| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="ArticlesInProcess" |
|---|
WORKING UNITED DRAFT: | | | The rise in the use of writs of prohibition accompanied the consolidation of power in the English monarchy and the growth of the court system in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The Angevin Kings, who split their time between England and France, needed strong and competent advisors to help run the government in England when they were gone. The growth of the royal bureaucracy accompanied the codification of much of the existing common law with the First Statute of Westminster (1275), which was passed during Edward I’s rein. The common law courts and legal interpretation by common law judges began to become more formalized as judges moved from the role of primary lawmakers to the interpreters of statutes. [T.F.T. Plucknett, Statutes and Their Interpretation in the First Half of the Fourteenth Century, 55 (1922)] While the earlier courts had had more flexibility to provide both legal and equitable relief, over the period from the late thirteenth century to the end of the fourteenth century, the consideration of equity gradually disappeared in common law courts, which was one of the reasons the Chancery, which existed before to keep the King’s Great Seal and stamp it on public documents, emerged as a separate judicial court. [Raack, 550-52] As the common law courts became more formalized and rigid in their procedure and jurisprudence, they also ceased using the writ of prohibition as a remedy against individual defendants. [Raack, 554] | |
<
< | There were occasional disputes among the courts when there were disagreements about what court was the proper place to hear a certain issue. For example, the ecclesiastical courts claimed they had the right to enforce contracts that were formalized by oath, as they involved a spiritual matter of whether the oath had properly been made, though common lawyers disagreed. [Helmholz] In some instances, however, the non-common law courts were able to provide relief where the common law courts could not. The Chancery, unlike the common law court, could provide remedies in cases involving trusts and uses and could give relief based on fraud, accident, or mistake to plaintiffs. [Raack, 555] As courts of equity provided new relief that before had been encompassed by but limited in the common law courts, writs of prohibition helped prevent plaintiffs from being able to “forum shop” for the court that would be most favorable to their position. If a plaintiff would be able to gain adequate relief in a common law court were he to win, it did not matter that he may prefer procedure, allowable defenses, or remedy of a different court; he would be prohibited from bringing a case in any court other than the common law one. | >
> | There were occasional disputes among the courts when there were disagreements about what court was the proper place to hear a certain issue. For example, the ecclesiastical courts claimed they had the right to enforce contracts that were formalized by oath, as they involved a spiritual matter of whether the oath had properly been made, though common lawyers disagreed. [Helmholz] In some instances, however, the non-common law courts were able to provide relief where the common law courts could not. The Chancery, unlike the common law court, could provide remedies in cases involving trusts and uses and could give relief based on fraud, accident, or mistake to plaintiffs. [Raack, 555] As courts of equity provided new relief that before had been encompassed by but limited in the common law courts, writs of prohibition helped prevent plaintiffs from being able to “forum shop” for the court that would be most favorable to their position. Any plaintiff who could gain adequate relief in a common law court was prohibited from bringing his case in a different court, even if he preferred the procedure, allowable defenses, or possible remedies of a different court. | | |
Verb tenses and their sequence seem wrong here.
| |
>
> | RESPONDED | | | | |
<
< | [Charles M. Gray, Jurisdiction in Early Modern English Law, Appendix to Volume III: The Boundaries of the Equitable Function, The American Journal of Legal History, Vol. XX, 192-226 (1976)] While the Chancery could provide relief where the common law could not, writs of prohibition helped ensure that cases that already had a remedy in common law stayed in those courts. | >
> | [Charles M. Gray, Jurisdiction in Early Modern English Law, Appendix to Volume III: The Boundaries of the Equitable Function, The American Journal of Legal History, Vol. XX, 192-226 (1976)] While the Chancery could provide relief where the common law could not, writs of prohibition helped ensure that cases that already had a remedy in common law stayed in those courts.
| | | | |
>
> | RESPONDED: removed because could not find support in text | | | Surely you should help
Mr Gray avoid this paradoxical cornering: does he really believe | | | against the Chancellor?
| |
<
< | The use of the writ of prohibition also varied with the relationship between the Chancery and the common law judges. While at the beginning of the transformation of the Chancery into a judicial body, the common law judges often cooperated in helping the new court decide cases or even referred plaintiffs who had equitable claims. [Raack, 558] Over time, however, the relationship declined as plaintiffs chose to seek relief in the Chancery, which, in addition to resolving cases more quickly than the common law courts, allowed testimony of interested parties and witnesses and could compel discovery. [Raack 554] | >
> | The use of the writ of prohibition also varied with the relationship between the Chancery and the common law judges. While at the beginning of the transformation of the Chancery into a judicial body, the common law judges often cooperated in helping the new court decide cases or even referred plaintiffs who had equitable claims. [Raack, 558] Over time, however, the relationship declined as plaintiffs chose to seek relief in the Chancery, which was the fourth most popular major court by 1450. [Raack, 554] In the first half of the fifteenth century, Litigants chose to bring their cases there because, despite its growing popularity, the Chancery still saw many fewer cases than the common law court, which allowed cases to be resolved more quickly than in the common law courts, which were known for being slow. [Raack,554] Additionally, the Chancery allowed testimony of interested parties and witnesses and could compel discovery and specific relief, which the common law courts could not. [Raack 554] | | |
When was Chancery faster than the common law courts and why?
| |
>
> | RESPONDED | | | Procedure for Securing a Writ of Prohibition |
|