Talk:Court of Chancery

message: "academics attribute its shift to an almost entirely judicial body to this increase."  In my opinion that statement essentially doesn't make sense as-is.
Further details are needed to clarify.  In essence the statement says, "They suddenly got really big, therefore they became a judicial body."  That's not an explanation of any causal relationship, it's simply a statement that two things happened at the same time.  It may SEEM to be common sense, but in my opinion it's not.  I feel that further details should be supplied which elaborate on the causal connection between an increase in the size of the administrative body, and it's "shift" to a more "judicial" function.  Otherwise one is left confused as to what the real causes were.  A great place to start might be to supply information about who specifically made this decision, if known - perhaps a King or Queen or the head of Chancery itself?  How *quickly* did this shift happen? etc.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.200.152 (talk) 04:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Further Details Needed on Reason for Shift to Judicial Body

message: Arkansas abolished its separate chancery courts on July 1, 2001, when Arkansas Constitution, Amendment 80 , which reorganized the state judicial system, took effect.  The former Chancery Courts were merged into the Circuit Courts, which heard criminal cases and actions at law pre-Amendment 80.  Though some divisions of the post-Amendment 80 Circuit Courts mirror the old Chancery Courts' jurisdictions (mainly the domestic relations division, which ended up with most of the Chancery Courts' caseload), all ordinary civil actions are now heard in the civil division of Circuit Court whether they request legal or equitable relief, as in nearly all the other states.  --RBBrittain 04:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Abolition of Arkansas chancery courts

message: there's a barely-more-than-stub article on "Court of Equity."
Should that be converted into a redirect to this very lovely article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boundlessly (talk • contribs) 20:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so - that article, a stub though it is, is about courts of equity generally. This article is about a specific court of equity viz the Court of Chancery. – ukexpat (talk) 21:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. This is simply the most important of the historical courts; it is by no means the only one. Ironholds (talk) 06:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge "Court of Equity?" 

message: I've just seen this, and it looks good, a lot of effort. Wikidea 12:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you kindly. Apparently it was shown to Sir John Baker, and he called it "impressive". Ironholds (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The next time I e-mail my old Oxford law tutor, Jeffrey Hackney, I will send the link to him too. – ukexpat (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Cambridge and now Oxford? I've got the whole deck! Mind asking him for a legal history MPhil position? :P. Ironholds (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Good work!

message: The article says that the office of Vice Chancellor ceased to exist when the Supreme Court Acts 1873/1875 came in. But the article Chancellor of the High Court shows that Vice Chancellors continued to be appointed as heads of the Chancery Division of the High Court until 2005, when the post was renamed Chancellor. DavidWard talk 12:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No; if you look at the list (and crossreference with Sainty's Judges of England) you'll see that the office was recreated in 1971. Ironholds (talk) 15:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

text: (After a little digging) Section 5 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 authorised the Lord Chancellor to appoint one of the puisne judges of the division as VC to be responsible to him for the organisation and management of the division - link. There's no mention of the post of VC in the 1950s edition of Halsbury's Laws that we have in chambers (we never throw anything away...). BencherliteTalk 16:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Why on earth.. Do you use it to prop doors open? My books are divided into "modern" (2007-issue and onwards textbooks and practitioners works) and "ancient" (19th century-18th century). The intervening gap seems largely useless :p. Ironholds (talk) 16:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vice Chancellor 

message: See Talk:Chancery Court#Recommend moving to Chancery Court of York and making this a redirect to Court of Chancery (disambiguation).  Note that Chancery Court is currently a full-fledged article.  The proposal would have it be a redirect to Court of Chancery (disambiguation). There should be no effect on Court of Chancery.  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion can be found here.  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed move and retargeting of [[Chancery Court]], changes to [[Court of Chancery (disambiguation)]] 

message: William Russell has this to say in his essay “ The Martyrs of Chancery”:
[speaking of Queens Prison]
“…there is a proportion of prisoners—happily a small one—within those huge brick boundaries, who have committed no crime, broken no law, infringed no commandment. They are the victims of a system which has been bequeathed to us from the dark days of the “Star Chambers” and “Courts of High Commission”—we mean the Martyrs of Chancery.
” “These unhappy persons were formerly confined in the Fleet Prison, but on the demolition of that edifice, were transferred to the Queen’s Bench. Unlike prisoners of any other denomination, they are frequently ignorant of the cause of their imprisonment, and more frequently still, are unable to obtain their liberation by any acts or concessions of their own. There is no act of which they are permitted to take the benefit—no door left open for them in the Court of Bankruptcy. A Chancery prisoner is, in fact, a far more hopeless mortal than a convict sentenced to transportation; for the latter knows that at the expiration of a certain period, he will, in any event, be a free man. The Chancery prisoner has no such certainty; he may, and he frequently does, waste a life-time in the walls of a jail, whither he was sent in innocence—because, perchance, he had the ill-luck to be one of the next of kin of some testator who made a will which no one could comprehend, or the heir of some intestate who made none. Any other party interested in the estate commences a Chancery suit, which he must defend “or be committed to prison for “contempt.” A prison is his portion, whatever he does; for, if he answers the bill filed against him, and cannot pay the costs, he is also clapped in jail for “contempt.” Thus, what in ordinary life is but an irrepressible expression of opinion or a small discourtesy, is, “in Equity,” a high crime, punishable with imprisonment—sometimes perpetual.”
Excerpt From
Recollections of a Policeman
William Russell
This material may be protected by copyright.
What on Earth?? There is nothing about this in the article. 2601:647:5800:7D80:119D:2328:DB58:5450 (talk) 08:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Chancery Prison

message: This article is relying too much on a 1927 law review article to incorrectly imply that the common law judges helped out regularly in Chancery.  I have not seen that doubtful assertion in any other source, and even if true, that may have been the case early on when Chancery was young, but it was definitely not the case by the 19th century!
The most recent version of Baker's book on English legal history (and other sources) portray Chancery as a catastrophically overloaded mess by 1800 because it was a one-judge court staffed by a part-time judge, the Lord Chancellor, who was also busy supervising the House of Lords and with other affairs of state.  The Master of the Rolls could hear cases but only in the Chancellor's absence, and his decisions were subject to review by the Chancellor.  Thus, there is a theme in the sources that the Chancellor was the bottleneck.  This point is completely absent from the current version of the article. Any objections before I revise the article to make that point clear? Coolcaesar (talk) 13:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is relying too much on a 1927 article 

message: Per WP:LEAD, there should ideally be <= 4 paragraphs in the lead. There are currently many short paragraphs in the lead, which honestly I prefer, but just noting that it doesn't abide by the recommendation (which is flexible btw) 104.232.119.107 (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many paragraphs in lead