What is the oldest English common law case that is known? What is the oldest case we know the decision of? What is the oldest case that we have the written decision of? What is the oldest case that would be likely/possible to be cited by an English court? American court?
About 3800 years back.
Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co., [2002] 1 S.C.R. 595 at 41:
You might find this interesting: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook-law.html#ENGLISH LAW
And this too: http://www.law.cam.ac.uk/resources_history.php
The Selden Society is dedicated to publishing historical materials on the development of the English law. The earliest period they cover in their reports of cases is the period from William I to Richard I, starting in 1066:
I happen to have that volume on my shelves, and the very first “case” it reports is a chronicler’s account of a dispute between Ealdred, Archbishop of York, and one of the king’s sheriffs, who seized some of Ealdred’s goods from some of Ealfred’s servants. Ealdred promptly went to King William and lodged a complaint against the conduct of the sheriff. The case is dated between 25 December 1066 and 11 September 1069.
I think that the earliest case I’ve cited in a legal opinion was a decision of the Court of Star Chamber during the Tudor period.
I wish I could give a better cite of the details, but a TV movie I once saw quoted an old case in English law, and I was wondering if there really was such a case:
In the TV movie Against Her Will: An Incident in Baltimore, Walter Matthau plays a lawyer named Harmon Cobb. In the 1950s, he is hired to try to get a young woman released from a state mental hospital. But the state cites sovereign immunity and claims it thus cannot be sued. So Cobb sets out to challenge sovereign immunity itself. He finds a judge with a fascination about medieval common-law precidents, and cites the case of an English king who was sued by an ecclesiastical court for damages, and who for political reasons had to admit liability. Rather than risk setting a precident for the overturning of sovereign immunity, the state releases the woman.
But that case was not decided by a judge. It was Henry II who united the kingdom from which “common law” evolved. From Muffin’s first cite:
Can you remember any specifics of the citation or your opinion?
Quoted by Northern Piper:
So what is the formal limit of legal memory? And what does that mean exactly?
From a search on the phrase “Time Immemorial”:
coughnerdcoughlawnerdcoughcoughcough*nerd!*cough
If anyone happens to come across any references to Thomas de Colepeper, Recognitor of the Grand Assize, from that period, please inform me – he’s a direct ancestor of mine.
Sure it was. At that formative stage of the common law, the King was the fountain of justice, with supreme authority to do right. The Archbishop petitioned the King for justice, and got it. There’s a reason the oldest common law court was called the “King’s Bench” - because it was the court of the king, and kings themselves sat in judgment, deciding requests for justice from their subjects.
Under the common law were not decisions by a judge considered the decision of the King/Queen?
hmmm. I don’t think I’d agree that Henry II united the English kingdom - William I did a good job of imposing Norman feudalism on an already reasonably united Anglo-Saxon kingdom, which had gradually managed to re-incorporate the Danelaw under the A-S kings.
As well, it’s difficult to date the beginnings of the common law precisely. Henry II’s institutional reforms certainly had a major impact, but he built on the pre-existing legal framework. However, I’d certainly agree that the period prior to Henry II’s time was a period of transition, as the editors of English Lawsuits From William I To Richard I comment:
Certainly, Henry II’s role was crucial in directing the development of English law towards a common law for the entire kingdom (as opposed to the various regional coutumes found in France), but his work built on the pre-existing “uneasy blend” of Old-English and Norman laws.
Well, not in a personal sense, but in the sense that the royal courts had their origins in the king delegating the decision-making power to the judges, and backing up their decisions with the force of royal authority. This sense of a personal decision by the king would likely only have applied in the early medieval period - as the courts became more firmly established and professionalised, I doubt that judgments would be seen as the personal decision of the king. As well, this would only apply to decisions of the royarl courts, not to the variety of other feudal and regional courts.
I don’t have it handy, but I’ll see if I can find it again. It was some time ago.
Not in a legal opinion, but I think the earliest case I’ve cited in a legal article was a Scottish case from 1599: Bruce v. Hamilton, Court of Session, 1599 (unreported); discussed in Cooper, “The King versus the Court of Session” (1946), 58 Jurid. Rev. 83.
I think the earliest English case I can recall citing in an article was Prohibitions del Roy (1607), 12 Co. Rep. 63, 77 E.R. 1342.
Both of these cases dealt with attempts by King James VI (I of England) attempting to exercise the royal prerogative of justice personally, and being told to butt out in no uncertain terms by the Scottish and English courts.
From the same period, I’ve also cited Earl of Oxford’s Case (1615), 21 E.R. 485 (Ch.), and Jurisdiction of Court of Chancery Vindicated (1616), 21 E.R. 576, dealing with the priority of equity over the common law.
Nasty cough you’ve got, pravnik. I would prescibe a nice dose of Milsom, followed by some samplings of Blackstone.
Found them. Two Star Chamber cases, in fact, but both from the early Stuart period, not the Tudor period:
-
Sir Henry Fines’ Case (1623), Godb. 288, 78 E.R. 168 (Star Chamber): objection to witness testifying because of previous conviction for theft (which at common law was an absolute disqualification to testifying); witness had obtained a royal pardon; able to testify.
-
Bennet v. Easedale (1626), Cro Car. 55, 79 E.R. 651 (Star Chamber): corrupt judge; had been convicted and barred from holding judicial office; later pardoned; issue was whether he could hold a new judicial office; Star Chamber, in consultation with the royal judges, concluded that the pardon removed the disability on holding judicial office.
Although the zombie is so old that its approaching the age of the citations itself, I had occasion to cite Heydon’s Case (1584) 76 637 today.
When I returned to the office in the afternoon, I looked up the oldest cases I could find in on BAILII (The British and Irish Legal Information Institute).
Its from 1028.Sketon and His Tutor v Brown [1028] Mor 7800. Scottish Court of Sessions.
Off-topic but didn’t Henry II introduce the first English constitution? A forerunner to the Magna Carta?