
2241:
2230:
2217:
2208:
2199:
2155:
2128:
2119:
2110:
2101:
2092:
2083:
2038:
2029:
2017:
2002:Eldon LC, in Baker 119 note 92.
1989:
1942:
1933:
1921:
1907:
1882:
1869:
1844:
1815:
1806:
1792:
1778:
1755:
1746:
1730:: 67–80 – via HeinOnline.
1694:
1669:
1660:
1651:
1640:
1631:
1610:
1596:
1575:
1542:
1533:
1500:
1469:
1460:
969:Century into what today is are
2186:
2173:
1720:"The Use upon a Use in Equity"
1451:
1439:
1170:Emergence of US Anti-trust law
1027:, Lord Chancellor (1675-1682).
602:Dissolution of the monasteries
1:
1955:Law and Contemporary Problems
1949:Powell, H. Jefferson (1993).
1198:s 11, ‘equity shall prevail’.
960:, Lord Chancellor (1617-1621)
858:, Lord Chancellor (1596-1617)
777:
743:Supremacy over the Common Law
556:Lord Keeper of the Great Seal
1329:10.1017/CCO9781139034401.015
917:Magdalene College, Cambridge
7:
1476:DeVine, Stephen W. (1989).
1280:
1092:, Lord Protector (1653-58).
1057:Corruption and inefficiency
754:, Lord Chancellor (1515-29)
695:. In that case the dowager
10:
2302:
2065:Cambridge University Press
1822:Baker, John (2017). "10".
1604:Re Lord Dacre of the South
991:, John Selden's Table Talk
825:
678:
397:
310:
259:
256:Roman precursors to trusts
2161:Quoted in Swarbrick, D.,
1889:Hostettler, John (1997).
1494:10.1080/01440368908530949
1100:came to power during the
909:Robert de Vere, 19th Earl
821:The Earl of Oxford's case
2026:, in Baker, 119 note 85.
1482:Journal of Legal History
1397:(5th ed.). Oxford:
1362:(4th ed.). Oxford:
1297:
728:Law of Property Act 1925
476:that of Equity's darling
405:Early history of the Use
275:. These were created by
1496:– via HeinOnline.
977:Shift to Equity by rule
615:Statute of Wills (1540)
1237:
1202:Indian Trusts Act 1882
1125:The Stuart Restoration
1093:
1028:
1004:
994:
961:
870:
859:
800:The Doctor and Student
755:
738:Birth of modern equity
724:
583:Statute of Uses (1536)
522:
378:
1232:
1088:
1067:Court of Star Chamber
1023:
999:
980:
956:
944:Court of Star Chamber
903:Earl of Oxford's case
865:
854:
828:Earl of Oxford's case
750:
708:
665:Statute of Enrolments
518:
430:corporate personality
376:
1830:. pp. 410–441.
1786:Throckmorton v Finch
1718:Jones, Neil (2002).
638:Uses as conveyancing
332:'due process of law'
176:Specific performance
67:Equitable conversion
1752:Baker, 116 note 70.
1724:Cambrian Law Review
1196:Judicature Act 1873
1180:monopolistic trusts
1165:The Long Parliament
1074:Master of the Rolls
1042:civilis et politica
838:Master of the Rolls
623:Commonwealth period
598:Pilgrimage of Grace
486:Early modern period
123:Bona fide purchaser
44:Equitable doctrines
2276:English trusts law
1702:Jane Tyrrel's Case
1287:English trusts law
1259:Offshore tax haven
1147:Increasing backlog
1108:Republican reforms
1094:
1029:
1014:Doctor and Student
1005:
962:
871:
860:
813:as mentioned above
756:
697:Duchess of Suffolk
523:
379:
197:Equitable interest
156:Declaratory relief
151:Constructive trust
146:Account of profits
137:Equitable remedies
27:Courts of Chancery
2194:Court of Requests
1900:978-1-872328-67-6
1408:978-0-19-881261-6
1373:978-0-19-885415-9
1358:, Graham (2020).
1254:UK insolvency law
1207:Settled Land Acts
1153:Court of Chancery
1063:English Civil War
875:Exchequer Chamber
846:Sir Julius Caesar
768:Cardinal Wolseley
752:Cardinal Wolseley
693:Bertie v Herenden
688:charitable trusts
368:Court of Requests
364:Court of Chancery
313:Court of Chancery
253:
252:
202:History of equity
192:Court of Chancery
97:Unconscionability
2293:
2281:Wills and trusts
2260:
2254:
2248:
2245:
2239:
2234:
2228:
2221:
2215:
2212:
2206:
2203:
2197:
2190:
2184:
2177:
2166:
2159:
2153:
2152:
2132:
2126:
2123:
2117:
2114:
2108:
2105:
2099:
2096:
2090:
2087:
2081:
2078:
2069:
2068:
2054:
2045:
2042:
2036:
2033:
2027:
2021:
2015:
2012:
2003:
1993:
1987:
1986:
1946:
1940:
1937:
1931:
1925:
1919:
1911:
1905:
1904:
1886:
1880:
1873:
1867:
1860:
1851:
1848:
1842:
1841:
1819:
1813:
1810:
1804:
1796:
1790:
1782:
1776:
1773:
1762:
1759:
1753:
1750:
1744:
1741:
1732:
1731:
1715:
1706:
1698:
1692:
1689:
1676:
1673:
1667:
1664:
1658:
1655:
1649:
1644:
1638:
1635:
1629:
1626:
1617:
1614:
1608:
1600:
1594:
1591:
1582:
1579:
1573:
1570:
1561:
1558:
1549:
1546:
1540:
1537:
1531:
1528:
1519:
1516:
1507:
1504:
1498:
1497:
1473:
1467:
1464:
1458:
1455:
1449:
1446:Hamby v Northage
1443:
1437:
1434:
1425:
1422:
1413:
1412:
1387:
1378:
1377:
1352:
1343:
1342:
1310:
1292:English land law
992:
610:Sir John Shelton
526:Fiscal feudalism
415:ad opus alterius
307:Medieval origins
245:
238:
231:
207:Maxims of equity
54:
40:
39:
2301:
2300:
2296:
2295:
2294:
2292:
2291:
2290:
2266:
2265:
2264:
2263:
2255:
2251:
2246:
2242:
2235:
2231:
2223:In the time of
2222:
2218:
2213:
2209:
2204:
2200:
2191:
2187:
2178:
2174:
2169:
2160:
2156:
2149:
2133:
2129:
2124:
2120:
2115:
2111:
2106:
2102:
2097:
2093:
2088:
2084:
2079:
2072:
2055:
2048:
2043:
2039:
2034:
2030:
2024:Cook v Fountain
2022:
2018:
2013:
2006:
1994:
1990:
1967:10.2307/1192175
1947:
1943:
1938:
1934:
1926:
1922:
1912:
1908:
1901:
1887:
1883:
1874:
1870:
1861:
1854:
1849:
1845:
1838:
1820:
1816:
1811:
1807:
1797:
1793:
1783:
1779:
1774:
1765:
1760:
1756:
1751:
1747:
1742:
1735:
1716:
1709:
1699:
1695:
1690:
1679:
1674:
1670:
1665:
1661:
1656:
1652:
1645:
1641:
1636:
1632:
1627:
1620:
1615:
1611:
1601:
1597:
1592:
1585:
1580:
1576:
1571:
1564:
1560:Baker, 269-272.
1559:
1552:
1547:
1543:
1538:
1534:
1529:
1522:
1517:
1510:
1505:
1501:
1474:
1470:
1465:
1461:
1456:
1452:
1444:
1440:
1435:
1428:
1423:
1416:
1409:
1401:. p. 105.
1393:, John (2019).
1388:
1381:
1374:
1353:
1346:
1339:
1323:. p. 206.
1311:
1304:
1300:
1283:
1216:
1189:holding company
1172:
1149:
1144:
1139:
1127:
1110:
1098:Oliver Cromwell
1090:Oliver Cromwell
1059:
1054:
1038:Lord Nottingham
993:
987:
979:
867:Sir Edward Coke
830:
824:
819:Tipping point:
780:
745:
740:
683:
677:
644:Statute of Uses
640:
635:
606:Tower of London
568:
560:Thomas Cromwell
528:
498:
493:
488:
480:resulting trust
447:
407:
402:
396:
360:Lord Chancellor
324:Lord Chancellor
320:
315:
309:
264:
258:
249:
102:Undue influence
82:Knowing receipt
35:law of property
17:
12:
11:
5:
2299:
2289:
2288:
2283:
2278:
2262:
2261:
2249:
2240:
2237:Warren v Smith
2229:
2216:
2207:
2198:
2185:
2171:
2170:
2168:
2167:
2154:
2147:
2127:
2118:
2109:
2107:Kerly, 161-63.
2100:
2098:Kerly, 157-61.
2091:
2082:
2080:Baker, 120-22.
2070:
2067:. p. 155.
2046:
2044:Baker, 127-28.
2037:
2028:
2016:
2004:
1996:Gee v Prichard
1988:
1941:
1932:
1920:
1906:
1899:
1881:
1868:
1852:
1843:
1836:
1814:
1805:
1791:
1777:
1763:
1761:Baker, 116-17.
1754:
1745:
1733:
1707:
1693:
1677:
1668:
1659:
1650:
1639:
1637:Baker, 275-78.
1630:
1618:
1609:
1595:
1583:
1581:Baker, 272-78.
1574:
1572:Baker, 258-64.
1562:
1550:
1541:
1532:
1520:
1508:
1506:15 Ric.2, c 5.
1499:
1468:
1459:
1450:
1438:
1426:
1414:
1407:
1379:
1372:
1344:
1337:
1301:
1299:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1289:
1282:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1271:
1265:
1256:
1250:UK company law
1247:
1238:
1215:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1204:
1199:
1171:
1168:
1148:
1145:
1143:
1140:
1138:
1135:
1131:Lord Clarendon
1126:
1123:
1109:
1106:
1058:
1055:
1053:
1050:
985:
978:
975:
913:freehold title
856:Lord Ellesmere
834:Lord Ellesmere
826:Main article:
823:
817:
779:
776:
744:
741:
739:
736:
676:
673:
639:
636:
634:
631:
587:cestui que use
576:premier seisin
567:
564:
537:premier seisin
533:premier seisin
527:
524:
497:
494:
492:
489:
487:
484:
468:cestui que use
452:cestui que use
446:
443:
406:
403:
398:Main article:
395:
392:
352:Sir John Baker
319:
316:
308:
305:
262:Fideicommissum
257:
254:
251:
250:
248:
247:
240:
233:
225:
222:
221:
220:
219:
214:
209:
204:
199:
194:
186:
185:
181:
180:
179:
178:
173:
168:
163:
158:
153:
148:
140:
139:
133:
132:
131:
130:
125:
117:
116:
112:
111:
110:
109:
104:
99:
94:
89:
84:
79:
74:
69:
61:
60:
56:
55:
47:
46:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2298:
2287:
2284:
2282:
2279:
2277:
2274:
2273:
2271:
2259:
2253:
2244:
2238:
2233:
2226:
2220:
2211:
2202:
2195:
2189:
2182:
2181:canon lawyers
2176:
2172:
2164:
2158:
2150:
2148:9780674940529
2144:
2140:
2139:
2131:
2125:Kerly, 164-67
2122:
2113:
2104:
2095:
2086:
2077:
2075:
2066:
2063:. Cambridge:
2062:
2061:
2053:
2051:
2041:
2032:
2025:
2020:
2011:
2009:
2001:
1997:
1992:
1984:
1980:
1976:
1972:
1968:
1964:
1960:
1956:
1952:
1945:
1939:Baker, 117-18
1936:
1929:
1924:
1917:
1916:
1910:
1902:
1896:
1892:
1885:
1878:
1872:
1865:
1859:
1857:
1847:
1839:
1837:9781316953297
1833:
1829:
1826:. Cambridge:
1825:
1818:
1809:
1802:
1801:
1800:Russel's Case
1795:
1788:
1787:
1781:
1772:
1770:
1768:
1758:
1749:
1743:Baker, 115-16
1740:
1738:
1729:
1725:
1721:
1714:
1712:
1705:
1703:
1697:
1688:
1686:
1684:
1682:
1672:
1666:Baker, 276-77
1663:
1654:
1648:
1643:
1634:
1625:
1623:
1616:Baker, 272-75
1613:
1606:
1605:
1599:
1590:
1588:
1578:
1569:
1567:
1557:
1555:
1545:
1539:Baker, 269-70
1536:
1527:
1525:
1515:
1513:
1503:
1495:
1491:
1487:
1483:
1479:
1472:
1466:Baker, 267-68
1463:
1454:
1447:
1442:
1436:Baker, 112-14
1433:
1431:
1421:
1419:
1410:
1404:
1400:
1396:
1392:
1386:
1384:
1375:
1369:
1366:. p. 6.
1365:
1361:
1357:
1351:
1349:
1340:
1338:9781139034401
1334:
1330:
1326:
1322:
1318:
1317:
1309:
1307:
1302:
1293:
1290:
1288:
1285:
1284:
1275:
1272:
1269:
1266:
1264:
1263:tax avoidance
1260:
1257:
1255:
1251:
1248:
1246:
1242:
1241:Welfare state
1239:
1236:
1230:
1229:
1224:
1223:
1218:
1217:
1214:Modern trusts
1208:
1205:
1203:
1200:
1197:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1190:
1186:
1181:
1177:
1176:Antitrust law
1167:
1166:
1162:
1157:
1154:
1134:
1132:
1122:
1118:
1115:
1105:
1103:
1099:
1091:
1087:
1083:
1080:
1075:
1070:
1068:
1064:
1049:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1033:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1015:
1011:
1002:
998:
990:
984:
974:
972:
967:
966:Francis Bacon
959:
958:Francis Bacon
955:
951:
949:
945:
941:
940:Francis Bacon
937:
932:
930:
924:
922:
921:habeas corpus
918:
914:
910:
906:
904:
898:
895:
894:
893:habeas corpus
888:
884:
880:
876:
868:
864:
857:
853:
849:
847:
843:
839:
835:
829:
822:
816:
814:
811:Furthermore,
809:
806:
802:
801:
796:
795:
794:habeas corpus
790:
786:
775:
773:
769:
765:
761:
753:
749:
735:
733:
729:
723:
721:
717:
713:
707:
704:
702:
698:
694:
689:
682:
672:
670:
666:
660:
658:
653:
652:Quia Emptores
649:
645:
630:
628:
624:
618:
616:
611:
608:for advising
607:
603:
599:
594:
592:
588:
584:
579:
577:
573:
563:
561:
557:
553:
552:Thomas Audley
549:
545:
540:
538:
534:
521:
517:
513:
511:
506:
502:
496:Wills of Land
483:
481:
477:
471:
469:
464:
462:
461:
455:
453:
442:
439:
435:
431:
427:
422:
420:
416:
412:
401:
391:
387:
385:
375:
371:
369:
365:
361:
357:
353:
347:
345:
341:
337:
333:
329:
325:
314:
304:
302:
297:
295:
294:fideicommissa
291:
290:fideicommissa
287:
283:
278:
274:
273:
272:fideicommissa
268:
263:
246:
241:
239:
234:
232:
227:
226:
224:
223:
218:
215:
213:
210:
208:
205:
203:
200:
198:
195:
193:
190:
189:
188:
187:
183:
182:
177:
174:
172:
169:
167:
166:Rectification
164:
162:
159:
157:
154:
152:
149:
147:
144:
143:
142:
141:
138:
135:
134:
129:
126:
124:
121:
120:
119:
118:
114:
113:
108:
105:
103:
100:
98:
95:
93:
90:
88:
85:
83:
80:
78:
75:
73:
70:
68:
65:
64:
63:
62:
58:
57:
53:
49:
48:
45:
42:
41:
38:
36:
32:
28:
24:
19:
2286:Equity (law)
2252:
2243:
2236:
2232:
2219:
2210:
2201:
2188:
2175:
2157:
2137:
2130:
2121:
2112:
2103:
2094:
2085:
2059:
2040:
2031:
2023:
2019:
1999:
1995:
1991:
1958:
1954:
1944:
1935:
1923:
1915:R v Standish
1913:
1909:
1890:
1884:
1876:
1871:
1863:
1846:
1823:
1817:
1812:4 Hen4 c. 23
1808:
1798:
1794:
1784:
1780:
1757:
1748:
1727:
1723:
1701:
1696:
1671:
1662:
1653:
1642:
1633:
1612:
1602:
1598:
1577:
1544:
1535:
1502:
1485:
1481:
1471:
1462:
1453:
1445:
1441:
1394:
1359:
1315:
1233:
1226:
1220:
1173:
1158:
1150:
1128:
1119:
1111:
1102:Commonwealth
1095:
1071:
1060:
1041:
1034:
1030:
1006:
981:
963:
927:
925:
920:
901:
899:
892:
872:
831:
820:
810:
798:
792:
781:
760:Tudor period
757:
725:
719:
715:
711:
709:
705:
684:
661:
641:
619:
595:
586:
580:
575:
569:
541:
536:
532:
529:
507:
503:
499:
472:
467:
465:
460:fidei laesio
458:
456:
448:
434:Quo elongati
433:
423:
414:
408:
388:
380:
348:
344:King's Bench
340:Common Pleas
321:
300:
298:
293:
289:
282:Roman Empire
270:
265:
201:
20:
18:
2225:Elizabeth I
2116:Kerly, 165.
2089:Kerly, 157.
2035:Baker, 119.
2014:Baker, 118.
1961:(3): 7–27.
1877:Magna Carta
1864:Magna Carta
1775:Baker, 117.
1691:Baker, 310.
1675:Baker, 309.
1657:Baker, 276.
1628:Baker, 275.
1593:Baker, 274.
1548:Baker, 271.
1530:Baker, 270.
1518:Baker, 268.
1457:Baker, 267.
1424:Baker, 106.
1185:corporation
1079:depositions
1010:John Selden
1001:John Selden
989:John Selden
883:Edward Coke
772:Thomas More
642:Before the
627:Restoration
426:Franciscans
356:His Council
328:Magna Carta
301:inter vivos
128:Clean hands
107:Subrogation
92:Marshalling
2270:Categories
1245:retirement
1228:The Nanfri
929:praemunire
778:Background
732:Neil Jones
679:See also:
591:mense lord
572:Lord Dacre
548:Henry VIII
520:Henry VIII
384:Injunction
311:See also:
260:See also:
171:Rescission
161:Injunction
31:common law
1975:0023-9186
1866:, 418-19.
1209:1882-1925
1046:mortgages
891:writs of
629:in 1660.
554:was made
544:Henry VII
400:Use (law)
336:Exchequer
267:Roman law
217:Trust law
59:Doctrines
1879:, 418-20
1488:: 1–22.
1281:See also
986:—
881:. Thus,
879:Henry IV
842:civilian
805:civilian
438:mortmain
419:copyhold
286:Claudius
115:Defences
77:Hotchpot
72:Estoppel
1998:(1818)
1983:1192175
1930:, s 11.
1607:(1535).
936:James I
885:, then
212:Tracing
184:Related
2145:
1981:
1973:
1918:(1670)
1897:
1875:Baker
1862:Baker
1834:
1803:(1482)
1789:(1597)
1704:(1557)
1448:(1579)
1405:
1370:
1335:
1276:(1999)
1270:(1985)
840:, the
764:Equity
648:seisin
411:seisin
342:, and
87:Laches
23:Equity
1979:JSTOR
1391:Baker
1356:Virgo
1298:Notes
284:when
2143:ISBN
1971:ISSN
1895:ISBN
1832:ISBN
1403:ISBN
1368:ISBN
1333:ISBN
1261:and
1252:and
1243:and
907:The
789:writ
758:The
701:Mary
669:deed
546:and
277:will
2000:per
1963:doi
1828:CUP
1490:doi
1399:OUP
1364:OUP
1325:doi
1321:CUP
1219:In
791:of
710:to
659:.
593:).
370:.
2272::
2073:^
2049:^
2007:^
1977:.
1969:.
1959:56
1957:.
1953:.
1855:^
1766:^
1736:^
1728:33
1726:.
1722:.
1710:^
1680:^
1621:^
1586:^
1565:^
1553:^
1523:^
1511:^
1486:10
1484:.
1480:.
1429:^
1417:^
1382:^
1347:^
1331:.
1319:.
1305:^
1225:,
973:.
950:.
844:,
482:.
346:.
338:,
2151:.
1985:.
1965::
1903:.
1840:.
1492::
1411:.
1376:.
1341:.
1327::
1174:"
931:.
905:.
722:.
720:Z
716:Y
712:X
244:e
237:t
230:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.