The Earl of Oxford’s Case (1615) 1 Ch Rep 1 (21 ER 485)

Facts/background: The dispute concerned a conveyance of land (a portion of Magdalene College, Cambridge) to Queen Elizabeth I. The Masters of the College transferred the land to Queen Elizabeth I, unaware of the provisions of a statute (the Ecclesiastical Leases Act 1571 13 Eliz c 10) which meant that this lease had not complied with the legal requirements. The Queen then granted the land to Benedict Spinola who then sold it on to the Earl of Oxford. The Earl built a number of houses upon the land, and one house was leased to John Warren. In time, the new Master of Magdalene College (Barnabas Gooch), having examined the provisions of the statute, realised that the initial lease was void. He then argued that he was entitled to lease the land to John Smith. Warren brought an action in the common law court for Smith to be ejected (i.e. remove him from the property).

Held (at trial): The jury upheld the conveyance to the Queen. 

Held (King’s Bench; Lord Coke CJ): Overturned the decision. The Queen was subject to the Act. The original transfer of the land from the College to the Queen was void. Title had not passed from the college so Warren could not eject Smith. 

Following the King’s Bench decision, the Earl of Oxford bought an action before the court of chancery. The Earl has spent considerable sums of money in developing the land (i.e. by building the houses) and had granted interest to his various tenants on the face of the title.

Held (Chancery, Lord Ellesmere LC): Issued a common injunction prohibiting the common law order from being enforced. The consequence of this was that the Earl of Oxford and his tenants (Warren) were not impacted by the statute.

Despite the ruling in the court of chancery, the master of Cambridge College refused to accept rent from Mr Warren and subsequently petitioned the King for confirmation that the court of chancery’s position was binding. King James I ruled in favour of Lord Ellesmere’s decision in the Court of Chancery (i.e. confirms the position of the court of chancery and confirms principles of equity over principles prevailing in common law courts). 

King James I ruling: “When their case deserveth to be relieved in course of equity by suit in our Court of Chancery, they should not be abandoned and exposed to perish under the rigor and extremity of our laws…we ... do approve, ratifie and confirm, as well the practice of our Court of Chancery”. 

Principle: The effect of King James I’s ruling was that where the rules of the common law and chancery (equity) conflict, equity shall prevail. In cases of conflict, equity is the superior jurisdiction. 

Note: By the end of the eighteenth century, the relationship between common law and equity was settled, and equity was said to be a ‘gloss’ on the common law, modifying the common law where the enforcement of legal rights was harsh or oppressive, but not claiming to be a parallel or rival system of law.