Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Court of Chancery/archive1

Comments from Malleus Fatuorum

Lead

• "... following a set of loose rules to avoid the slow pace and possible harshness (or "inequity") of the common law." This seems rather strange, given the criticism of the Court's slowness.

  Fixed, should have been "pace of change". Ironholds (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• "Initially merely an administrative body with some judicial jurisdiction ...". I find the word "jurisdiction" a little strange here, as I understand "jurisdiction" to be over something, like petitions for divorce for instance. Could just be my misunderstanding though.

  Fixed, changed to "duties". Ironholds (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• "Attempts at fusing the Chancery with the common law courts ...". Fusing seems like a strange choice of word. "Merging"?

  "Fusion" is the word always used in the legal context; fusing equity and common law, fusing barristers and solicitors, etc. Ironholds (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• I think the lead should be reorganised, and the second paragraph, which explains what the Court of Chancery was, should be moved right up to the start of the article, and the historical stuff presently there moved down. Why should we care how or when it was set up if we don't yet know what it was?

  Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Origins

• "... which also show that some cases were heard by his personal staff, the Chancery, not just by the Chancellor." This is a little ambiguous. The word "just" could imply that some cases were heard by the Chancellor and his staff, but what I think is meant is that some cases were heard by the Chancellor's staff alone.

  Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• "... with the overwhelming rules used to settle cases being ...". Apart from the noun 'ing thing. I don't understand how rules can be "overwhelming".

  Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Remedies

• "The Court of Chancery could grant three possible remedies; specific performance, injunctions and Damages." Why is "Damages" capitalised but the other two aren't?

  My fubar; fixed. Ironholds (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Rise and early years

• "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." That seems a little ambiguous, as it's not entirely clear who was dealing with the law of equity, the Chancery or the Exchequer. I can't quite make sense of the word "dealing" here either. Was whichever it was already dealing with the law of equity, or did it come into "prominence" (another curious word choice) to deal with the law of equity. I also find the conjunction of the law of equity with common law a little jarring, but of course I'm no lawyer, so that may just be me.
  • Both courts dealt with equity cases; after the decline of the Exchequer, all the equity business went to the Chancery (not quite sure how to phrase it all, I'm afraid). Ironholds (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• "... had a very liberal view to setting aside cases." Was it the cases that were set aside or the complaints?

  Complaints works

• "The Chancery bills were in French, and later English ...". This is the first we've heard of a Chancery bill; what were they?
• "writs" works better; changed
• "... where it sat almost without variation ...". Not sure what "variation" means here. Continually?

  Fixed.

• "Carne considers this a key moment ...". Who's Carne?
• Academic; clarified. Ironholds (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
• "occasionally a committee of lay and church members disposed of them, assisted by the judges in the common law courts ...". Does that mean that some of the cases were heard in the common law courts, or that some of the judges of those courts heard cases in the Court of Chancery?

  In the chancery; I'll clarify by changing "in" to "of", if that helps. Ironholds (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• "John Baker argues ...". Who's John Baker?

  It is linked. Ironholds (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• "... and notes that this period also saw the first complaints." Complaints about what? The word "complaints was used earlier almost as a synonym for case, but presumably here we're referring to complaints about the Court of Chancery?

  Yup, clarified. Ironholds (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• "... it petitioned the King to announce that the Court could not act contrary to the common law". Shouldn't this "pronounce that the Court"?

  Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• "... aggrieved at the Chancery's extended jurisdiction that overlapped with that of the common law." Would this be better as "overlapped with the jurisdiction of the common law", or something similar. It's hard to see how it "affected" it in any event.

  Fixed; changed your suggestion slightly to avoid repetition. Ironholds (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• "These complaints from the Commons did not prevent the Court working." I'm unclear what "working" means here. Didn't prevent the Court from carrying out its duties? Didn't prevent it from being successful? Something else?

  Yup, tweaked. Ironholds (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• "He gives complaints about the perversion of justice in the common law courts, along with growing mercantile and commercial interests, as the main reason for this ...". By the time we get to "for this" it's getting difficult to recall what "this" was.

  Tweaked. Ironholds (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Competition with the common law

• "the judges (without opposition from the monarch) allowed a claim to proceed despite the Lord Chancellor's previous implied jurisdiction." I'm not sure what "previous" is implying here. Previous to what?

  Getting ahead of myself there; fixed. Ironholds (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• "... we.. .do approve, ratifie and confirm ...". Not quite sure what the punctuation's supposed to be here. Is it a typo or meant to be an elipsis?

  the ".. ." thing? "...", but I screwed it up. Ironholds (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• "This bold move is seen as helping Coke lose his position as a judge ...". Whose bold move? Cokes, The Kings? Someone else? Seen by who as helping Coke lose his position?

  Clarified. Ironholds (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Attempted reform under the Commonwealth of England

• "... evidence were re-heard up to three times". Is that really "re-heard" three times, i.e., for times in all, or just heard three times? Why "were" rather than "was"? Isn't evidence singular?

  Was, yes; my snafu. It's "re-heard", so four times in total. Ironholds (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• "... combined with the backlog made the pursuing of a case extremely expensive". Probably better as the "pursuit of a case".

  Fixed, ta. Ironholds (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Further reform

• "For equity, the Act provided that a party trying to dismiss his own case ...". I'm unclear what the phrase "dismiss his own case" means.

  "have his case dismissed", I'll put. Ironholds (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• "Wilfrid Prest writes that despite these legislative enactments ...". I know that Prest is wikilinked, but I think as I suggested above that it's beter to say who these people are. Something along the lines of "Legal historian Wilfrid Prest ...".

  I think you may have done that. Ironholds (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• "Wilfrid Prest writes that despite these legislative enactments, however ...". I've removed this unnecessary "however", but there do seem to be a plethora of them in this article. Are they all really needed? look at the last paragraph of the Remedies section for instance. The "howevers" seem to be chasing each other.

  Fixed that section. Ironholds (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• "The Committee 'that the interest which a great number of officers and clerks have in the proceedings of the Court of Chancery ...'". Is there a word missing after "The Committee"? "The Committee concluded"?

  Yup, fixed. Ironholds (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• "The recommendations were not immediately acted on, but in 1743 a list of permissible fees was published, and that to cut down on paperwork no party should be required to obtain office copies of proceedings." The second half of this sentence seems disconnected from the first half. Should it be something like "and to cut down on paperwork no party was required to obtain office copies of proceedings"?

  Yup, easier. Tweaked. Ironholds (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Victorian era

• "The success of the Code Napoleon and the writings of Jeremy Bentham are seen to have had much to do with the criticism ...". Seen by whom?

  Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• "The first major reforms were the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor to hear cases in 1813 ...". So he only heard cases for one year, 1813?

  Hah, tweaked. Ironholds (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• "As a result of the new appointments, the issue of court backlogs was significantly reduced ...". It wasn't the issue that was reduced, but the backlog. Why not simplify by saying something like "The Court backlog was significantly reduced"?

  Point. This is one of those "what was I on when I wrote this?" moments. Ironholds (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• "... but it again arose after the death of Shadwell VC and retirement of Wigram VC." It's not clear what arose again. The issue or the backlog?

  Backlog; tweaked. Ironholds (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• "... in the 1860s 3207 cases were submitted each year, with the Court hearing 2010 and dismissing 1823." That doesn't add up, in more ways than one. Is that an average of 3,207 cases per year? What happened to the cases that were neither heard nor dismissed. Is this saying that in the decade of the 1860s the Court heard only an average of 201 cases per year, or exactly 2,010 cases each year?

  Averages; I'll tweak. The higher than expected number is due to the previous backlog. Ironholds (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Dissolution

• "Rather than fusing the common law and equity, which he saw as impracticable since it would destroy the idea of trusts, but rather to fuse the courts and the procedure." This deosn't really make sense, but I'm not certain I understand sufficiently what it's trying to say to rewrite it.

  I see what you mean, though; rewritten. Ironholds (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• "These plans were, after amendment with the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1875, brought into effect ...". They weren't plans though, they were the provisions in the bill weren't they?

  Indeed, tweaked. Ironholds (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• "... and the Vice-Chancellors ceased to exist". Makes it sound like they were vaporised. Surely it was the role of Vice-Chancellor that ceased to exist, not the Vice-Chancellors.

  Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Trusts and the administration of estates

• "From its foundation, the Court of Chancery was able to administer estates, due to their jurisdiction over trusts". This is puzzling. Who had jurisdiction over trusts, the estates or the Court? Should this be "its jurisdiction over trusts"?

  Again, it's the whole screwy tenses thing. The Court, tweaked. Ironholds (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• "Initially, the Court of Chancery would not entertain a request to administer an estate as soon as a flaw was discovered". A flaw in what?

  The will or similar; tweaked. Ironholds (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Insanity and guardianship

• "The Chancery's jurisdiction over "lunatics" came from a mixed origin; first, the King's prerogative to do so ...". this seems really awkward to me. I'm not overly fond of "came from a mixed origin", and "the Kinh's prerogative to do so" comes out of the blue. Do what? the sentence started by talking about jurisdiction, not doing anything.

  Tweaked. Ironholds (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• "This jurisdiction applied to any "idiots" or "lunatics", regardless of if they were British citizens". I'm a bit dubious about the term "British citizen" when applied to the 12th century.

  Tweaked. Ironholds (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Charities

• "The Lord Chancellor had, since the 15th century, been tasked with administering to estates ...". Not sure what "administering to estates" means.

  My idiocy. Ironholds (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• "In Bailiff of Burford v Lenthall, Lord Hardwicke opined ...". That word "opined" really, really irritates the Hell out of me.

  Noted, haha. It does have a feel of "snivelling little law student trying to impress the examiner" about it. Ironholds (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• "... as the idea of charity had been originally enforced by the Church". The idea of charity was enforced by the Church? Surely even the Church even then didn't have the power to enforce an idea.

  Try telling the Catholics that. Tweaked. Ironholds (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Remedies

• "Despite what is normally assumed ...". Normally assumed by who?

  Academics; fixed. Ironholds (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• "... and was normally award to pay for the innocent party's costs". Should this be "normally awarded"? Or "normally an award"?

  Doh, fixed. Ironholds (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• "... such as in Browne v Dom' Bridges in 1588". Is that single quote after "Dom" supposed to be there?

  Nope, Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• "As well as an injunction to prevent the defendant doing this ...". Doing what?

  Waste dumping; fixed. Ironholds (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• "This remained the cause until the 18th and early 19th centuries ...". Should that be "case" instead of "cause"? If so, what remained the case? We've just finished reading about damages awarded for harm to woods. Is that what we're talking about here with "this"?

  Case; will explain. Ironholds (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• "The Court's right to confirm damages was again confirmed, however". Can this not be rewritten to avoid the repetition of "confirm", and to get rid of another of those "howevers"?

  Done. Ironholds (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• "... if a plaintiff starts an action in a court of equity for specific performance and damages are also appropriate, the court may choose to award damages." I'm unclear which court this is referring to as being allowed to award damages. As it's not capitalised it looks like we're talking about a court of equity, but that doesn't seem to follow naturally from what's been said before.

  Tweaked; hope it's sufficient now. Ironholds (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• "... the situation before that was such that lawyers at the time commented as if the Court had not previously been able to do so." I'm not following this at all. We've been given several examples earlier in this section of the Court awarding damages, so why would lawyers of the time think it couldn't?

  The situations in which damages could we awarded were limited; tweaked. Ironholds (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Lord Chancellor

• "... the first legal Lord Chancellor". Makes it sound like the others were all illegal. Might something like "legally trained" be better?

  Argh! I spent hours agonising over that, and you came along and fixed it. Tip of the stetson to you, sir. Ironholds (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• "The precedent of appointing legal Lord Chancellors ...". As above.

  Done. Ironholds (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• "Thomas Egerton is said to have been the first 'proper' Lord Chancellor". Who says so?

  Done. Ironholds (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Other Officers of the Court

• "It was said that these had existed since before the Norman Conquest". So how old were these 12 Clerks in Chancery then?

  Haha, fixed. Ironholds (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• "After the conquest they gradually lost their dignity". Strange phrasing. Did they take to the bottle or something, lose interest in personal hygiene? Should this be "lost their authority"?

  That's the ticket. Ironholds (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• "The first reference to the Master of the Rolls comes from, although it is believed he probably existed before that". Seems to be a missing word there, and another of these immortals who's existed for ever.

  Doh, fixed. Ironholds (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• "The Master of the Rolls had 6 clerks of his own". How many clerks did he have of some else's?

  Removed extraneous phrasing. Ironholds (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• "The positions were regularly and openly sold by the Master of the Rolls and Lord Chancellor, with Masters in Chancery going for £6,000 in 1625. For that purpose ...". So the Act was passed to allow these positions to be sold, rather than put a stop to it?

  Nope; phrasing tweaked. Ironholds (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Jurisdiction

• "... although the Statute of Uses 'deal a severe blow to these forms of conveyancing' and made the law in this area far more complex. Is that quotation correct? Shouldn't it be "dealt"? If "deal" is accurate then it probably needs a [sic] after it.
• I've added in little [paraphrase] marks. Ironholds (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)