The arguments of the Right Honourable, the late Lord Chancellor Nottingham …

NOTTINGHAM, Heneage Finch, Earl of. The arguments of the Right Honourable, the late Lord Chancellor Nottingham, upon which he made the decree in the cause between the Honourable Charles ….

Regular price
£300.00
Sale price
£300.00
Tax included. Shipping calculated at checkout.

NOTTINGHAM, Heneage Finch, Earl of. The arguments of the Right Honourable, the late Lord Chancellor Nottingham, upon which he made the decree in the cause between the Honourable Charles Howard, Esq; plaintiff; Henry late Duke of Norfolk, Henry Lord Mowbrey his son, Henry Marquess of Dorchester, and Richard Marriott, Esq; defendants: wherein the several wayes and methods of limiting the trust of a term for years, are fully debated. London: George Tatarshall, Esq; of Finchamsted in the county of Berks. 1685.

Folio. Modern quarter with marbled sides, spine lettered directly in gilt; pp. [2], 34, woodcut initials and headpiece; a few spots, last leave slightly soiled, but generally very good.

First edition of the arguments presented by Heneage Finch, first Earl of Nottingham (1621-1682) and Lord Chancellor of England, in the Duke of Norfolk’s Case - an important House of Lords judgment that established the common law rule against perpetuities.

The Duke of Norfolk’s Case (1682) 3 Ch Cas 1; 22 ER 931 involved a dispute between two sons of Henry Frederick Howard, twenty-second Earl of Arundel (1608-1652): Charles Howard (d. 1713), the plaintiff, and Henry Howard, sixth Duke of Norfolk (1628-1684), the defendant, along with his son Henry Howard (1655-1701), Marquess of Dorchester and later seventh Duke of Norfolk. The Earl of Arundel had attempted to arrange his inheritance so that part of his estate would pass from his eldest son, Thomas (who was mentally deficient), to his second son, Henry, and then from Henry to Charles. However, when Henry inherited Thomas’s portion, he refused to transfer any property to Charles, who subsequently sued.
The Earl of Nottingham, who decided the case, ruled that such a condition could not be imposed indefinitely, though the precise duration of the rule was not settled until 150 years later.

ESTC R30748

#2120688