{"title":"Nuisance","authors":"J. Baker","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198812609.003.0024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198812609.003.0024","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter traces the history of the law of nuisance. The medieval assize of nuisance and the action quod permittat were not comprehensive, because minor complaints of nuisance were supposed to go to local courts. The central courts acquired a wider and more effective jurisdiction through the use of actions on the case. It became necessary to distinguish between the protection of easements and profits, which were property rights, and the protection of natural rights such as freedom from noise and smell, which depended on balancing interests and reasonable compromises. Case also lay for isolated escapes of harmful matter, though the older cases were misunderstood by the Lords in Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) to rest on strict liability. Another misunderstanding concerned public nuisance, which was not a cause of action but a bar to actions by plaintiffs who could not show special loss.","PeriodicalId":321735,"journal":{"name":"Introduction to English Legal History","volume":"43 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126539939","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Court of Chancery and Equity","authors":"J. Baker","doi":"10.1093/OSO/9780198812609.003.0006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780198812609.003.0006","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter traces the history of the Court of Chancery and equity. The equitable jurisdiction derived from the extraordinary jurisdiction of the king’s council. By 1400 the chancellor had his own court and was issuing decrees in his own name. It was not tied to law but could coerce the conscience of a defendant, for instance to desist from an unconscionable suit at law. Equity was not in conflict with the law, but there was a dispute between Coke and Ellesmere in 1615 over injunctions after judgment. Most equitable principles began with relief given on the facts of individual cases, but the multitude of suits generated common principles, many of which were elucidated by Lord Nottingham. The court’s initially informal procedure became unmanageably complex as more suitors resorted to it. The later Chancery was a byword for delay and despair; the chapter ends with an account of its reform.","PeriodicalId":321735,"journal":{"name":"Introduction to English Legal History","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116482513","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}