3,412
edits
England Common Law Appellate Courts - International Institute: Difference between revisions
England Common Law Appellate Courts - International Institute (view source)
Revision as of 11:37, 8 May 2014
, 8 May 2014no edit summary
(created page and added content) |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Infobox NIFGS|June 2012|{{English Court Course}}|Dr. Penelope Christensen}} <br> | {{Infobox NIFGS|June 2012|{{English Court Course}}|Dr. Penelope Christensen}} <br> | ||
=== | === Introduction === | ||
The ''common law'' originated from the justice of the king rather than the ''customary law'' exercised in the old shire and hundred courts, or the ''feudal law'' of the manorial courts. The itinerant justices of the ''curia regis'' (king’s court) heard cases transferred by or appealed from lower courts and gradually the common law was built up through the decisions of these courts. The central courts, which gradually settled at Westminster, ''were used to resolve conflicts within families, between neighbours, amongst trading partners, or between landlords and tenants—in short, conflicts about every dimension of human experience'' (Hey). | The ''common law'' originated from the justice of the king rather than the ''customary law'' exercised in the old shire and hundred courts, or the ''feudal law'' of the manorial courts. The itinerant justices of the ''curia regis'' (king’s court) heard cases transferred by or appealed from lower courts and gradually the common law was built up through the decisions of these courts. The central courts, which gradually settled at Westminster, ''were used to resolve conflicts within families, between neighbours, amongst trading partners, or between landlords and tenants—in short, conflicts about every dimension of human experience'' (Hey). | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
It should be noted that it was quite normal for a suit to be fought in several different courts, perhaps at the same time, in order to wear down the opposition or gain some advantage. For example in the 16<sup>th</sup> and early 17<sup>th</sup> century a defendant in a suit in one court might commence a suit in another in order to inhibit, by injunction, the litigation started in the first; for an example see Pinhorn (1983). There was a wide range of courts available, each becoming more rigid in its procedures with time, so that dissatisfied litigants appealed to the king, his council or one of his senior councillors (often the chancellor) for justice (see Hey has a good discussion on central courts). During the 13<sup>th</sup> century the ''curia regis'' developed into three entities -''Common Pleas'', ''King’s Bench'' and ''Exchequer.'' | It should be noted that it was quite normal for a suit to be fought in several different courts, perhaps at the same time, in order to wear down the opposition or gain some advantage. For example in the 16<sup>th</sup> and early 17<sup>th</sup> century a defendant in a suit in one court might commence a suit in another in order to inhibit, by injunction, the litigation started in the first; for an example see Pinhorn (1983). There was a wide range of courts available, each becoming more rigid in its procedures with time, so that dissatisfied litigants appealed to the king, his council or one of his senior councillors (often the chancellor) for justice (see Hey has a good discussion on central courts). During the 13<sup>th</sup> century the ''curia regis'' developed into three entities -''Common Pleas'', ''King’s Bench'' and ''Exchequer.'' | ||
These were ''common law courts'' in which the plaintiff commenced proceedings by the ''purchase of a writ'' and pleadings took place orally before a jury. Later in this book we discuss ''equity courts'' which employed ''English bill procedure'' where the plaintiff presented a written bill or petition of grievances which, after the collection of evidence, was determined by a judge. The essential difference between the two types of law was that ''common law ''was concerned with facts, whereas ''equity'' cared more about reconciling the parties. | These were ''common law courts'' in which the plaintiff commenced proceedings by the ''purchase of a writ'' and pleadings took place orally before a jury. Later in this book we discuss ''equity courts'' which employed ''English bill procedure'' where the plaintiff presented a written bill or petition of grievances which, after the collection of evidence, was determined by a judge. The essential difference between the two types of law was that ''common law ''was concerned with facts, whereas ''equity'' cared more about reconciling the parties. | ||
=== Curia Regis === | === Curia Regis === | ||