|
''Heydon's Case'' (1584) (76 ER 637 ), Pasch 26 Eliz, plea began 20 Eliz Rot 140, is a landmark case. The case is considered a landmark because it was the first case to use what would come to be called the mischief rule for the interpretation of statutes. The mischief rule is more flexible than the Golden or Literal rule, in that the mischief rule requires judges to look over four tasks to ensure that gaps within the law are covered. ==Facts of the case== This is a construction of leases, life estates, and statutes. Ottery,〔Some editions of Lord Coke's works given the name of the college and manor as "Otlery"〕 a religious college, gave a tenancy in a manor also called “Ottery” to a man (named in the case report simply as "Ware") and his son, also referred to as Ware. The tenancy was established by copyhold, an ancient device for giving a parcel of a manor to a tenant, usually in return for agricultural services, which was something like a long-running lease with special privileges for each party. Ware and his son held their copyhold to have for their lives, subject to the will of the lord and the custom particular to that manor. The Wares’ copyhold was in a parcel also occupied by some tenants at will. Later, the college then leased the same parcel to another man, named Heydon, for a period of eighty years in return for rents equal to the traditional rent for the components of the parcel. Less than a year after the parcel had been leased to Heydon, Parliament enacted the ''Act of Dissolution''. The statute had the effect of dissolving many religious colleges, including Ottery College, which lost its lands and rents to Henry VIII. However, a provision the Act kept in force, for a term of life, any grants made more than a year prior to the enactment of the statute. The Court of Exchequer found that the grant to the Wares was protected by the relevant provision of the ''Act of Dissolution'', but that the lease to Heydon was void. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Heydon's Case」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|