The New Rules of Pleading of the Hilary Term, 1834

1923 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 261-278
Author(s):  
W. S. Holdsworth

The old system of pleading has passed so completely into the limbo of things forgotten that the title of this paper is not intelligible without an explanation. I must, therefore, remind the reader that, in pursuance of the Second Report of the Common Law Procedure Commissioners, which was issued in 1830, the Judges made some new general rules as to pleading in the Hilary Term of 1834 which, on the whole, tended to aggravate the existing evils of the common law system of special pleading, by making special pleading compulsory where it had before been only optional. Something was done to alleviate these evils by the Common Law Procedure Acts of 1852, 1854, and 1860; but they were not wholly eliminated till the new system of procedure and pleading introduced by the Judicature Acts. The result was that right down to the Judicature Acts the system of pleading was the old system; and, subject to the modifications introduced by the Common Law Procedure Acts, the old system aggravated by the new pleading rules of the Hilary Term, 1834. Now it seems to me that there are certain developments in common law doctrine in the nineteenth century which may in part, at least, be traced to the indirect influence of these new pleading rules. But it is obvious that before I can even state my thesis I must explain some of the characteristics of the old system of special pleading, and the effect of these new pleading rules. I shall therefore divide this paper into these three parts, and deal firstly with certain characteristics of the old system of special pleading; secondly, with the new pleading rules of the Hilary Term, 1834; and thirdly, with the question of their effect on the development of the substantive law.

Author(s):  
William E. Nelson

This chapter shows how common law pleading, the use of common law vocabulary, and substantive common law rules lay at the foundation of every colony’s law by the middle of the eighteenth century. There is some explanation of how this common law system functioned in practice. The chapter then discusses why colonials looked upon the common law as a repository of liberty. It also discusses in detail the development of the legal profession individually in each of the thirteen colonies. Finally, the chapter ends with a discussion of the role of legislation. It shows that, although legislation had played an important role in the development of law and legal institutions in the seventeenth century, eighteenth-century Americans were suspicious of legislation, with the result that the output of pre-Revolutionary legislatures was minimal.


Author(s):  
Arabella di Iorio

The legal system of the British Virgin Islands is a common law system based on the English model, comprising statute law and binding case precedents. The principles of English common law and equity apply in the BVI (subject to modification by BVI statutes) pursuant to the Common Law (Declaration of Application) Act (Cap 13) and the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (Virgin Islands) Act (Cap 80) respectively. The general principles of trust law are based on English law.


2006 ◽  
Vol 65 (2) ◽  
pp. 330-365 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Fox

THE relativity of titles to land is a fundamental feature of property holding in the common law system. It is treated as one of the features that distinguishes it from civilian systems of property holding and proves the pragmatic stuff from which the common law is made.


sjesr ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 204-210
Author(s):  
Dr. Syed Raza Shah Gilani ◽  
Hidayat Ur Rehman ◽  
Dr. Ilyas Khan

For the last few decades, the doctrine of proportionality has demonstrated and corroborated that it is the most effective legal standard used around Europe for the adjudication of constitutional rights. From its German origins, proportionality has migrated across jurisdictions and areas of law and has become one of the most successful legal transplants. However, there is some confusion as to whether there is any justification for the intervention of this in the UK's legal system, as the UK's legal system is based on common law, and did not welcome this doctrine very much. Therefore, it is essential to analyze the basic principles of this doctrine and check its compatibility with the common law system, which is based on democratic norms. To test the similarity, this article would also reflect on the underlying characteristics of the theory of proportionality and equate it with the standards of a democratic society. To begin with, this article first endeavors to analyze the legal sources of the doctrine of proportionality and then examines its affinity with the democratic norms of the common law system to investigate the compatibility level with each other in protecting the constitutional rights of the people.


Author(s):  
John Baker

This chapter is concerned with the history of mechanisms for reviewing judicial and administrative decisions. It begins with the writ of error, which was confined to errors on the face of the record of a court of record and therefore not an appeal as now understood. But informal methods were developed for reserving points to be discussed by all the judges of England, usually in the Exchequer Chamber or Serjeants’ Inn. Appeals in a wider sense began in Chancery and were not brought into the common-law system till 1875. The ‘prerogative writs’ of prohibition, habeas corpus, certiorari, and mandamus, enabled the King’s Bench to review inferior jurisdictions and also the exercise of power by officials and ministers. It is explained how this grew into the present system of administrative law. There is also a brief account of the rise of tribunals, and how their decisions came to be reviewable.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document