Editing Court of Chancery (section)

== Jurisdiction ==

=== Trusts and the administration of estates ===
The idea of a [[English trusts law|trust]] originated during the [[Crusades]] of the 12th century, when noblemen travelled abroad to fight in the Holy Land.<ref>Hudson (2001) p. 41</ref> As they would be away for years at a time it was vital that somebody could look after their land with the authority of the original owner. As a result, the idea of joint ownership of land arose. The [[common law]] courts did not recognise such trusts, and so it fell to equity and to the Court of Chancery to deal with them,<ref>Hudson (2001) p. 42</ref> as befitting the common principle that the Chancery's jurisdiction was for matters where the common law courts could neither enforce a right nor administer it.<ref>Adams (1855) p. 153</ref> The use of trusts and [[Use (law)|uses]] became common during the 16th century, although the [[Statute of Uses]] "[dealt] a severe blow to these forms of conveyancing" and made the law in this area far more complex. The court's sole jurisdiction over trusts lasted until its dissolution.<ref name="Carne 1928 p.599">Carne (1928) p. 599</ref>

From its foundation, the Court of Chancery could administer estates, due to its jurisdiction over trusts. While the main burden in the 16th century fell on the [[ecclesiastical court]]s, their powers over administrators and executors was limited, regularly necessitating the Court of Chancery's involvement. Before the [[Statute of Wills]], many people used [[feoffee]]s to dispose of their land, something that fell under the jurisdiction of the lord chancellor anyway. In addition, in relation to the discovery and accounting of assets, the process used by the Court of Chancery was far superior to the ecclesiastical one; as a result, the Court of Chancery was regularly used by beneficiaries. The common law courts also had jurisdiction over some estates matters, but their remedies for problems were far more limited.<ref name="Carne 1928 p.599"/>

Initially, the Court of Chancery would not entertain a request to administer an estate as soon as a flaw in the will was discovered, rather leaving it to the ecclesiastical courts, but from 1588 onwards the Court did deal with such requests, in four situations: where it was alleged that there were insufficient assets; where it was appropriate to force a [[legatee]] to give a bond to creditors (which could not be done in the ecclesiastical courts); to secure ''[[Coverture|femme covert]]'' assets from a husband; and where the deceased's debts had to be paid before the legacies were valid.<ref>Carne (1928) p. 600</ref>

=== Insanity and guardianship ===
The Chancery's jurisdiction over "lunatics" came from two sources: first, the king's prerogative to look after them, which was exercised regularly by the lord chancellor, and second, the [[Lands of Lunaticks Act 1324]] (Ruffhead: [[17 Edw. 2]]. c. 10), which gave the King (and therefore the chancellor) custodianship of lunatics and their land;<ref>Carne (1928) p. 607</ref> the Lord chancellor exercised the first right directly and the second in his role as head of the Court of Chancery.<ref>Carne (1928) p. 608</ref> This jurisdiction applied to any "idiots" or "lunatics", regardless of whether or not they were British, or whether their land was within [[England and Wales]]. They were divided into two categories&nbsp;– idiots, "who have no glimmering of reason from their birth and are, therefore, by law, presumed never likely to attain any",<ref>Adams (1855) p. 653</ref> and lunatics, "who have had understanding but have lost the use of it".<ref>Adams (1855) p. 654</ref> Lunatics and idiots were administered separately by the lord chancellor under his two prerogatives; the appeal under the king's prerogative went directly to the king, and under the Lands of Lunaticks Act 1324 to the [[Judicial functions of the House of Lords|House of Lords]].<ref>Adams (1855) p. 655</ref>

Idiots and lunatics had their land looked after by a court-appointed administrator, and any profits went into a trust fund to support the insane person. Due to the vested interest of the king (who would hold the lands) the actual lunacy or idiocy was determined by a jury, not by an individual judge.<ref>Adams (1855) p. 656</ref> Under the [[Lunacy Act 1845]] the lord chancellor had a right to appoint a commission to investigate the insanity of an individual; as part of his role as Keeper of the king's conscience, however, he would only do this when it was beneficial to the lunatic, not simply because somebody had been found insane.<ref>Adams (1855) p. 657</ref>

The law courts' jurisdiction over the guardianship of children is said to have come from the king's prerogative of ''[[parens patriae]]''. The Chancery had administered this area of law from an early period, since it primarily concerned the holding of land&nbsp;– a form of trust. Since these were mainly dealt with orally there are few early records; the first reference comes from 1582, when a curator was appointed to deal with the property of an infant. While the common law courts regularly appointed guardians, the Chancery had the right to remove them, replace them or create them in the first place. Similarly, while there were actions against guardians which the child could undertake in the common law courts, these were regularly undertaken in the Court of Chancery.<ref>Carne (1928) p. 605</ref> This jurisdiction was first regularly recognised from 1696 onwards, and its main focus was the welfare of the child.<ref>Carne (1928) p. 606</ref> As such, wards of the court had certain principles: their estates had to be administered under the supervision of the Court, they had to be educated under the same supervision, and any marriage had to be sanctioned by the Court.<ref>Adams (1855) p. 637</ref>

=== Charities ===
The lord chancellor had, since the 15th century, been tasked with administering estates where the estate was to be used for charitable purposes. In ''Bailiff of Burford v Lenthall'', [[Philip Yorke, 1st Earl of Hardwicke|Lord Hardwicke]] suggested that the jurisdiction of the Court over charity matters came from its jurisdiction over trusts, as well as from the [[Charitable Uses Act 1601]]. Carne suggests that, as the Court had long been able to deal with such situations, the 1601 act was actually just the declaration of pre-existing custom.<ref>Carne (1928) p. 601</ref> This is illustrated by the chancellor's original jurisdiction over [[Feoffment|feoffments to uses]], which came from his original status as a clergyman, as charity had been originally enforced by the Church and the [[ecclesiastical court]]s.<ref>D (January 1862) p. 141</ref> Essentially, an owner of land could dispose of it by granting the right to use it and collect fees to another, not just by selling it. This was not valid at the common law courts but was in the Court of Chancery; the lord chancellor is reported as having said, in 1492, "where there is no remedy at common law there may be good remedy in conscience, as, for example, by a feoffment upon confidence, the feoffor has no remedy by common law, and yet by conscience he has; and so, if the feoffee transfers to another who knows of this confidence, the feoffor, by means of a subpoena, will have his rights in this Court".<ref>D (January 1862) p. 142</ref> After the reign of [[Edward IV]], if the charitable land were to be sold (or land were to be sold to create the charity) the Court of Chancery was the only place this could be done, as ecclesiastical and probate courts did not have a valid jurisdiction.<ref>D (April 1862) p. 321</ref>