English Legal History
4/8/2009
Outline

 

I. LITTLETON (Sir Thomas Littleton, JCP, died 1481)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

II. FORTESCUE (Sir John Fortescue, CJKB,  c. 1385–1477)

 

III. ST. GERMAN (Christopher St. German, c. 1460–1540)

 

 

 

THE IDEA OF LAW, c. 1500

 

1.

Littleton’s scheme of tenures and estates:

 

a.

The fee simple

 

 

i.

“To A and his heirs”

 

 

ii.

“Propres ne remontent pas”

 

 

iii.

Blood of the first purchaser

 

 

iv.

Exclusion of half-bloods

 

 

v.

—> writ of right

 

b.

Fee tail

 

 

i.

General, special, male, female

 

 

ii.

Gifts in frank marriage

 

 

iii.

No new estates

 

c.

Tenant in tail after possibility of issue extinct

 

d.

Curtesy

 

e.

Dower

 

 

i.

By common law or custom

 

 

ii.

Ad ostium

 

 

iii.

Ex assensu patris

 

 

iv.

De la plus beale

 

f.

Tenant for life—a freehold

 

g.

Tenant for years—the livery of seisin problem

 

h.

Tenant at will—intentional, remedial

 

i.

Tenant by copy

2.

What Littleton misses:

 

a.

Remainders, especially contingent remainders.

 

b.

The whole development of uses, particularly remarkable because he used one himself as a will-substitute.

 

c.

The development of protection for copyholders.

 

d.

The docking of entails, particularly remarkable because he was on the court that decided Taltarum’s Case (1472).

 

Sir John Fortescue, CJKB, in exile with Henry VI and Prince Edward, 1461–1470, returns with the readeption and dies 1477 or 79. De laudibus legum Anglie, On the praise of the laws of England. The notion of dominium politicum et regale.

 

1.

Christopher St. German’s work, Doctor and Student, like Fortescue’s, is written in dialogue form (1525 and 1530). Sinderesis, the innate drive in men to do good and avoid evil. Divine law revealed by God and natural law discovered by reason.  Conscience is the application of moral rules to specific case and in this definition conscience is hard to distinguish from equity, though the latter looks more to the judge while conscience looks more to the individual.

2.

“Equity is right wiseness that considereth all the pertinent circumstances of the deed, the which is also tempered with mercy.”  (I.16, p. IX–22).

 

a.

Notion that it is also inherent in the common law (I.17, p. IX–23, the example derived from Littleton is that an infant is not deprived of a right of entry by descent cast). Equity of a statute (id., example is the exception read into the waste statute that it does not cover the infant tenant who suffers waste).

 

b.

Chancery example (p. I.12, pp. IX–19, the classic example of the debt on an obligation to which no sealed acquittance has been obtained).

 

c.

Limit to Chancery on appeal (I.18, p. IX–25, the statute of 4 H. 4, c. 22, which prohibits examination of a judgment given in the king’s courts in chancery, parliament or elsewhere).

 

d.

Notion of conscience ordered after law (many examples, e.g., I.20, p. IX–27 to IX–28, example is common law inheritance, borough English inheritance, and gavelkind inheritance). What is the principle?

3.

Indeed, the most interesting part of the book is where St. German examines cases where there seems to be a conflict between equity and law. Let’s take a look at a couple on that is in and one that is not in the mats:

 

a.

A formal conveyance (fine) in court binds even those who were not parties to it after 5 years in both law and conscience (I.25, p. IX–33). But an acquittance not under seal will bind the parties in equity but not in law.  In both cases we look to the purpose of the law and in both cases we discover that the purpose is to provide stability to transactions. In one case equity will intervene; in the other it won’t. Why?  The five-year limitation on fines is made by statute, that requiring a sealed acquittance is a matter of common law, but St. G. makes nothing of this distinction.

 

b.

A bequest of English land is void and not binding in conscience (I.20, p. IX–28). A bequest of a use is equally void at law, but the feofees will be compelled in equity to execute it (II.22, pp. IX–33 to IX–36). The testator’s purpose in both cases is the same, and the argument given for the use, that the law doesn’t prohibit it just makes it void (p. IX–34), is equally applicable to a straight bequest.

 

 

 

 

Download this outline.


[Home Page] [Syllabus] [Announcements] [Lectures]


Please send comments to Rosemary Spang

URL:  http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/cdonahue/courses/echfas/lecture/l18.out.html
last modified:  05/03/09

Copyright ©  2009 Charles Donahue, Jr.