No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
An historical Background to Re Harrison1
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 January 2009
From the standpoint of jurisprudence of any court should be perfected immediately after the judge has pronounced his decision. Unfortunately this ideal is not easily attainable in practice, and least of all in a court of equity. In the Chancery Division of the High Court the elaborate procedure built up by the old Court of Chancery for perfecting orders still remains virtually unchanged; and so far as the reported cases go the court had never been required until the recent case of Re Harrison,1 to decide at what moment in time its decision becomes irrevocable. put very shortly the point at issue in this case was whether a judge of the Chancery Division has power of his own motion to alter or reverse (before the judgment has been entered) an oral and decisive judgment given in open court.
2 [1954] 2 W.L.R. 723.
3 Sanders Orders. p. 7c.
4 Cal. Pat. Rolls, Edw. VI, ii, p. 3.
5 These documents which came to be described. rather inappropriately as “docquets” are preserved in the Public Record Office, but have never been arranged. The earliest I have seen is dated 1630; whether in fact they are preserved since 1534 is doubtful.
6 Cal. State Papers, 1637. p. 561.
7 1 & 2 Edw. VI, Reg. Lib. B, Fo. 60.
8 8 Decree Rolls, P.R.O.C. 78. No. 34 on roll.
9 1 Edw. VI, Reg. Lib. A. Fo. 144.
10 1714 edition, p. 123.
11 Sanders Orders. P. 265; and also Parlt. Papers. 1826, XV, App. A, p. 47.
12 1 Edw. VI, Reg. Lib. A. Fo. 173.
13 Sanders Orders, I. p. 9.
14 Decree Roll P.R.O. Edw. VI, 5th Part, No. 11 on roll.
15 Cal. Pat. Rolls, Edw. VI. iv, p. 154.
16 4 & 5 P. & M. Reg. Lib. A. Fo. 93: Decree Roll P.R.O.C. 78'12 No. 39.
17 Cock v. Penrodocke, 2 & 3 Eliz. Reg. Lib. A, Fo. 50.
18 Harrison's Practice in Chancery (1767) p. 104.
19 16& 17 Jac. I. Reg. Lib. A. Fo. 1358.
20 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 94, s. 10. By the same Act the deputy registers were reconstituted as registrars; the offices of register had lapsed at the beginning of the century.
21 Consol. Orders 23, rule 10.