Catalogue description Palatinate of Durham: Chancery Court: Pleadings

This series consists of bills, answers and related pleadings filed in the Chancery Court of Durham from 1576 until 1840. As in other equity courts cases brought before the Durham Chancery were initiated by a complaint in the form of a written petition by the plaintiff alleging some wrongful action on the part of another party (the defendant). Bills were written according to a recognised formula and were addressed to the temporal Chancellor of Durham (not to be confused with the Chancellor of the diocese). In the bill the plaintiff usually sought from the court a writ (subpoena ad respondendum) requiring the defendant to appear personally before the court and make an answer to the accusations in the bill.

By the mid fifteenth century the answer, which in earlier times had been given orally, was submitted in written form. By the seventeenth century it was common for defendants to make their answers before commissioners sent to their locality for that purpose. At times the commission issued by the court, in Latin until 1733, has survived, attached to the answer made by the defendant. Answers so made were often signed by the commissioners. By the nineteenth century an answer was usually signed by the defendant making it.

It was also possible to reply to a bill of complaint by way of a demurrer, a plea or a disclaimer. A demurrer challenged the jurisdiction of the court to properly hear the case. A plea raised an objection based on a point of law which if established by the court made an answer to the bill unnecessary. A disclaimer was a statement by the defendant that he or she had no legal interest in the matter raised in the bill, and was thus being wrongfully pursued.

In reply to the defendant's answer the plaintiff usually filed a replication, which the defendant countered with a rejoinder. These statements were either general refutations of the opponent's case or carefully crafted pleadings which answered the adversary point for point, often developing their own case at the same time. Neither replications or rejoinders however could be used to introduce entirely new matters. Very rarely the plaintiff replied for a second time with a surrejoinder which in turn could be countered by a rebutter from the defendant.

It was possible for the court to reject a defendant's answer as being insufficient. This was usually only done in response to a motion by the plaintiff. In support of this request the plaintiff would exhibit in the court a list of exceptions to the defendant's answer prepared by his legal advisors. Since the court would not accept a formal pleading of exception few have survived. However there are a number in this series.

Bills were nearly always signed by the legal counsel involved in drafting them. Answers etc were often signed by legal counsel and all pleadings presented to the court were signed by the official receiving them with the date they were delivered into the court. This practice makes it possible to date suits even though the date was not included in the form of any of the pleadings.

After the claims and counterclaims of the pleadings were finished, the court commissioned a number of men to take evidence from witnesses called by both parties. Lists of questions, called interrogatories, were drawn up by both parties in the dispute. These were then put to the witnesses and their answers, known as depositions, were carefully recorded by a clerk. These depositions were not normally filed with the pleadings. However, in the early nineteenth century the files of bills, answers and related pleadings also include some depositions, usually with the originating commission and the set of interrogatories attached. The commissioners and the clerk involved in administering the interrogatories were required to swear an oath of impartiality and copies of those oaths sent out by the court sometimes survive with the other documents.

It should be noted that bills and answers always present a highly subjective view of the matter in dispute as they are the creations of the parties involved. It is difficult to draw firm conclusions from either party's pleadings in isolation. Cases dealt with in the Chancery Court usually related to disputes over lands, inheritance, debts and family financial matters. A large number of cases related to the revenues of the bishops of Durham, while the enclosure of common lands also provided business for the court.

Indexed in: IND 1/8849

Durham Chancery Court, 1836-1971

Palatinate of Durham, Chancery Court, 1333-1836