''Heydon's Case'' (1584

is considered a landmark case: it was the first case to use what would come to be called the mischief rule of statutory interpretation. 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 College, a religious college, gave a tenancy in a manor also called Ottery to a man, Ware, and his son, also referred to as Ware. They are referred to in the case report as "Ware the father and Ware the son".England and Wales High Court (Exchequer Court)
Heydon's Case (1584)
EWHC Exch J36 (1 January 1584), paragraph 2, accessed 17 December 2022 The tenancy was established by

copyhold Copyhold was a form of customary land ownership common from the Late Middle Ages into modern times in England. The name for this type of land tenure is derived from the act of giving a copy of the relevant title deed that is recorded in the ...

. Ware and his son held their copyhold for their lives, subject to the will of the lord and the custom of the manor. The Wares’ copyhold was part of a parcel also occupied by some tenants at will. Later, the college 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 Suppression of Religious Houses Act 1535 (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 in the Act kept in force, for a term of life, any grants that had been made more than a year before 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.

Significance of the case

The ruling was based on an important discussion of the relationship of a statute to the pre-existing

common law In law, common law (also known as judicial precedent, judge-made law, or case law) is the body of law created by judges and similar quasi-judicial tribunals by virtue of being stated in written opinions."The common law is not a brooding omniprese ...

. The court concluded that the purpose of the statute was to cure a mischief resulting from a defect in the common law. Therefore, the court concluded, the remedy of the statute was limited to curing that defect. Judges are supposed to construe statutes by seeking the true intent of the makers of the Act, which is presumed to be ''

pro bono publico ( en, 'for the public good'), usually shortened to , is a Latin phrase for professional work undertaken voluntarily and without payment. In the United States, the term typically refers to provision of legal services by legal professionals for pe ...

'', or intent for the public good.

Lord Coke Lord is an appellation for a person or deity who has authority, control, or power over others, acting as a master, chief, or ruler. The appellation can also denote certain persons who hold a title of the peerage in the United Kingdom, or a ...

described the process through which the court must interpret legislation:

Notes

References

{{reflist

External links

Full text from BAILII.orgText of judgment
from Libertyfund.org 1584 in English law 1584 in England English interpretation case law Edward Coke cases Exchequer of Pleas cases

Facts of the case

Significance of the case

See also

Notes

References

External links