8 octobre 2022
Chancery Legal
Posted by under: Non classé .
Most of the first Lord Chancellors were members of the clergy; The first legally formed Lord Chancellor was Robert Parning SL, who was appointed in 1341 and held this position for two years. His successors were again clerics until the appointment of Robert Thorpe in 1371, probably under pressure from Parliament. Law firm work exposes you to a variety of legal and tactical issues and a variety of clients, making it consistently attractive and satisfying. If it`s perceived as isolated, it`s just a matter of unnecessary Dickensian semantics – to be successful, law firm lawyers must be able to tackle the practical needs of demanding clients, and while the work is unprecedented in its intellectual appeal, the realities of work are far from diluted. The Chancellery began as the personal staff of the Lord Chancellor, described as « a grand secretariat, a Ministry of the Interior, a Ministry of Foreign Affairs and a Ministry of Justice ». [4] The first mention of legal questions sent to him dates back to 1280, when Edward I of England, angered by the number of cases that came before him and that could have been dealt with by other elements of his administration, passed a law stipulating that the decisions made there were based on conscience and fairness rather than on the strict forms of action of the common law. In the United States, courts such as the former Chancery were called Chancery Courts or Courts of Justice. n. a court which may order the execution of acts. Today, chancery courts in most states are merged with courts.
(See: Equity) Edward Cumming: Working in law firms is simply a job that could be negotiated within the Chancery Division of the High Court (which is now part of the new Business and Property Courts of England and Wales). These include real estate, landlords and tenants, etc., but also sophisticated ways of holding property, such as corporations, partnerships, trusts, etc., and what happens to property at the end of a company`s life, whether it is its « legal life » (due to insolvency – i.e. bankruptcy or liquidation) or its « natural life » (because someone has died – i.e. litigation). of homologation and inheritance). Detailed description of the legal jurisdiction of the Court of Justice. CHANCELLERY. The name of a court that exercises jurisdiction under the act, but primarily under the law of fairness. 2. It is not easy to determine how the fair courts originally acquired the jurisdiction they now exercise. Their authority and magnitude have been the subject of many questions, but time has firmly established them; and the limits of their competence seem to be very defined and identified.
1 History on equation Chap. 2; Mitf. Pl. Introd.; Henhouse. Eq. Pl. Introd. See also Butler`s Reminiscences, 38, 40; 3 Com. 435; 2 containers. 135; 4 containers.
50; 6 containers. 162; 2 serg. & R. 356; 9 serg. & R. 315; for the necessity, origin and use of the Courts of chancery. 3. The judge of the Court of Chancery, often referred to as the Court of Equity, shall bear the title of Registrar.
The jurisdiction of equity in England is mainly held by the High Court of Chancery. This dish is different from the courts. « U.S. courts of fairness differ in some cases from those of the law, in other cases the same courts exercise the jurisdiction of the courts and fairness, although their forms of procedure are different in their two functions. The U.S. Supreme Court and district courts have general fairness powers and act either as a court or as a judge, depending on the form of the proceedings and the subject matter of the decision. In some states, such as New York, Virginia, and South Carolina, the Court of Equity is a separate court with its corresponding judge or clerk and official. In most states, both jurisdictions focus on the same bailiffs as in U.S.
courts; and the extent of jurisdiction over fairness and litigation varies considerably from state to state, it is very extensive in Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia and South Carolina, and more limited in Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Pennsylvania. But the salutary impact of these powers on the administration of justice in general, through the adaptation of registry forms and procedures to many cases where a court grants only an imperfect remedy or no remedy at all, leads to a gradual expansion of these powers in the States where they have been so far. very limited. 4. The jurisdiction of a fair court is substantially different from that of a court. Remedies for injustice or enforcement of rights can be divided into two categories administered by the courts and those administered by the courts of equity. The rights guaranteed by the former are called legal; those obtained by the latter are called equitable. The former are considered common law rights and remedies because they are recognized and enforced by the common law courts. The latter are called equity rights and remedies, since they are administered before equity or registry courts or through proceedings before other courts similar to those before equity courts or registry courts.
Now, in England and America, common law courts proceed in certain prescribed forms and render a general judgment for or against the defendant. They have jurisdiction only for certain actions and provide for remedies according to the particular necessity of such acts. But there are many cases where a simple judgment for one of the parties, without restrictions, conditions and special agreements, does not do justice to any of the parties, ex aequo et bono. Some change in the rights of both parties is needed; certain limitations on one side or the other; and some specific adjustments, present or future, temporary or permanent. Well, in all of these cases, common law courts do not have procedural methods that can achieve such objectives. Their forms of action and judgment are not adapted to them. The correct remedy cannot be found or enforced to the fullest extent of the relative rights of all parties. These prescribed forms of action are not limited to our law. They were well known in civil law; and the Party could only use them for the original purposes. In other cases, he had a special remedy.
In cases where common law courts cannot provide an appropriate remedy, the law of England and the United States (in states where justice is administered) permits a claim to the courts or registry that are not limited or limited in their remedies by such narrow rules. who, however, grant ex aequo et bono discharge to all parties in cases where they have rights and modify and shape such relief according to the circumstances. The most general description of a court of equity is that it has jurisdiction in cases where a clear, reasonable and complete remedy cannot be brought before a court, that is, before the common law courts. The remedy must be clear; Because if it is dubious and legally unclear, fairness will assert a jurisdiction. It must therefore be legally appropriate; Because if it is not up to what the party is entitled to, it establishes jurisdiction in matters of justice. And it must be complete; That is, it must reach its full end in the law, it must reach all calamities and guarantee the full right of the Party, now and for the future, otherwise justice will intervene and bring reparation. The jurisdiction of a fair court is sometimes simultaneous with that of the courts of law and sometimes it is exclusive. It exercises concurrent jurisdiction in cases where the rights are purely legal in nature, but different and more effective assistance is needed than that which a court can afford to deal with the difficulties of the case and ensure a full remedy.
In some of these cases, the courts refused any compensation, but now they will award it. But the jurisdiction that was once rightly acquired at a time when there was no such remedy is not abandoned now. The most common exercise of concurrent jurisdiction is in cases of account, accident, dowry, fraud, error, partnership and separation. The remedy here is often more comprehensive and effective than it can be before the courts. In many cases falling under these headings, and in particular in some cases of fraud, error and accident, the courts cannot and will not afford a remedy; in others, they do, but not always in such a perfect way.
Comments are closed.
