Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Court: Court of Chancery: Decided: 22 December 1848: Citations [1848] EWHC Ch J34 (1848) 41 ER 1143: Transcript: None published. Court-authorised law report issued. Case history; Prior action: Prohibitory injunction granted by the Master of the Rolls (Under the cited case the Lord Chancellor refused a motion to dismiss the injunction) Court ...
The Chancery came to prominence after the decline of the Exchequer, dealing with the law of equity, something more fluid and adaptable than the common law.The early Court of Chancery dealt with verbal contracts, matters of land law and matters of trusts, and had a very liberal view when setting aside complaints; poverty, for example, was an acceptable reason to cancel a contract or obligation. [9]
Legal equity: The Court of Chancery, in early 19th-century London.. In the field of jurisprudence, equity is the particular body of law, developed in the English Court of Chancery, [1] with the general purpose of providing legal remedies for cases wherein the common law is inflexible and cannot fairly resolve the disputed legal matter. [2]
The Court also employs three full-time Magistrates in Chancery (formerly known as Masters in Chancery), appointed by the Chancellor under Court of Chancery Rule 144. The Magistrates adjudicate cases assigned to them by the Court, with a particular focus on "the people's concerns in equity," such as guardianships, property disputes, and trust ...
A court of equity, also known as an equity court or chancery court, is a court authorized to apply principles of equity rather than principles of law to cases brought before it. These courts originated from petitions to the Lord Chancellor of England and primarily heard claims for relief other than damages, such as specific performance and ...
Saunders v Vautier [1841] EWHC J82, (1841) 4 Beav 115 is a leading English trusts law case. It laid down the rule of equity which provides that, if all of the beneficiaries in the trust are of adult age and under no disability, the beneficiaries may require the trustee to transfer the legal estate to them and thereby terminate the trust.
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. [39] 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.
Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100, 67 ER 313 [1] was a decision of the English Court of Chancery which confirmed that a party may not raise any claim in subsequent litigation which they ought properly to have raised in a previous action. The case remains good law, and is still cited as authority for the original principle today.