Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-l4ctd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-19T10:06:20.324Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fourteenth-Century Promises

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2009

Morris S. Arnold
Get access

Extract

We are all familiar with the paradox that while medieval English society set great store in promises and their performance, the law of its central courts paid them little attention. The marital arrangement, which could be undone only rarely; the system we have learned to call feudalism, infidelity to which was sometimes called felony; the heavy emphasis in medieval literature on keeping faith: all these support the proposition that an important tenet of medieval morality was that promises ought to be kept. Yet the common law of promises was curiously retarded, thus creating what seems an odd gap between law and morality.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Cambridge Law Journal , Volume 35 , Issue 2 , November 1976 , pp. 321 - 334
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 On the jurisdictional limits of the local courts in the fourteenth century, see Beckerman, “The Forty-Shilling Jurisdictional Limit in Medieval English Personal Actions,” in Legal History Studies 1972 (1975), 110.

2 See Hetaholz, “Assumpsit and Fidei Laesio” (1975) 91 L.Q.R. 406.

3 This point was first made in Thome, “Tudor Social Transformation and Legal Change,” 26 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 10 (1951).

4 2 Eyre of London 287 (H. M. Cam, ed., 1969).Google Scholar

5 CP/40/403/252v.

6 CP/40/235/50v; Y.B. 13 Edw. 2, 407, the first unnumbered plea; CP/40/401/ 276v.; Year Book II Richard II, 10 (I. D. Thornley, ed., 1937)Google Scholar (per Clopton).

7 CP/40/207/193v.

8 Y.B. 47 Edw. 3, f. 3, pl. 4.

9 CP/40/254/81.

10 CP/40/390/247v.

11 CP/40/171/236v.

12 CP/40/398/299; Y.B. 38 Edw. 3, f. 8, the third unnumbered plea; CP/40/417/39; CP/40/421/219v.

13 Y.B. 39 Edw. 3, f. 13, the fourth unnumbered plea; CP/40/453/437; CP/40/454/323v.; Y.B. 48 Edw. 3, f. 17, pl. 2.

14 Year Book 5 Edward II, 216 (Bolland, W. C., ed., 1915).Google Scholar

15 Y.B. 15 Edw. 2, f. 460, the fifth unnumbered plea.

16 CP/10/443/315; CP/40/453/98v.

17 Year Book II Edward II, 124 (Collas, J. P. & Holdsworth, W. S., eds., 1942)Google Scholar; CP/40/453/319v.

18 Of course, these contracts were often enforced by writs on the Statute of Labourers, called variously trespass or covenant; but the arrangement itself was regarded as a covenant. Y.B. 40 Edw. 3, f. 24, pl. 27; Y.B. 45 Edw. 3, f. 15. pl. 15; Y.B. 46 Edw. 3, f. 14, pl. 19; Y.B. 47 Edw. 3, f. 14, pl. 15; Y.B. 47 Edw. 3, f. 16, pl. 23.

19 Y.B. 26 Edw. 3, f. 12, pl. 13.

20 2 Eyre of Kent 9 (Bolland, W. C., ed., 1912).Google Scholar

21 2 Eyre of Kent 12 (Bolland, W. C., ed., 1912).Google Scholar

22 Year Book 4 Edward II, 85 (Turner, G. J., ed., 1914).Google Scholar

23 CP/40/547/422v.

24 Y.B. 40 Edw. 3, f. 26, pl. 1.

25 Y.B. 21 Edw. 3, f. 2, pl. 5.

26 See Co. Litt. 385a; 5 Rep. 17–18.

27 Y.B. 4 Edw. 3, f. 57, pl. 71, continued in 7 Edw. 3, f. 65, pl. 67; Y.B. 42 Edw. 3, f. 3, pl. 14. The former case is discussed in McGovern, “Contract in Medieval Law: Wager of Law and the Effect of Death,” 54 Iowa L.Rev. 19, 47 et seq. (1968).

28 See, e.g., CP/40/170/94v; CP/40/176/92v; CP/40/192/231v; CP/40/217/134: CP/40/282/130; CP/40/396/276; CP/40/412/53; CP/40/421/170; Y.B. 47 Edw. 3, f. 12, pl. 11; Y.B. 47 Edw. 3, f. 24, pl. 61; CP/40/465/358v. See also Y.B. 19 Edw. 2, f. 642, the second unnumbered plea.

29 See, e.g., CP/40/172/231v.; CP/40/217/134; CP/40/396/276.

30 See, e.g., CP/40/170/94v.; CP/40/176/92v.; CP/40/412/53; CP/40/421/170; Y.B. 47 Edw. 3, f. 12, pl. 11; Y.B. 47 Edw. 3, f. 24, pl. 61.

31 See the remarks of Finchdean J. in Y.B. 48 Edw. 3, f. 1, pl. 4 at f. 2.

32 Year Book 4 Edward II, 148, 149 (Turner, G. J., ed., 1914).Google Scholar

33 Y.B. 7 Edw. 3, f. 45, pl. 8.

34 Plucknett, T. F. T., A Concise History of the Common Law (5th ed., 1956) p. 571.Google Scholar

35 See Y.B. 46 Edw. 3, f. 4, pl. 12, where the action is expressly upheld. The action is also said to be available during the course of the argument in Year Book 6 Edward II, 222 (Vinogradoff, P. & Ehrlich, L., eds., 1918)Google Scholar (per Scrope).

36 Y.B. 6 Rich. 2, Lincoln's Inn Hale MS. 77, f. 200. But he also says that if one is ejected by a stranger, by which I take it he means someone altogether unconnected with the parties to the lease, the remedy is quare eiecit. This is almost surely wrong and makes his other remarks somewhat suspect.

37 But see Year Book 2 & 3 Edward 11, 84, 87 (Maitland, F. W., ed., 1904)Google Scholar where Herle seems to say that covenant lies against the lessor if a stranger ousts the termor.

38 In Year Book 6 Edward II, 226 (Vinogradoff, P. & Ehrlich, L., eds., 1918Google Scholar) such a writ was expressly upheld against the objection that it was against common form and was not approved by the council.

39 Idem, (per Miggeley).

40 CP/40/519/113. Only a few years earlier, in the sixth year of Richard II, Chief Justice Belknap had said that such a result was impossible because ejectment was only a writ of trespass and neither the term nor future damages were recoverable in it. Y.B. 6 Rich. 2, Lincoln's Inn Hale MS. 77, f. 200.

41 Year Book 4 Edward II, 148 (Turner, G. J., ed., 1914).Google Scholar

42 See, e.g., Y.B. 2 Edw. 3, f. 3, pl. 14. See also Herle's remarks in Y.B. 7 Edw. 3, f. 65, pl. 67, where he talks of “perpetual covenants.”

43 See CP/40/482/118; CP/40/484/287v.

44 In Year Book 4 Edward II, 173 (Turner, G. J., ed., 1926)Google Scholar it is admitted that a lease was assigned and in Y.B. 19 Edw. 2, f. 654, the first unnumbered plea, an action is brought by an assignee of an estate for years. In CP/40/475/358v. a lease is said to have been assigned, and assigns are expressly warranted in CP/40/483/512v.

45 Year Book 4 Edward II, 148 (Turner, G. J. ed., 1914).Google Scholar

46 Y.B. 19 Edw. 2, f. 654, the first unnumbered plea.

47 Y.B. 15 Edw. 2, f. 454v., the first unnumbered plea.

48 Y.B. 48 Edw. 3, f. 1, pl. 4.

49 Idem. The exact meaning of Percy's and Finchdean's remarks is not free from doubt.

50 See generally, Thorne, “English Feudalism and Estates in Land” (1959) 17 C.L.J. 193.

51 Year Book 2 & 3 Edward II, 84 (Maitland, F. W., ed., 1904)Google Scholar is an example.

52 One ruse devised to evade the lord's right was to enfeoff the termor in fee “in insurance of the term”; but if the jury found bad faith the lord could enter anyway. See Y.B. 18 Edw. 2, f. 602, the third unnumbered plea, and Y.B. 15 Edw. 2, f. 454v, the first unnumbered plea. For other evasive tactics, see Bean, J. M. W., The Decline of English Feudalism (1968) p. 21Google Scholaret seq. Professor Bean there indicates his belief that the lord's ability to ignore his tenant's leases disappeared in the early fourteenth century.

53 Year Book 2 & 3 Edward II, 84, 87 (Maitland, F. W., ed., 1904)Google Scholar (per Westcote).

54 See the discussion in Y.B. 18 Edw. 2, f. 602, the third unnumbered plea.

55 The lord's ability to oust a termor also probably explains why most leases were for a short term: a long term increases the possibility of the lease being interrupted by the lessor's death. A sampling of plea roll and Year Book cases involving leases reveals the following terms: Two years: CP/40/412/53. Three years: CP/40/552/345. Four years: CP/40/183/512v.; CP/40/287/39. Six years: CP/40/170/99v.; CP/40/387/161; CP/40/503/629v.; Year Book 11 Richard II, 36 (Thornley, I. D., ed., 1937).Google Scholar Seven years: Year Book 6 Edward II, 222 (Vinogradoff, P. & Ehrlich, L., eds., 1918)Google Scholar; CP/40/282/130; CP/40/446/ 136v.; Year Book 11 Richard II, 211 (Thornley, I. D., ed., 1937)Google Scholar; CP/40/475/255. Eight years: Year Book 2 & 3 Edward II, 84 (Maitland, F., ed., 1904)Google Scholar; CP/40/192/231V.; Year Book 10 Edward II, 57 (Legge, M. D. & Holds-worth, W. S., eds., 1935).Google Scholar Ten years: CP/40/176/92v.; Y.B. 19 Edw. 2, f. 654, the first unnumbered plea; Y.B. 40 Edw. 3, f. 5, pl. 11; CP/40/429/496; CP/40/453/ 165; Y.B. 47 Edw. 3, f. 12, pl. 11; Y.B. 38 Edw. 3, f. 33, the second unnumbered plea. Eleven years: CP/40/441/234v. Twelve years: Year Book 6 Edward II, 226 (Vinogradoff, P. & Ehrlich, L., eds., 1918).Google Scholar Thirteen years: Year Book 10 Edward 11, 4 (Legge, M. D. & Holdsworth, W. S., eds., 1935)Google Scholar; CP/40/217/89. Twenty years: Year Book 4 Edward 11, 148 (Turner, G. J., ed., 1914)Google Scholar; Year Book 4 Edward 11, 173 (Turner, G. J., ed., 1926)Google Scholar; Y.B. 19 Edw. 2, f. 642, the second unnumbered plea: CP/40/396/276; CP/40/421/170; Y.B. 47 Edw. 3, f 24, pl. 61; CP/40/465/358v.; CP/40/519/113. Twenty-one years: Y.B. 6 Rich. 2, Lincoln's Inn Hale MS. 77, f. 190v. But see CP/40/482/118 for a lease of 100 years.

56 The provision most frequently employed against termors was the Statute of Gloucester, 6 Edw. I, c 5 (1278).

57 Year Book 4 Edward II, 171 (Turner, G. J., ed., 1926).Google Scholar

58 Idem at 172. An abridged version of the case appears in idem at 192.

59 There was no implied covenant to return the premises in the state in which they had been leased. See Year Book 7 Edward II, 32 (Bolland, W. C., ed., 1922).Google Scholar

60 See, e.g., the leases in CP/40/475/255 and CP/40/483/512v.

61 Year Book 11 Richard II, 36, 37 (Thornley, I. D., ed., 1937).Google Scholar

62 Idem.

63 See, e.g., CP/40/381/161; Y.B. 40 Edw. 3, f. 5, pl. 11.

64 CP/40/387/161.

65 Y.B. 50 Edw. 3, f. 27, the first unnumbered plea is an example.

66 Y.B. 43 Edw. 3, f. 6, pl. 16; cf. Y.B. 49 Edw. 3, f. 1, pl. 1.

67 For discussions, see Y.B. 40 Edw. 3, f. 5, pl. 11

68 In Year Book 11 Richard II, 211 (Thornley, I. D., ed., 1937)Google Scholar, such a covenant was relied on, but when the defendant pleaded an act of God (lightning) the plaintiff traversed, thus avoiding the issue of the legal sufficiency of the plea.

69 Year Book 5 Edward II, 281, 283 (Turner, G. J., ed., 1947).Google Scholar

70 In Year Book 4 Edward II, 102 (Turner, G. J., ed., 1914)Google Scholar, Friskeney tried to maintain that “reversion binds a man to… acquittance” but his view was not accepted.

71 Year Book 5 Edward II, 281, 283 (Turner, G. J., ed., 1947).Google Scholar

72 Idem. See also Y.B. 45 Edw. 3, f. 27, pl. 20 at f. 28, where Finchdean speaks of the duty to acquit in terms of covenant.

73 Year Book 10 Edward II, 2 (Legge, M. D. & Holdsworth, W. S., ed. 1934).Google Scholar

74 Year Book 4 Edward II, 99 (Turner, G. J., ed., 1914)Google Scholar (per Malberthorpe).

75 Y.B. 42 Edw. 3, f. 3, pl. 14.

76 See CP/40/506/120.

77 CP/40/548/306.

78 Y.B. 38 Edw. 3, f. 33, the second unnumbered plea.

79 CP/40/548/306.

80 CP/40/429/495. The specifications were in another indenture which was incorporated by reference into the main indenture setting forth the lease.

81 CP/40/505/400V.

82 CP/40/217/134. See also Year Book 10 Edward II, 4 (Legge, M. D. & Holdsworth, W. S., eds., 1935).Google Scholar

83 CP/40/387/161.

84 Y.B. 8 Edw. 3, f. 47, pl. 28 (per Scrope).

85 The cases in Year Book 12 Edward II, 4 and 86 (Collas, J. P. & Pluck-nett, T. F. T., eds., 1950)Google Scholar, involving rent charges, are indexed as “covenants that run with the land.”

86 CP/40/421/373. See also Y.B. 45 Edw. 3, f. 11, p. 17 at f. 8 (per Kirton).

87 Y.B. 45 Edw. 3, f. 11, p. 17 at f. 8 (per Kirton).

88 CP/40/396/276; Y.B. 38 Edw. 3, f. 33, the second unnumbered plea: CP/40/441/234v. Y.B. 47 Edw. 3, f. 12, pl. 11; Y.B. 47 Edw. 3, f 24, pl. 61; CP/40/475/358v.; CP/40/483/512v.; CP/40/548/306 (life estate).

89 Y.B. 38 Edw. 3, f. 33, the second unnumbered plea (promise not to lease a mill to anyone but a villein of the lessor or a miller); CP/40/441/234v. (covenant against commission of waste); CP/40/548/306 (life estate; covenants to repair and against assignment).

90 See Y.B. 47 Edw. 3, f. 12, pl. 11.

91 CP/40/180/156v.

92 See McGovern, “The Enforcement of Oral Covenants Prior to Assumpsit,” 65 Northwestern L. Rev. 576, 591 et seq., where the author argues convincingly that in the fourteenth century rights of entry were conceived of as covenants and not as rights in rem.

93 KB/27/414/37V.

94 E.g., KB/27/449/88.

95 CP/40/423/134v.

96 See, e.g., Y.B. 40 Edw. 3, f. 37, pl. 11: “… quia habitum religionis assumpsit …”

97 See, e.g., Y.B. 41 Edw. 3, f. 20, pl. 6: “… emprist tenancy del entirety…”

98 See the Statute of Westminster I, 3 Edw. I, c. 25 (1275). The word “covenant” is also used in this statute to describe the agreement between maintainer and litigant.

99 See, e.g., Y.B. 41 Edw. 3, f. 6, pl. 11.

1 Idem.

2 See Y.B. 7 Rich. 2, Lincoln's Inn Hale MS. 77, f. 206: “Similis materia anno sexto regis… ou tiel bref fuit primez maintenable come ieo crey etc.”

3 Y.B. 6 Rich. 2, Lincoln's Inn Hale MS. 77, f. 192.

4 Y.B. 7 Rich. 2, Lincoln's Inn Hale MS. 77, f. 206.

5 See, e.g., CP/40/529/197v.

6 CP/40/548/234V.

7 CP/40/527/410.

8 CP/40/548/157.

9 See, e.g., CP/40/501/485v.

10 See, e.g., CP/40/510/465. I take it this is done in order to allow evidence of the quality of the goods to be submitted to the jury.

11 The idea that a promise was a private law finds occasional expression in the Year Books. See, e.g., Year Book 5 Edward 11, 30, 31 (Turner, G. J. & Plucknett, T. F. T., eds., 1947).Google Scholar

12 I will deal with these fully in my projected volume of fourteenth-century trespass cases now in preparation for the Selden Society.

13 See, e.g., CP/40/547/530.

14 The cases are collected in Fifoot, C. H. S., History and Sources of the Common Law: Tort and Contract (1949), pp. 340–357.Google Scholar

15 KB/27/506/8v.

16 Professor Milsom has urged this point in many of his writings. See e.g., “Reason in the Development of the Common Law” (1964) 81 L.Q.R. 496.Google Scholar

17 A similar point is made in Milsom, “Not Doing is no Trespass: A view of the Boundaries of Case” [1954] C.L.J. 105.

18 Injuria is rendered tort in Year Book French. The transcendant character of the word is illustrated by Westcote's remarks in Year Book 2 & 3 Edward II, 84, 85 (Maitland, F. W., ed., 1904)Google Scholar: “We say that you yourself leased the house etc. and by your deed bound yourself to warrant and defend. That you have not done, and so we do affirm a wrong [ton] in your person, namely a breach of covenant.”