Appendix CASE ONE - Collection Point® | The Total Digital Asset ...

20 Legal History in the Making
case. Initial failure was clearly the result of inaccuracy in presentation, and the
degree of error was too significant for the court to either overlook, or modify
during process - that is, the case could not go forward on the original bill.
The necessity of presenting an accurate case to the court of chancery is
confirmed by eight other bill-pairs in which a failed bill is altered and resubmitted.
The nature of the errors they contain of course varies with their
substance. While it is not possible to ascertain precisely what degree of error
would lead the court of chancery to dismiss a bill - for there was certainly no set
rule to guide such a determination - these cases do give us some understanding
of the type of inaccuracy that was required before this would happen.
Inaccuracy concerning a will governing the devolution of certain goods and
chattels caused failure in the first of these eight examples. The petitioner initially
described the central document as a last will sealed with the seal of the testator,
and complained of the subsequent forgery of a new will, the removal of the seal
and its affixation to the forgery. Unfortunately for him, although the specific
document in question was indeed a last will, it was in fact sewn to the testator's
testament and the two were sealed not with the testator's seal, but with that of
the archdeacon of Norwich. It is this seal that the respondents had removed and
placed on the forgery. Thus while the petitioner may have been correct about a
forgery having been made and a seal having been misused, his errors with regard
to the details of the matter caused his case to fail. 16
Several bills concerning enfeoffments to use failed on substantive grounds
for a number of reasons. In one example the cause was a mistake as to whether
the feoff or had been seised alone, or with another person, for this significantly
affected the subsequent claim of failure to re-enfeoff. 17 Another bill concerning
a use failed not only because of a number of simple errors, such as describing
feoffees as feoffors, but also because of outright contradiction with respect to
the petitioner's role in selling the property in question. 18 A third case involving
a use also failed upon error in the description of a sale. This time, the petitioner
presented himself initially as the preferred buyer, whereas the correct provisions
governing the use allowed him the property as of right and for a sum such as
might be accorded with the executors. So again, we see here a petitioner who
was apparently well and truly in the right in terms of the crucial issue at stake,
but who mis-stated the facts of his position. 19
In a category of its own, outright error in the identification of the respondent
was in one case clearly sufficient for dismissal. 20 More complex reasons may,
however, be discerned for cases concerning copyhold and coparcenery. In the
copyhold case, the error lay in presenting the lord as having seized the holding
permanently, and in asking for his summons as respondent. This was rectified
16 Fraunceys v. Gayrstang (C1/9 nos.285,286).
17 Dawe v. Tanner, Monke, Balhorn, Ede (C 1/9 nos.270, 269).
18 Godfray v. Middelton, Shippe, London (C 1/9 nos.103,102).
19 Besyles v. Somerton (C 1/9 nos.128,127).
20 Abraham v. Abraham (C 1/9 nos.193,192).