Pub Date : 1999-04-01DOI: 10.1080/01440362008539583
K. Lowe
Abstract The basis for the study of testamentary procedure in Anglo-Saxon England is the detailed analysis of the surviving vernacular wills from the pre-Conquest period.1 Many other wills, however, are recorded only as Latin notes in medieval cartularies, although a few exist in fuller versions, sometimes alongside their vernacular counterparts. These texts provide an insight into the methods and priorities of scribes who had to translate and summarise vernacular documents in the early Middle Ages. This article discusses these notes, summaries and translations, and considers their implications for the study of the Anglo-Saxon vernacular wills from which such texts are derived.
{"title":"Latin Versions of Old English Wills","authors":"K. Lowe","doi":"10.1080/01440362008539583","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01440362008539583","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The basis for the study of testamentary procedure in Anglo-Saxon England is the detailed analysis of the surviving vernacular wills from the pre-Conquest period.1 Many other wills, however, are recorded only as Latin notes in medieval cartularies, although a few exist in fuller versions, sometimes alongside their vernacular counterparts. These texts provide an insight into the methods and priorities of scribes who had to translate and summarise vernacular documents in the early Middle Ages. This article discusses these notes, summaries and translations, and considers their implications for the study of the Anglo-Saxon vernacular wills from which such texts are derived.","PeriodicalId":43796,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Legal History","volume":"20 1","pages":"1-23"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"1999-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/01440362008539583","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59103242","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1998-12-01DOI: 10.1080/01440361908539577
P. Polden
Abstract This article makes extensive use of recently opened documents in the PRO to explore the appointment and management of the county court judiciary between the wars, with particular emphasis on the role of the permanent officials in the Lord Chancellor's Office. It concludes that during this period the selection process, having already been largely de-politicised, became bureaucratised, ensuring the officials a dominant role. As a result the county bench became more homogeneous. The officials are also shown to have engaged in more systematic and ambitious attempts to manipulate vacancies so as to fit judges to districts both in terms of aptitude and other attributes.
{"title":"Oiling the Machinery: The Lord Chancellor's Office and the County Court Bench, 1927–44","authors":"P. Polden","doi":"10.1080/01440361908539577","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01440361908539577","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article makes extensive use of recently opened documents in the PRO to explore the appointment and management of the county court judiciary between the wars, with particular emphasis on the role of the permanent officials in the Lord Chancellor's Office. It concludes that during this period the selection process, having already been largely de-politicised, became bureaucratised, ensuring the officials a dominant role. As a result the county bench became more homogeneous. The officials are also shown to have engaged in more systematic and ambitious attempts to manipulate vacancies so as to fit judges to districts both in terms of aptitude and other attributes.","PeriodicalId":43796,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Legal History","volume":"22 1","pages":"224-244"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"1998-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/01440361908539577","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59103136","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1998-12-01DOI: 10.1080/01440361908539579
D. Hewitt
Abstract Unusually, the archdeaconry of Richmond had two consistory courts, one in Chester and one in Richmond. This may well be the first study to be based upon the Richmond records. The mid-sixteenth century ‘explosion’ in the ecclesiastical defamation workload which other commentators have identified was being felt later, possibly by as much as a century, in Richmond than anywhere else in the country. The Richmond records provide the first firm evidence that the ecclesiastical courts were prepared to countenance defamation actions based upon the wrongful imputation of murder. Allegations of sexual irregularity were by far the most common subject of ecclesiastical defamation actions. Women were most likely to complain about allegations concerning their constancy; men for those touching upon their probity.
{"title":"Some Cases from the Defamation Jurisdiction of the Archdeaconry of Richmond","authors":"D. Hewitt","doi":"10.1080/01440361908539579","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01440361908539579","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Unusually, the archdeaconry of Richmond had two consistory courts, one in Chester and one in Richmond. This may well be the first study to be based upon the Richmond records. The mid-sixteenth century ‘explosion’ in the ecclesiastical defamation workload which other commentators have identified was being felt later, possibly by as much as a century, in Richmond than anywhere else in the country. The Richmond records provide the first firm evidence that the ecclesiastical courts were prepared to countenance defamation actions based upon the wrongful imputation of murder. Allegations of sexual irregularity were by far the most common subject of ecclesiastical defamation actions. Women were most likely to complain about allegations concerning their constancy; men for those touching upon their probity.","PeriodicalId":43796,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Legal History","volume":"19 1","pages":"251-269"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"1998-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/01440361908539579","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59103225","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1998-12-01DOI: 10.1080/01440361908539578
O. Robinson
Abstract The annual blister approaches; the time is at hand for the lecture on obligations arising as though from delict. But how to make sense of what we are told in Justinian's Institutes? The first, the most obvious, problem is the classification itself: what holds together the four forms of behaviour described in Institutes 4.5 as arising quasi ex delicto? It is my contention in this paper that we do not need to take this aspect of the problem too seriously, because much of the classification in the Institutes is bogus. For ease of teaching, a symmetrical view of the law was put forward which did not correspond to reality. After having – I hope – proved this point, I shall then look briefly at the quasi-delicts, including the most awkward case, the iudex qui litem suam fecerit.1
{"title":"Justinian's Institutional Classification and the Class of Quasi-Delict","authors":"O. Robinson","doi":"10.1080/01440361908539578","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01440361908539578","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The annual blister approaches; the time is at hand for the lecture on obligations arising as though from delict. But how to make sense of what we are told in Justinian's Institutes? The first, the most obvious, problem is the classification itself: what holds together the four forms of behaviour described in Institutes 4.5 as arising quasi ex delicto? It is my contention in this paper that we do not need to take this aspect of the problem too seriously, because much of the classification in the Institutes is bogus. For ease of teaching, a symmetrical view of the law was put forward which did not correspond to reality. After having – I hope – proved this point, I shall then look briefly at the quasi-delicts, including the most awkward case, the iudex qui litem suam fecerit.1","PeriodicalId":43796,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Legal History","volume":"19 1","pages":"245-250"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"1998-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/01440361908539578","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59103153","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1998-12-01DOI: 10.1080/01440361908539575
Chantal Stebbings
Abstract In Cradock v. Piper (1850) the court allowed a solicitor-trustee to charge for his professional services in relation to certain litigation This was in the absence of a charging clause, and in apparent violation of a strict and general principle of the law of trusts that trustees had to act without remuneration. The rule still exists today, though it is invariably described as anomalous and lacking any rational basis.This paper examines whether the court did indeed establish an exception to the general no-remuneration rule, or whether it applied legal principle correctly The analysis of the court's judgment, of case law, and of contemporary attitudes to professional trustees, shows that the court was correct in refusing to prohibit remuneration where the connection was too tenuous to give rise to a conflict of interest.
在1850年的Cradock v. Piper一案中，法院允许律师-受托人在某些诉讼中对其专业服务收费，这是在没有收费条款的情况下，显然违反了信托法律中严格的一般原则，即受托人必须无偿行事。这条规则至今仍然存在，尽管它总是被描述为反常的，缺乏任何理性基础。本文考察了法院是否确实确立了一般无报酬规则的例外，或者它是否正确地应用了法律原则。对法院判决、判例法和当代对专业受托人的态度的分析表明，法院拒绝在联系过于微弱而不会引起利益冲突的情况下禁止报酬是正确的。
{"title":"The Rule in Cradock v. Piper (1850): Exception or Principle","authors":"Chantal Stebbings","doi":"10.1080/01440361908539575","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01440361908539575","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In Cradock v. Piper (1850) the court allowed a solicitor-trustee to charge for his professional services in relation to certain litigation This was in the absence of a charging clause, and in apparent violation of a strict and general principle of the law of trusts that trustees had to act without remuneration. The rule still exists today, though it is invariably described as anomalous and lacking any rational basis.This paper examines whether the court did indeed establish an exception to the general no-remuneration rule, or whether it applied legal principle correctly The analysis of the court's judgment, of case law, and of contemporary attitudes to professional trustees, shows that the court was correct in refusing to prohibit remuneration where the connection was too tenuous to give rise to a conflict of interest.","PeriodicalId":43796,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Legal History","volume":"19 1","pages":"189-202"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"1998-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/01440361908539575","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59103056","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1998-12-01DOI: 10.1080/01440361908539576
Chris R. Kyle
Abstract The Monopolies Act of 1624 is the founding statute of copyright and patent law in the English-speaking Western world. Based upon the famous legal cases of John the Dyer and Darcy v. Allen, as well as the King's Book of Bounty, the Act has been seen as a symbol of the increasing power of a Parliament locked in a constitutional struggle with King James. This article argues that far from being a case of conflict between the monarch and the House of Commons, the Monopolies Act received the imprimatur of both the King and Commons against the wishes of powerful interests in the Lords. It concludes by stating that the significance of 21 James I cap.3 lies not only in its limitation on monopolies but that its enactment illustrates the close co-operation between the King and Commons.
{"title":"‘But a New Button to an Old Coat’: The Enactment of the Statute of Monopolies, 21 James I cap.3","authors":"Chris R. Kyle","doi":"10.1080/01440361908539576","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01440361908539576","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The Monopolies Act of 1624 is the founding statute of copyright and patent law in the English-speaking Western world. Based upon the famous legal cases of John the Dyer and Darcy v. Allen, as well as the King's Book of Bounty, the Act has been seen as a symbol of the increasing power of a Parliament locked in a constitutional struggle with King James. This article argues that far from being a case of conflict between the monarch and the House of Commons, the Monopolies Act received the imprimatur of both the King and Commons against the wishes of powerful interests in the Lords. It concludes by stating that the significance of 21 James I cap.3 lies not only in its limitation on monopolies but that its enactment illustrates the close co-operation between the King and Commons.","PeriodicalId":43796,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Legal History","volume":"19 1","pages":"203-223"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"1998-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/01440361908539576","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59103096","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1998-08-01DOI: 10.1080/01440361908539570
G. Seabourne
Abstract This article examines evidence from a series of usury trials which took place in London in 1421, in order to draw conclusions both about the specific matters which were being dealt with in those cases, and about the way in which usury was regarded and prosecuted in early fifteenth century England. The article also relates the London cases of 1421 to the other rules about and mechanisms for prosecution of usury in fifteenth century England, most importantly the law and practice of the church. It concludes that church courts dealt with different types of usurious conduct to that shown in the 1421 London cases. The broad conclusion of the article is that the 1421 London cases show that the law against usury was by no means a dead letter outside the jurisdiction of the church in late medieval England: in London at least, it was part of a burgeoning and increasingly sophisticated commercial jurisdiction.
{"title":"Controlling Commercial Morality in Late Medieval London: The Usury Trails of 1421","authors":"G. Seabourne","doi":"10.1080/01440361908539570","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01440361908539570","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article examines evidence from a series of usury trials which took place in London in 1421, in order to draw conclusions both about the specific matters which were being dealt with in those cases, and about the way in which usury was regarded and prosecuted in early fifteenth century England. The article also relates the London cases of 1421 to the other rules about and mechanisms for prosecution of usury in fifteenth century England, most importantly the law and practice of the church. It concludes that church courts dealt with different types of usurious conduct to that shown in the 1421 London cases. The broad conclusion of the article is that the 1421 London cases show that the law against usury was by no means a dead letter outside the jurisdiction of the church in late medieval England: in London at least, it was part of a burgeoning and increasingly sophisticated commercial jurisdiction.","PeriodicalId":43796,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Legal History","volume":"19 1","pages":"116-142"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"1998-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/01440361908539570","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59102990","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1998-08-01DOI: 10.1080/01440361908539572
S. Doyle
Abstract Durham University Library MS Middleton and Spearman 4 is identified as the original draft of A Treatise of Spousals, by Henry Swinburne, 1551?—1624. The manuscript also contains the two opening chapters of an uncompleted work by him on Matrimony, substantial extracts of which are quoted. The sources used by Swinburne are considered, and it is suggested that he is likely to have owned a sizeable personal library.
杜伦大学图书馆MS Middleton and Spearman 4被确认为Henry Swinburne(1551? -1624)的《配偶论》(A Treatise of spouse)原稿。手稿还包含了他未完成的关于婚姻的工作的两个开头章节，其中引用了大量的摘录。斯威本所使用的资料经过考虑，有人认为他可能拥有一个相当大的个人图书馆。
{"title":"An Uncompleted Work by Henry Swinburne on Matrimony","authors":"S. Doyle","doi":"10.1080/01440361908539572","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01440361908539572","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Durham University Library MS Middleton and Spearman 4 is identified as the original draft of A Treatise of Spousals, by Henry Swinburne, 1551?—1624. The manuscript also contains the two opening chapters of an uncompleted work by him on Matrimony, substantial extracts of which are quoted. The sources used by Swinburne are considered, and it is suggested that he is likely to have owned a sizeable personal library.","PeriodicalId":43796,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Legal History","volume":"19 1","pages":"162-172"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"1998-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/01440361908539572","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59103044","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1998-08-01DOI: 10.1080/01440361908539571
Georg Behrens
Abstract This paper sets out the debate about Chancery between Christopher St German and an anonymous ‘Serjeant at the Laws of England’, focusing on the jurisprudential problem most fundamental to the debate: whether conscience and equity can ‘follow’ the law while at the same time ‘mitigating its rigour’. It also describes the theory of law, equity and conscience which St German develops in the effort to resolve this problem, noting that he intended this theory also to serve as an apology for the institutional separation of law from equity. Finally, it shows that the theory is ineffective in its role as an apology. Although the separate jurisdiction of Chancery was able to weather the jurisprudential challenges of the 1520s and 1530s, it did so less in virtue of the explicit doctrinal justification it received from the pens of theorists like St German, than in virtue of pragmatic considerations recognised both by the Chancellors and by the litigants who sought their help.
{"title":"An Early Tudor Debate on the Relation between Law and Equity","authors":"Georg Behrens","doi":"10.1080/01440361908539571","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01440361908539571","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper sets out the debate about Chancery between Christopher St German and an anonymous ‘Serjeant at the Laws of England’, focusing on the jurisprudential problem most fundamental to the debate: whether conscience and equity can ‘follow’ the law while at the same time ‘mitigating its rigour’. It also describes the theory of law, equity and conscience which St German develops in the effort to resolve this problem, noting that he intended this theory also to serve as an apology for the institutional separation of law from equity. Finally, it shows that the theory is ineffective in its role as an apology. Although the separate jurisdiction of Chancery was able to weather the jurisprudential challenges of the 1520s and 1530s, it did so less in virtue of the explicit doctrinal justification it received from the pens of theorists like St German, than in virtue of pragmatic considerations recognised both by the Chancellors and by the litigants who sought their help.","PeriodicalId":43796,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Legal History","volume":"19 1","pages":"143-161"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"1998-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/01440361908539571","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59103000","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1998-04-01DOI: 10.1080/01440361908539563
N. G. Jones
{"title":"Long Leases and the Feudal Revenue in the Court of Wards, 1540–1645","authors":"N. G. Jones","doi":"10.1080/01440361908539563","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01440361908539563","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43796,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Legal History","volume":"19 1","pages":"1-22"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"1998-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/01440361908539563","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59102916","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：