Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T03:12:03.566Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Contractual Penalties in the King’s Court 1260–1360

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2005

Joseph Biancalana
Get access

Extract

Clauses that provided fixed monetary penalties first appeared in English contracts and conveyances in the first decade of the thirteenth century. Rather quickly thereafter penalty clauses came to be used in a wide variety of contracts and conveyances. They were used in (1) agreements over tithes, (2) settlement of disputes, (3) arbitration agreements, (4) agreements to transfer or not to transfer land, (5) marriage property agreements, (6) warranties of title to land, (7) leases, (8) agreements to pay rents and annuities, loans, and in a variety of other transactions. The penalty clause was just another clause in the agreement. At about the middle of the thirteenth century other methods of inserting a penalty clause into an agreement began to be used. A penalty clause could be made part of a recognizance on the plea rolls, the Exchequer rolls, or the Chancery rolls. The recognizance itself could be a penalty to enforce a side agreement. A money bond could serve as a penalty rendered void if the terms of a separate, conditional acquittance were met. A bond or a statute merchant could be given to a third party under an agreement to give the bond or statute merchant to the promisee if the promisor failed to carry out his agreement. By 1348 the penal bond with conditional defeasance endorsed on the back of the bond had been invented.

Type
Articles
Information
The Cambridge Law Journal , Volume 64 , Issue 1 , 24 March 2005 , pp. 212 - 242
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

I am grateful to John Baker, Paul Brand, Charles Donahue, Paul Hyams, David Ibbetson, Robert Palmer, Susan Reynolds and David Snyder for discussing various aspects of this paper with me. Versions of this paper have been presented at the University of Chicago Law School, Indiana University School of Law—Bloomington, the 2002 Sewanee Medieval Colloquium, and the 2003 Annual Meeting of the American Society for Legal History. I thank the audiences at those presentations for their patience, comments, and criticisms. I am also grateful to Paul Brand for providing me transcriptions of the plea roll records or unpublished reports of a number of cases. I have identified these cases by inserting his name parenthetically after the relevant citations.

The following abbreviations are used:

Abbot Samson: The Kalendar of Abbot Samson of Bury St. Edmunds and Related Documents (R.H.C. Davis, ed., Camden Soc., 3rd ser., vol. 84, 1954).

Abingdon: Two Cartularies of Abingdon Abbey (G. Lambrick & C.F. Slade, eds., 1965).

Basset Charters: Basset Charters 1120-1250, Nos. 17, 205, 284 (W.T Reedy, ed., Pipe Roll Soc., vol. 50 n.s., 1995).

Beauchamp: The Beauchamp Cartulary Charters 1110-1268 (E. Mason, ed., Pipe Roll Soc., vol. 43 n.s., 1980).

Beaulieu: The Beaulieu Cartulary (S.F. Hockey, ed., 1974).

Blyth: The Cartulary of Blyth Priory, No. 467 (R.T. Timson, ed., 1973).

Blythburgh: Blythburgh Priory Cartulary (C. Harper-Bill, ed., Suffolk Rec. Soc., 1980-1981). Cartularium: Cartularium Saxonicum (W. De Grey Birch, ed., 4 vols., 1885-1899). Chatteris: The Cartulary of Chatteris Abbey (C. Bray, ed., 1999).

Codex Diplomaticus: Codex Diplomaticus Aevi Saxonici (J. M. Kemble, ed., 1839-1849. Coventry: Records of Medieval Coventry (P.R. Coss, ed., 1986).

Creake: A Cartulary of Creake Abbey (A.L. Bedingfeld, ed., Norfolk Rec. Soc., vol. 35, 1966). Dale: The Cartulary of Dale Abbey, No. 208 (A. Saltman, ed., 1967).

Eynsham: Eynsham Cartulary, (H.E. Salter, ed., 1907).

Frideswide: The Cartulary of the Monastery of St. Frideswide's (S.R. Wilgram, ed., Oxford Hist. Soc., vols. 28 & 31, 1895 & 1896).

Gloucester: Historia et Cartularium Monasterii Sancti Petri Gloucestriae (W.H. Hart, ed. 3 vols., 1863-1867).

God's House: The Cartulary of God's House, Southampton (J.M. Kaye, ed., 1976).

Haughmond: The Cartulary of Haughmond Abbey, Nos. 990, 1078, 1091, 1178 (U. Rees, ed., Shropshire Archeological Soc., 1985).

Langley: The Langley Cartulary (P.R. Coss, ed., Dugdale Soc., vol. 32, 1990).

Lincoln: The Registrum Antiquissimum of the Cathedral Church of Lincoln (K. Major, ed., Lincoln Rec. Soc., 1931-1973).

Luffield: Luffield Priory Charters (C.R. Elvey, ed., Nortants Rec. Soc., vol. 22, 1968).

Malmesbury: Registrum Malmburiense, The Register of Malmesbury Abbey (J.S. Brewer, ed. 2 vols., 1879-1880).

Medieval Miscellany: P.M. Barnes & C.F. Slade, eds., A Medieval Miscellany for Doris Mary Stanton, No. 17, p. 185 (Pipe Roll Soc., vol. 36 n.s., 1962).

Norwich: The Charter of Norwich Cathedral Priory (B. Dodwell, ed., Pipe Roll Soc., vol. 46 n.s., 1985).

Oseney: Cartulary of Oseney Abbey (H.E. Salter, ed., Oxford Hist. Soc., 1925-1936).

Pyel & Fraunceys: A Calendar of the Cartularies of John Pyel and Adam Fraunceys (S.J. O’Connor, ed., Camden Soc. 5th Ser., vol. 2, 1993).

Ramsey: Cartularium Monasterii de Rameseia (W.H. Hart & P.A. Lyons, eds, 1884-1893). Reading: Reading Abbey Cartularies (B.R. Kemp, ed., Camden Soc. 31-33 n.s., 1986-1987). Regesta: Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum (vol. 1: H.W.C. Davis, ed., 1912; vol. 2: C.J.

Johnson, H.A. Cronne, H.W.C. Davis, eds., 1956; vol. 3: H.A. Cronne, R.H.C. Davis, eds., 1968).

Rievaulx: Cartularium Abbathiae de Rievalle (J.C. Atkinson, ed., Surtees Soc., vol. 87, 1887). St. John: Cartulary of the Hospital of St. John the Baptist (H.E. Salter, ed., 1964).

St. Paul: Early Charters of the Cathedral of St. Paul, London (M. Gibbs, ed., Camden Soc., 3rd ser., vol. 58, 1939).

Salisbury: Charters and Documents Illustrating the History of the Cathedral, city and Diocese of Salsbury (W.D. Macray, ed., 1891).

Worcester: The Cartulary of Worcester Cathedral Priory (R.D. Darlington, ed., Pipe Roll Soc., vol. 38 n.s., 1968).

References

1 St. Paul, No. 137; Beaulieu, No. 35; Abbot Samson, No. 130. A few Anglo Saxon charters had monetary penalty clauses: Codex Diplomaticus, Nos. 761, 769; Cartularium Saxonicum, Nos. 135, 872 . Codex Diplomaticus, No. 761 is “generally acknowledged to be spurious”: F.E. Harmer, Anglo-Saxon Writs (Manchester 1952), 434-35. Three Anglo-Saxon writs threatened the “full penalty” for anyone who interfered with the royal protection granted by the writ: Harmer, Writs, Nos. 39, 62, 79. After the Conquest, royal charters and writs that granted privileges frequently threatened those who interfered with the granted privileges with a monetary penalty. E.g., Regesta, Vol. 1, No. 36; Regesta, Vol. 2, Nos. 568, 923, 1145, 1265, 1513, 1725, 1788, 1814, 1840; Regesta, Vol. 3, Nos. 8, 108, 227, 283, 456, 558, 661, 868; Gloucester, Vol. 1, Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9; Gloucester, Vol. 2, Nos. 545, 552, 656; Ramsey, Vol. 1, No. 189; C[alendar of] C[lose] R[olls] 1231-1234, p. 109; C[alendar of[ P[atent] R[olls] 12321247, pp. 363-64. Clauses that provided for escalating, monetary penalties were used in Jewish bonds as early as the twelfth century. H.G. Richardson, The English Jewry under Angevin Kings (London 1960), 242-44, 246, 248-53, 254-56, 257-78 (1960); V.D. Lipman, The Jews of Medieval Norwich (London 1967), 284, 288, 293, 298, 300, 302, 307-08 (1967); Oseney, Vol. 1, Nos. 383, 384. Italian money lenders in the thirteenth century also used escalating penalties: Rievaulx, 409-410; Mathew Paris, Chronica Majoria, Vol. 3, 328-31 (H.R. Luard, ed., 1876); JUST 1/914, m.3 (Sussex, 1279).

2 Eynsham, Vol. 1, No. 287; Oseney, Vol. 4, Nos. 128, 128C, 322; Vol. 5, Nos. 533, 605B, 850; Malmesbury, Vol. 2, Nos. 143, 157; Blythburgh, Vol. 2, 404; Salisbury, No. 231; Reading, Vol. 2, No. 786 .

3 CCR 1288-1296, pp. 124-25 (1290); Charter Rolls, Vol. 1, p. 53 (1227); Eynsham, Vol. 1, Nos. 198, 444; Beaulieu, Nos. 77, 256, 407; Oseney, Vol. 4, Nos. 70, 144, 445; Vol. 5, Nos. 585, 868B; Abingdon, Vol. 1, Nos. L157, L488, Vol. 2, Nos. C36, C333 ; Frideswide, Vol. 2, No. 1135; St. John, Vol. 1, No. 388; Reading, Vol. 2, No. 784; Luffield, Vol. 1, No. 62 ; Blyth, No. 467 ; Rievaulx, No. 243; Worcester, No. 386; Norwich, Vol. 2, Nos. 206, 327; Coventry, Nos. 429, 691.

4 CCR 1264-1268, pp. 529-30 (1268); Oseney, Vol. 2, No. 795; KB 26/202, m.45d (1271); JUST 1/1067, m.58d (Yorkshire, 1279-1280); CP 40/80, m.186, C.U.L. MS. Dd VIII 14, f.241r (M 1289) (Brand); CP 40/86, m.238d (M 1290); CP 40/93, mm.16d, 136 (P 1292); CP 40/96, m.59 (M 1292); Scott v. Beracre, 27 SS 23 (Kent, 1313-1314); Y.B. 16(2) Edw. III (RS), p. 118 (1342); Y.B. 18-19 Edw. III (RS), p. 460 (1345). Arbitral awards also imposed penalties for noncompliance: CPR 1272-1281, pp. 129-31 (1276); God’s House, No. 120.

5 The agreement could be to make a conveyance. B.L. Harley Charters 43, G. 50; Creake, No. 144; Langley, Nos. 169 & 173; Coventry, No. 765; Beaulieu, No. 15; Abingdon, Vol. 2, No. C132; 18 CRR, No. 653B (1243); CCR 1268-1272, pp. 143-49 (1269); CCR 1272-1279, p. 430 (1276), p. 491 (1278); CCR 1279-1288, p. 113 (1280), pp. 303-04 (1289); JUST 1/787, m.8 (Hampshire, 1280-1281); JUST 1/802, m.33d (Staffordshire, 1272); KB 26/169, m.42d (1260); CP 40/80, m.71 (M 1289); CP 40/91, m.106 (M 1291); JUST 1/315, m.82 (Kent, 1293-1294); CP 40/125, m.81, B.L. Add. MS. 37657, f.f. 111r-112v, B.L. Add. MS. 31826, f. 153 (M 1298); CP 40/133, m.153 (P 1300); CP 40/138, m.111d (P 1301); CP 40/146, m.121 (H 1303); CP 40/153, m.133 (M 1305); CP 40/196, m.200 (H 1313); B.L. Harley MS. 25, f. 180v. To levy a final concord: 18 CRR, No. 578 (T 1242); CCR 1272-1279, pp. 86-87 (1274), 121-22 (1274), 581-82 (1279); CCR 1279-1288, p. 57; Langley, No. 554; JUST 1/416, m.28 (Lincolnshire, 1292); JUST 1/805,m.34 (Staffordshire, 1293); CP 40/91, m.89 (M 1291); CP 40/92, m.28 (H 1292); CP 40/96, m.200 (M 1292); CP 40/138, m.134d (P 1301); CP 40/148, m.98 (T 1303); CP 40/162, m.195, B.L. Hargrave MS. 375, f. 178r (H 1307); CP 40/182, m.255d (T 1310); CP 40/192, m.173 (P 1312).

To make a release: Pyel & Fraunceys, Nos. 618-19; Y.B. Hil. 2 Edw. III, f. 18, pl. 24 (1328); Y.B. 22 Edw. III (RS), p. 484 (1343). To obtain seigneurial confirmation of transfer: J.C. Holt, Willoughby Deeds, in Medieval Miscellany, p. 185.

For penalties in agreements not to alienate land see, CCR 1272-1279, pp. 112-13 (1273); CCR 1279-1288, p. 52 (1280); CCR 1288-1296, p. 393 (1294); B.L. Harley Charters 47, H.53; Langley, No. 442; Oseney, Vol. 2, No. 923; Beauchamp, Nos. 99, 100; Y.B.14-15 Edw. III (RS), p. 14 (1339), 68 (1340); Y.B. 16(2) Edw. III (RS), p. 132 (1342); Y.B. Mich. 26 Edw. III, f. 20, pl. 23 (1352).

6 Harley, B.L. Charter 53. B. 4; Calendar of Charter Rolls, Vol. 1, pp. 438-39 (1255)Google Scholar; Calendar of Charter Rolls, Vol. 2, pp. 121-22 (1269); CCR 1272-1279, pp. 487-88 (1278); CCR 12791288, pp. 67-68 (1280); CCR 1288-1296, p. 144 (1290); Langley, No. 81; CP 40/62, m.59d (P 1286); CP 40/80, m.71 (M 1289); CP 40/106, m.120 (M 1294); CP 40/121, m.295 (M 1297); CP 40/144, m.236d (M 1302); CP 40/158, m.188d (H 1306); CP 40/231, m.89d (M 1320); B.L. Hale MS. 25, f. 182v. For penalty clauses in marriage agreements see 19 CRR, No. 1738 (1250); CCR 1247-1258, pp. 237-38 (1253); CCR 1268-1272, pp. 284-85 (1270); CCR 12721279, p. 41 (1273), p. 248-49 (1275); CCR 1279-1288, pp. 67-68 (1280).

7 CCR 1272-1279, pp. 511-12 (1278); Coventry, No. 45, 228, 229; Chatteris, No. 171; Worcester, No. 113; St. Paul, No. 137; Langley, Nos. 84, 108, 437; Lincoln, Vol. 10, Nos. 2754, 2967; Reading, Vol. 1, No. 305; Reading, Vol. 2, No. 1084; Blyth, No. 383. Rievaulx, No. 145. JUST 1/1062, m.45 (Yorkshire, 1279-81); CP 40/138, m.83d (H 1301); CP 40/198, m.47d (T 1303); Y.B. Pas. 26 Edw. III, f.1, pl.2 (1352).

8 CPR 1266-1272, pp. 483-84 (1276); CCR 1272-1279, pp. 112-13 (1273); CCR 1288-1296, pp. 248-49 (1291); Calendar of Charter Rolls, Vol. 2, p. 165 (1271); Langley, Nos. 124, 216 , 471; Coventry, Nos. 522, 720; Oseney, Vol. 1, No. 7; Norwich, No. 80; Lincoln, Vol. 4, No. 1185; Vol. 7, No. 2153; 15 CRR, No. 1379 (1235); CP 40/60, m.135 (1285); JUST 1/622, m.52d (Northamptonshire, 1285); CP 40/75, m.38d (1288); Y.B. 21-22 Edw. I (RS), p. 110 (1293); Hofoft v. Rychemund, Y.B. Mich. 4 Edw. II, 12 SS 199 (1310); CP 40/196, m.146 (1313); B.L. Egerton MS. 2811, f.342v-343r; CP 40/201, m.365d (M 1314); Y.B. Mich. 3 Edw. III, f.30, pl.38 (1329); Y.B. Mich. 5 Edw. III, f.45, pl. 46 (1331); Y.B. 16(2) Edw. III (RS), p. 408 (1342); Y.B. (RS) 20(2) Edw. III, p. 424 (1346); Y.B. Mich. 22 Edw. III, f.12, pl.21 (1348).

9 Harley Charter 44.A.6; Haughmond; Basset Charters; Chatteris, No. 187; Beaulieu, No. 20; Langley, No. 304; Lincoln, Vol. 4, No. 1399; Vol. 7 No. 2077; Oseney, Vol. 2, No. 1013; Vol. 5 No. 884; Coventry, No. 613; Malmesbury, Vol. 2, Nos. 90, 225; Reading, Vol. 1, No. 468; Vol. 2 No. 1087; Gloucester, Vol. 2, Nos. 609, 805; Abingdon, Vol. 2, No. C172; Abbot Samson, No. 130; Lincoln, Vol. 9, No. 2407; Pyel & Fraunceys, Nos. 28-31-34-36, 126, 147-148-150, 157-158-59.

10 E.g., Frideswide, Vol. 1, No. 303; Oseney, Vol. 3, Nos. 1237; 1238; Coventry, No. 715; CPR 12471258, p. 521 (1256); CPR 1256-1266, p. 676 (1266), p. 675 (1266); CPR 1266-1272, pp. 293-94 (1268); CPR 1272-1281, p. 265 (1278); CCR 1253-1254, pp. 311-12 (1254); CCR 1254-1256, pp. 182-83 (1255); CCR 1256-1259, p. 493 (1259); CCR 1259-1261, pp. 463-64 (1261); CCR 12641268, pp. 251-53 (1266), pp. 378-79 (1267), pp. 380-81 (1267), p. 389 (1267), pp. 351-92 (1267); CCR 1268-1272, pp. 557-58 (1272); CCR 1272-1279, pp. 343-44 (1276); CCR 1279-1288, p. 195 (1282); CP 40/96, m.227 (M 1292); CP 40/104, m.14d (P 1294); CP 40/106, m.155 (M 1294); CP 40/189, m.202 (M 1312); CP 40/189, m.445d (M 1312); CP 40/219, m.43 (T 1317); Y.B. Pas. 5 Edw. III, f.17, pl.15 (1331); Y.B. Pas. 7 Edw. III, f.15,pl. 11 (1333).

11 Bailments: Umfraville v. Lonstede, Y.B. 2 Edw. II, 19 SS 58 (1308-09); Y.B. Pas. 12 Edw. II, f. 379 (1319). Contracts of retainer: CP 40/170, m.94 (P 1308); CP 40/190, m.32d (H 1312); Y.B. Trin. 7 Edw. II, f.29, pl.23 (1333). Supply contract: Gloucester, Vol. 2, No. 811. Corrodies: 1 Oseney, Vol. 1, No. 22; CP 40/183, m.308d (M 1310). Support of a choir: Lincoln, Vol. 2, No. 448. Not to build in a cemetery: St. Paul, No. 129.

12 18 CRR, Nos. 744, 784 (1243); E159/20, m.14d (1241-1242); E159/33, m.3d (1259); E159/34, m.6 (1259-1260); E159/40, m.15d (1266); CPR 1272-1281, p. 765 (1278); CCR 1256-1259, p. 126 (1257).

13 JUST 1/956, m.4d (Worcestershire, 1285) (I owe this reference to Paul Brand.); E159/33, mm.15d, 20 (1259-1260); E159/34, mm.9, 10 (1261); E159/36, m.5d (1261-1262); CCR 12641268, pp. 511-12 (1268); CCR 1279-1288, pp. 191-92 (1282); CCR 1302-1307, p. 317 (1305).

14 CP 40/75, m.28d (M1288); JUST 1/652, m.37 (Northumberland, 1293); CP 40/148, m.47d (T1303); CP 40/231, mm.89d, 257d (M1320).

15 Bond: CP 40/91, m.89 (M1291); CP 40/93, M.137 (P1292); CP 40/96, mm.59, 200 (M1292); CP 40/106, mm.120, 155 (M1294). Statute Merchant: CP 40/138, m.134d (P1301); CP 40/189, m.202 (M1312).

16 St. John, No. 416 (1348).

17 King: CPR 1266-1272, pp. 483-84 (1270); CCR 1272-79, pp. 343-44 (1276); CCR 1279-1288, p. 195 (1282); CCR 1288-1296, p. 137 (1290); Charter Rolls, Vol. 2, p. 165 (1271); 18 CRR, No. 653B (1243); 18 CRR No. 744 (1243); Frideswide, Vo. 1, No. 303; Oseney, Vol. 5, No. 879E.

Richard of Cornwall: Langley, No. 22. Sheriff: CCR 1268-1272, pp. 557-58 (1272); CCR 1272-1279, pp. 351-52 (1276). Bishop: Norwich, Vol. 2, No. 206; Dale, No. 208. Archdeacon: Malmesbury, Vol. 2, No. 455; Blyth, No. 457.

18 Fabric of a church: E159/34, m.6 (1259-1260); KB 26/169, m.6 (1260); CPR 1258-1266, p. 676 (1266); CPR 1266-1272, pp. 293-94 (1268); CCR 1253-1254, p. 312 (1254); CCR 12541256, pp. 182-83 (1255); Coventry, Nos. 228, 229, 691, 720; Eynsham, Vol. 1, No. 575; Gloucester, Vol. 2, No. 805; Blyth, No. 467; Reading, Vol. 2, No. 1235; Lincoln, Vol. 2, No. 448; Lincoln, Vol. 4, No. 1399; Lincoln, Vol. 7, No. 2077; Oseney, Vol. 3, No. 237 (1254). Holy Land: CCR 1288-1296, pp. 248 49 (1282); Coventry, Nos. 522, 714; Oseney, Vol. 2, No. 1238; Malmesbury, Vol. 2, No. 455.

19 Misericordia: Beaulieu, No. 20; Coventry, Nos. 185, 262. Forisfactura: CCR 1268-1272, pp. 557-58 (1272); 2 Gloucester, No. 567.

20 Bracton, , De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae (Woodbine, G., ed., Thorne, S.E., trans., Cambridge, Mass. 1968-77), Vol. 2, p. 285Google Scholar.

21 Knütel, Rolf, Stipulatio Poenae, Studien zur römischen Vertragsstrafe (Cologne 1976)Google Scholar; Zimmerman, Reinhard, The Law of Obligations, Roman Foundations of the Civilian Tradition (Cape Town 1990), 95–112, 294—300Google Scholar; Voci, Pasquale, “La Responsibilità del Debitore da ‘Stipulatio Poenae”’, in Studi in Onore di Edoardo Volterra, Vol. 3, 319—58 (Milan 1971)Google Scholar; Frezza, Paolo, Le Garanzie delle Obbligazione, Vol. 1, 309—66 (Padua 1962)Google Scholar.

22 Giry, A., Manuel de Diplomatique (Paris 1894), 565—67Google Scholar; Boye, Fritz, Über die Poenformeln in den Urkunden des früheren mittelalters, (1918) 7 Archiv für Urkundenforschung 76Google Scholar; Voltelini, Hans, Die Fluch-und Strafklauseln mittelalterlicher Urkunden und ihre antiken Vorlaufer, (1929) 11 Mitteilungen des Österreichischen Instituts für Geschichtsforschung 64Google Scholar; Studtmann, Joachim, Die Ponformel der Mittelalterlichen Urkunden, (1932) 12 Archiv für Urkundenforschung 251Google Scholar.

23 Pollock, F. & Maitland, F.W., History of English Law Before the Time of Edward I (Cambridge 1968), Vol. 1, 111—122Google Scholar; John L. Barton, Roman Law in England (lus Romanum Medii Aevi 5, 13, a, Milan 1971), 8—28. van Caenegem, R. C., Royal Writs in England from the Conquest to Glauvill (S[elden] S[ociety] vol. 77, London 1959), 360—390Google Scholar.

24 Zulueta, Francis de & Stein, Peter, The Teaching of Roman Law in England Around 1200, (London 1990), 85Google Scholar.

25 Ibid. at 91, 93.

26 Ibid. at 62—63.

27 Bracton, 2.285.

28 Maitland, F.W., Bracton and Azo, (S S vol. 8, London 1894), 148-49Google Scholar.

29 13 CRR, No. 1101, 2 Bracton’s Note Book (F.W. Maitland, ed., London 1887), Vol. 2, No. 293 (1228).

30 15 CRR, No. 1165 (1234). 16 CRR, No. 1445 (1241) might also be a case of an arbitration agreement involving a penalty.

31 17 CRR, No. 2403 (1243); 19 CRR, No. 543 (1249).

32 13 CRR, No. 1101 (1228); 19 CRR, No. 543 (1249).

33 17 CRR, No. 2403 (1243).

34 KB 26/164, m.3d (H 1260).

35 KB 26/169, m.42d (M 1260).

36 JUST 1/1062, m.45 (Yorkshire, 1279-1281).

37 JUST 1/315, m.82 (Kent, 1293-1294); JUST 1/416, m.28 (Lancashire, 1292); CP 40/75, m.38 (M 1288); CP 40/161, m.195, B.L. Hargrave MS. 375, f. 178r (H 1307) (Brand).

38 CP 40/80, m.71 (M 1289). For most of the thirteenth century there was substantial question whether the writ of covenant could be used to recover freehold. Biancalana, Joseph, “Actions of Covenant 1200-1300” (2000) 20 Law & History Rev. 1, 34–38Google Scholar. In the latter decades of the century, the common law courts refused to allow the writ of covenant to be used to recover freehold in all but a few exceptional cases—where the claimant had prior seisin or where claimant could not possibly have had prior seisin, e.g. a transfer of a reversion. Id. at 48-56.

39 CP 40/110, m.109v (M 1295), B.L. Hargrave MS. 375, f. 138r.

40 JUST 1/495, m.35 (Lincolnshire, 1281-1282); CP 40/162, m.195 (H 1307); B.L. Hargrave MS. 375, f. 178r.

41 CP 40/162, m.195 (H 1307).

42 La zache v. Rokeny, CP 40/116, m.114, B.L. Add. MS. 35116, ff. 239v-240r; B.L Harley MS. 25, f. 182v; Bodleian Holkham MS. 30, f. 35v, B.L. Harley MS. 25, f. 180v; B.L. Egerton MS. 2811, ff. 85r-v; B.L. Harley MS. 835, ff. 3v-4r (Brand); Lincoln’s Inn, Hale MS. 188, f. 17v (H 1297); CP 40/162, m.195, B.L. Hargrave MS. 375, f. 128r (H 1307) (Brand).

43 La Zuche v. Rokeny, above note 42.

44 JUST 1/652, m.37 (Northumberland, 1293); CP 40/75, m.28d (M 1288); CP 40/148, m.47d (T 1303); Anon., Y.B. Pas. 10 Edw. II, 51 SS 117 (1317); Doudeswell v. Badeshull, Y.B. Mich. 12 Edw. II, 65 SS 56 (1318); CP 40/231, m.89 (M 1320); CP 40/231, m.257d (M 1320); Y.B. Mich. 5 Edw. III, f. 45, pl. 46 (1331); Y.B. Pas 7 Edw. III, f. 15, pl. 11 (1333); Y.B. Mich. 18 Edw. III, f. 53, pl. 66 (1344); B.L. Add. MS. 32088, ff. 129r-130r; B.L. Egerton MS. 2811, ff. 342v-343r.

45 Y.B. Pas. 7 Edw. III, f.15, pl. 11 (1333); Y.B. Mich. 18 Edw. III, f. 39, pl. 35 (1344); Y.B. Trin. 22 Edw. III, f.10, pl. 48 (1348); Y.B. Mich. 22 Edw. III, f. 12, pl. 21 (1348); Y.B. Trin. 25 Edw. III, f. 89, pl. 33 (1351).

46 CP/93, m.137 (P 1292); CP 40/100, m.89d (P 1293); CP 40/236, m.195 (M 1320); Y.B. Mich. 3 Edw. II, f. 46, pl. 32 (1329); Y.B. Mich. 11 Edw. III, f. 30, pl. 11 (1337).

47 Y.B. Mich. 3 Edw. III, f. 30, pl. 38 (1329); Y.B. (RS) 14-15 Edw. III, p. 166 (1340).

48 CP 40/192, m.173 (P 1312). Defendant could also point out discrepancies between plaintiff’s writ and his pleading. JUST 1/303, m.2 (Hereford, 1292).

49 CP 40/219, m.43 (T 1317).

50 Dammory v. Polhampton, Y.B. Mich. 10 Edw. III, 52 SS 152 (1316).

51 CP 40/164, m.169d (T 1307); CP 40/279, m.321d (M 1329).

52 CP 40/91, m.89 (M 1291); CP 40/91, m.106 (M 1291); CP 40/106, m. 155 (M 1294); CP 40/ 133, m.153 (P 1300); CP 40/146, m.121 (H 1303); CP 40/189, m.127d (M 1312); CP 40/196, m.146 (H 1313); CP 40/201, m.365d (M 1314); Y.B. Pas. 5 Edw. III, f. 17, pl. 15 (1331).

53 CP 40/96, m.200 (M 1292); CP 40/138, m.111d (P 1301); CP 40/146, m.121 (H 1303).

54 CP 40/96, m.200 (M 1292); CP 40/148, m.298 (T 1303); B.L. Harley MS. 4938, ff. 24v-25r; Y.B. (RS) 20(2) Edw. III, p. 198 (1346); Y.B. Mich. 26 Edw. III, f. 20, pl. 23 (1352).

55 Where the promisor was summoned in the detinue action but failed to appear so that the promisee recovered the bond by default, the promisor was not barred from pleading the performance of the conditions in a later action on the bond. Y.B. 19 Edw. III (RS), p. 160 (1345).

56 Y.B. Trin. 5 Edw. III, f. 28, pl. 31 (1331); Y.B. Mich. 30 Edw. III, f. 13 (1356).

57 Plea Rolls: e.g. 19 CRR, Nos. 871, 1158; KB 26/169, mm.1, 9, 15, 20 (M1260); CP 40/6, mm.41, 65, 72, 94d (M1274); CP 40/12, m.4 (M1275); CP 40/17, mm.17, 31, 45, 60 (M1276). King’s Remembrancer Rolls: E159/39, m.4 (1264-1265); E159/33, m.3d (1259). The record of the order to the sheriff more frequently appears on the rolls of the Exchequer of Pleas: E13/ 1C, mm.2, 3d, 9d, 9d, 12, 12d; E13/2, mm.1, 3, 10d, 11d. See Select Cases in the Exchequer of Pleas, lxiii-lxv (H. Jenkinson & D. Formoy, eds., 48 SS, London 1932).

58 C243/1/1, 4, 5, 21, 22, 23; C243/2/r-29.

59 E13/3, m.6 (1273); 17 CRR, No. 39 (M1242); 16 CRR, No. 1933 (P1242).

60 C246/1/1 (1289); C246/1/3 (1292); C246/1/5 (1294).

61 Statutes of the Realm, Vol. 1, 53-54, 98-100. The operation of the statutes is described in Christopher McNall, “The Business of Statutory Debt Registries, 1283-1307” in Schofield, P.R. & Mayhew, N.J., eds., Credit and Debt in Medieval England c.1180-c.1350 (Oxford 2002), 68, 68–69Google Scholar and in Plucknett, T.F.T., Legislation of Edward I (Oxford 1949), 138-43Google Scholar.

62 Y.B. 11-12 Edw. III (RS), p. 400 (1338), 462 (1338); Y.B. 14-15 Edw. III (RS), p. 30 (1340); Y.B. 17 Edw. III (RS), p. 38 (1342-43).

63 Plucknett, Legislation of Edward I, at 145 (citing Y.B. 18 Edw. III (RS), p. 309 (1344) and Y.B. 11-12 Edw. III (RS), p. 635 (1338)).

64 Select Cases in the Court of King’s Bench, Edward I, Vol. 1, No. 107 (G.O. Sayles, ed., 55 SS, London 1936).

65 Select Cases in the Court of King’s Bench, Edward I, Vol. 2, pp. cxxxi-cxxxx (G.O. Sayles, ed., 57 SS, London 1938).

66 Y.B. 12-13 Edw. III (RS), p. 144 (1338-39), 178 (1339).

67 This view in the text differs from those of Palmer, Robert C., English Law in the Age of the Black Death 1348-1361 (North Carolina 1993), 77–82Google Scholar; Ibbetson, David, A Historical Introduction to the Law of Obligations (Oxford 1999), 30Google Scholar; and Seabourne, Gwen, Royal Regulation of Loans and Sales in Medieval England (Woodbridge 2003), 187-88Google Scholar, who believe that the royal justices did have qualms whether penalties were enforceable.

68 For the latter, see Seabourne, Royal Regulation, at 27-69.

69 Gratian, C.14, q.3, c.1 (in Corpus Juris Cononici (A. Friedberg, ed., Leipzig 1879)). Noonan, John T., Jr., The Scholastic Analysis of Usury (Cambridge, Mass.1957), 14–19, 32-33Google Scholar; McLaughlin, T.P., The Teaching of the Canonists on Usury (1939) 1 Medieval Studies 81, 95–98Google Scholar; Gilchrist, J., The Church and Economic Activity in the Middle Ages (London 1969), 63–65Google Scholar.

70 Robert de Courccon, De Usura in Le Traité “De Usura” de Robert de Courccon, 2-3 (George Lefeure, ed., 10 Travaux et Memoires de L’Universite de Lille 1902); Magistri Guillelmi Altessodorensis (William of Auxerre), Summa Aurea, 921 (Jean Ribailler, ed., Paris & Rome, 1986) (cited as “William of Auxerre”); Aegidium Lessinea (Giles of Lessines), De Usuris in Communi in Thomae Aquinatis, Opera Omnia, Vol. 17, 413, 421-22 (Parma, 1852-1873, Repr. 1950) (cited as “Giles of Lessines”); Bernardi Papiensis (Bernard of Pavia), Summa Decretalium, 238 (E. Laspeyres, ed., Ratisbon, 1860) (cited as “Bernard of Pavia”); Henrici de Segusio Cardinalis Hostiensis, Summa Aurea, 1613 (Turin, 1963) (cited as “Hostiensis”); Noonan, Scholastic Analysis of Usury, at 107; McLaughlin, Teaching of Canonists, at 140-41; A. Fliniaux, “L’Evolution Du Concept de Clause Pénale chez les Canonistes du Moyen Age”, in Melanges Paul Fournier (Paris 1929), 233, 239.

71 Raymondi de Pennafort, Summa, 208-09 (Verona, 1744); Bernard of Pavia, at 237-38.

72 Fliniaux, “Clause Pènale”, at 240-46.

73 Bernard of Pavia, at 238; Raymondi de Pennafort, at 209.

74 Giles of Lessine, at 5; William of Auxerre, at 927.

75 Joannis Duns Scoti, Quaestiones in Quartum Librum Sententiarum, in Opera Omnia, Vol. 18, 293 (Paris, 1894) (cited as “Duns Scotus”).

76 Robert de Courcçon, at 64-67.

77 Text and note at note 18, above.

78 For such penalties see text and note at note 17, above.

79 For such penalties see text and note at note 19 above.

80 Hostiensis, at 1634.

81 Fliniaux, “Clause Pénale”, at 240-46; Noonan, Scholastic Analysis of Usury, at 105-07; McLaughlin, Teaching of Canonists, at 125-26, 140-43; Gilchrist, Church and Economic Activity, at 68-69; Ashley, WJ., An Introduction to English Economic History and Theory (London 1903), Vol. 2, 397–401Google Scholar.

82 Thomas de Chobham, Summa Confessorum, 513 (F. Broomfield, ed., 1968). I am grateful to Charles Donahue for bringing this text to my attention.

83 Duns Scotus, at 294-97. This position was shared by others. Noonan, Scholastic Analysis of Usury, at 109; Ashley, Introduction to English Economic History, at 399-400.

84 Giles of Lessine, at 23, 44, 54.

85 William of Auxerre, at 927, Raymond of Pennafort took a similar position. Raymondi de Pennafort, at 209.

86 See Seabourne, Royal Regulation, at 27-69. Ecclesiastical enforcement of the ban on usury could, apparently, withstand a writ of prohibition. 15 CRR, No. 1462 (T 1235).

87 The Mirror of Justices (7 SS), 14, 115.

88 9 CRR, p. 257 (M 1220).

89 Select Cases of Procedure Without Writ Under Henry III, No. 95 (Leicestershire Eyre, 1260) (H.G. Richardson & G.O. Sayles, eds., 60 SS, London 1941).

90 JUST 1/914, m.3 (Sussex, 1279) (Brand). For a similar agreement between Lotero de Boneguyde and Rieveaulx Abbey see Rievaulx, at pp. 409-10. Mathew Paris recorded the form of such agreements and attacked them as usurious. Mathew Paris, Chronica Majora, Vol. 3, 328-31 (H.R. Luard, ed., 1876).

91 Select Cases in the King’s Bench under Edward I, Vol. 1, No. 107.

92 B.L. Add. MS. 31826, f. 102v.

93 CCR 1242-1247, p. 242 (1244).

94 Statutes of the Realm, Vol. 1, 3; CCR 1234-1237, p. 214 (1235).

95 Readings and Moots at the Inns of Court in the Fifteenth Century, Vol. 1, cv (S.E. Thorne, ed., 71 SS, London 1954).

96 Ibid. at cxliv.

97 Liber Albus, Vol. 1, 211-12, in Munimenta Gildhalle Londoniensis, Vol. 1 (H.T. Riley, ed., 1859).

98 CP 40/86, m.238d (M 1290). Similarly, CP 40/178, m.111d (T 1309).

99 CP 40/69, m.97 (M 1287) (Brand).

100 La Zuche v. Rokeny, above note 42.

101 CP 40/127, m.67, B.L. Stowe MS. 386, f. 149r-149v, B.L. Harley MS. 4938, f. 137r-138r (P 1299). Another report of the case, one that does not report the argument about a royal ordinance, is B.L. Add. MS. 5925, f. 65r.

102 La Zuche v. Rokeny, above note 42.

103 By saying that there was no certain “causa” for the penalty, defendant might have been arguing that the time for performance was insufficiently certain to sustain plaintiff’s action. This possible argument was ignored. Defendant was taken to mean that there was no “causa” for the penalty.

104 Tractatus de Legibus et Consuetudines Regni Anglie Qui Glanvilla Vocatur, 117 (G. Hall, ed. and trans., 1965). For discussions of Glanvill’s account of the causae of debts see p. xxxviii; Simpson, A.W.B., A History of the Common Law of Contract, The Rise of Assumpsit (Oxford 1975), 75–80Google Scholar; Ibbetson, Historical Introduction, at 17-21.

105 Fleta Vol. 2, 186, 194 (H.G. Richardson & G.O. Sayles, eds., 72 SS, London 1953).

106 “Libellus de Verbis Legalibus”, in Hermann Fitting, ed., Juristische Schriften des Fruheren Mittelalters (Halle 1876, repr. 1965), 188.

107 Simpson, History of Contract, at 153-69, 193-96; J.H. Baker, “Origins of the Doctrine of Consideration”, in M.S. Arnold et al., ed., On the Law and Customs of England, Essays in Honor of S.E. Thorne (North Carolina 1981), 336-58.

108 B.L. Add. MS. 35116, ff 239v-240r; B.L. Harley MS. 25, f. 182r; Lincoln’s Inn, Hale MS. 188, f. 17v. I have not found the case mentioned by Bereford.

109 Bodleian Holkham Misc. 30, f. 35v; B.L. Harley MS. 25, f. 180v.

110 C.U.L. MS. Dd 7.14, f. 265v: Nota si aliquis promiserit se reddere .x. solidis alicui ad certum diem sub pena .x. marcarum, si ipsum contingat deficere in solucione, ista convencione non stat, quia nemo debet habere nisi principale debitum una cum dampnis que sustinuit occasione detencionis post terminum, quia tales pena et usura equipollent. I am grateful to Paul Brand for a transcription of this note.

111 Text and note at note 85, above.

112 CP 40/110, m.109v (M 1295), B.L. Hargrave MS. 375, f.138r.

113 Text and note at note 83, above.

114 CP 40/178, m.111d (T 1309).

115 La Zuche v. Rokeny, above note 42.

116 B.L. Add. MS. 35116, ff. 239v-240r; B.L. Harley MS. 25, f. 182r; Lincoln’s Inn, Hale MS. 188, f. 17v (“cele manere de peines e usures sont de une condition. Mes usures sont defenduz; igitur et peines”).

117 Bodleian, Holkham MS. 30, f.35v; B.L. Harley MS. 25, f. 180v; B.L. Egerton MS. 2811, ff. 85r-v (“qar vous navez dit ascune cause (chose) qe faitez a ly par quay il vous serrait tenu en cel dette e issi ensemble meuthe usure qe dette la quel deit estre maunde a court cristiene”).

118 Year Book of the Eyre of Kent, Vol. 2, 1313-1314 23 (F.W. Maitland, W.V. Harcourt & W.C. Bolland, eds., London 1912).

119 Ibid. at 27.

120 Noonan, Scholastic Analysis of Usury, at 233-292; McLaughlin, Teaching of the Canonists, at 98-124.

121 The Eyre of London 1321, Vol. 2, 345 (H.M. Cam, ed., 86 SS, London 1969).

122 That plaintiff is said to have forgone £30 for £10 is only one of the strange things about this report.

123 86 SS, at 345.

124 Ibid.

125 Text and note at note 75, above.

126 Questionably, because proffer of payment on the due date ordinarily precluded plaintiff from recovering damages or a penalty. See text and notes at notes 164 and 165, below.

127 Y.B. 20(1) Edw. III (RS), p. 320 (1346).

128 Y.B. Mich. 26 Edw. III, f. 17, pl. 9 (1352).

129 A similar argument had been rejected earlier: Scott v. Beracre, above note 118, at 25.

130 Text and note at note 83, above.

131 Text and note at note 83, above.

132 Palmer, Black Death, at 78-82.

133 Ibid. at 49.

134 Ibid. at 80.

135 Ibid.

136 CP 40/75, m.38d (M 1288).

137 CP 40/104, m.14d (P 1294).

138 Y.B. Pas. 6 Edw. III, f. 18, pl. 2 (1332).

139 Y.B. 18-19 Edw. III (RS), p. 296 (1344); Y.B. 19 Edw. III (RS), p. 30 (1345).

140 CP 40/106, m.155 (M 1294); CP 40/189, m.202 (M 1312); CP 40/189, m.445d (M 1312); CP 40/219, m.43 (T 1317); Y.B. Pas. 5 Edw. III, f. 17, pl. 15 (1331); Y.B. 11-12 Edw. III (RS), p. 432 (1338); Y.B. 19 Edw. III (RS), p. 276 (1345).

141 Y.B. Pas. 7 Edw. III, f. 15, pl. 11 (1333); Y.B. 18-19 Edw. III (RS), p. 116 (1344).

142 Y.B. 13-14 Edw. III (RS), p. 350 (1340); Y.B. 17-18 Edw. III (RS), p. 620 (1344).

143 Y.B. 12-13 Edw. III (RS), p. 144 (1339); Y.B. 20(1) Edw. III (RS), p. 258 (1346).

144 Y.B. 20 (1) Edw. III (RS), p. 320 (1346).

145 Text and notes at notes 102-109, above.

146 Text and notes at notes 152-55, above.

147 D.45.1.7; D.45.1.69; Inst. III.19.11.

148 D.45.1.7; D.45.1.8; Inst. III.19.11.

149 Gloss to D.45.1.7, v° ascenderit.

150 Britton (F.M. Nichols, ed., London 1865), Vol. 1, 158; Fleta, Vol. 2, at 189.

151 Britton, Vol. 1, 158 ( “Et si le dettour se obligea a acune peyne suffrable et honeste, si teigne la peyne; car le dettour le volait quant il se obligia a ceo, et encountre sa volunté ne ly fist hom nul tort.”)

152 Lincoln’s Inn, Hale MS. 188, f. 94v; B.L. Add. MS., 5925, ff.64r and 166v. Bereford’s remark is also reported at B.L. Add. MS. 5925, f. 151r; B.L. Harley MS. 25, f.186, and Hofot v. Rychemund, Y.B. Mich. 4 Edw. II, 22 SS 199 at 200.

153 Fleta, Vol. 2, at 189. Britton used “If you will not procure me the moon.” Britton, Vol. 1, 158.

154 B.L. Add. MS. 5925, ff. 64r, 151r, and 166v; B.L. Harley MS. 25, f. 186; Hotot v. Rychemund, Y.B. Mich. 4 Edw. II, 22 SS 199, 200 (1310).

155 Lincoln’s Inn, Hale MS. 188, f. 94v; B.L. Add. MS. 5925, ff. 64r and 166v.

156 Y.B. Pas. 2 Edw. IV, f.2, pl.6 (1462) (Laicon and Choke say penalty is enforceable, Danby disagrees); Y.B. Pas. 8 Edw. IV, f.1, pl.1, Mich. 8 Edw. IV, f.9, pl.9 at f.10 (1468) (Yelverton says impossible condition renders penalty unenforceable); Y.B. Hil. 14 Edw. IV, f.3, pl.6 (1475) (Choke says penalty enforceable).

157 Gloss to D.9 2. 22pr, v° utilitas; D.45.1.115.1; Knütel, Stipulatio Poenae, at 122-23; Frezza, Garanzie, at 322-24.

158 Gloss to D.45.1.8, v° decem dare; D.45.1.115.2; D.45.1.99.1; D.45.1.124; D.2.11.10.1; Knütel, Stipulatio Poenae, at 101-103.

159 D.45.1.33.

160 CP 40/182, m.255d (T 1310).

161 CP 40/148, m.98 (T 1303). Plaintiff, the promisee’s heir, did not recover, because the agreement made no mention of the promisee’s heirs.

162 B.L. Harley MS. 572, f. 187v.

163 Y.B. Hil. 14 Edw. IV, f.3, pl.6 (1475) (Littleton says penalty enforceable, but Choke disagrees); Y.B. Hil. 4 Hen. VII, f.3, pl.7 (1489); Y.B. Hil. 15 Hen. VII, f.2, pl.5 (1500).

164 Knütel, Stipulatio Poenae, at 80 et seq.; Zimmerman, Obligations, at 105-06; Voci, “Responsibilità”, at 328-29.

165 Questiones de Juris Subtilitatibus de Irnerius 61 (H. Fitting, ed., repr. 1977); Frezza, Garanzie, at 339-43.

166 B.L. Hargrave MS. 375, f.34v (P1305) (part payment tendered on appointed date relieves defendant of damages where plaintiff refused him an acquittance); CP 40/98, m.90d (H 1293); CP 40/106, m.221d (M 1294); CP 40/154, m.203d (H 1305). For the requirement that defendant appear on the first summons see B.L. Hargrave MS. 375, f. 163v, where Hengham assessed damages against defendant because he appeared only by grand distress. The requirement of appearance at first summons was later relaxed. Y.B. 18-19 Edw. III (RS), p. 296 (1344).

167 Y.B. Pas. 7 Edw. III, f.15, pl. 11 (1333); Y.B. 18-19 Edw. III (RS), p. 116 (1344); Y.B. 18-19 Edw. III (RS), p. 296 (1344); Y.B. Mich. 21 Edw. III, f.45, pl.62 (1347) (audita querela); Y.B. Pas. 22 Edw. III, f.5, pl. 13 (1348) (audita querela); Y.B. Mich. 21 Edw. III, f. 45, pl. 62 (1347) (audita querela); Y.B. Mich. 30 Edw. III, f.22 (1356).

168 E.g., Y.B. 18-19 Edw. III (RS) 296 (1344).

169 Y.B. Trin. 7 Hen. VI, f.18, pl.17 (1429); Y.B. Trin. 9 Hen. VI, f.29, pl.33 (1431); Y.B. Pas. 11 Hen. VI, f.26, pl.6 (1433); Y.B. Hil. 22 Hen. VI, f.39, pl.11 (1444); Y.B. Hil. 33 Hen. VI, f.2 pl.8 (1455); Y.B. Pas. 27 Hen. VIII, f.1, pl.1 (1536).

170 La Zuche v. Rokeny, above note 42; B.S. Harley MS. 25, f.180v; B.S. Harley MS. 25, f. 187; KB 26/164, m.3d (H 1260); CP 40/121, m.295 (M 1297); CP 40/162, m.195, B.L. Hargrave MS. 375, f.178r (H1307) (Brand); Y.B. Pas. 5 Edw. III, f. 17, pl. 15 (1331); Y.B. Trin. 5 Edw. III, f.28, pl. 31 (1331); Y.B. (RS) 14-15 Edw. III, p. 246 (1340); Y.B. 17 Edw. III (RS), p. 484 (1343); Y.B. 18 Edw. III (RS), p. 348 (1343-44); Y.B. 20(2) Edw. III (RS), p. 456 (1346); Y.B. Mich. 21 Edw. III, f.29, pl.9 (1347).

171 Y.B. 14 Edw. III (RS), pp. 110, 246 (1340); Y.B. Mich. 29 Edw. III, f.44 (1355).

172 Y.H. Pas. 12 Edw. II, 70 SS 120 (1319); Bodleian, Perrot MS. 8, f. 2.

173 CP 40/178, m.111d, Y.H. 2 Edw. II, 19 SS 58, H.L. Harley MS. 835, f. 29v, Lincoln’s Inn Hale MS. 141, f. 58v (T1309).

174 Y.H. 2 Edw. II, 19 SS at 59; H.L. Harley MS. 835, f. 29v.

175 E.g., Quaestionies Dominorum Bononiensium, in Scripta Anecdota Glossatorum, Vol. 1, 245, 259-60 (J.H. Palmieri, ed., 1913)”; Questiones de Juris Subtilitatibus de Irnerius 61 (H. Fitting, ed., repr. 1977), at 67; 3 Gloss to D.45.1.113, v° commissa est (‘de rigore: sed de aequitate obstat exceptio”).

176 E.g. D.44.4.4.7; D.2.11.9.1; D.21.2.35.

177 Y.B. 18-19 Edw. III (RS), p. 296 (1344).

178 JUST 1/1062, m.45 (Yorkshire, 1279-1281); B.L. Harley MS. 493B, ff. 144r-144v.

179 Y.B. Pas. & Trin. 14 Edw. II, f.433 (1321).

180 CP10/92, m.28 (H1292).

181 CP 40/62, m.59d (P 1286).

182 CP 40/153, m.133 (M 1305).

183 CP 40/183, m.308d (1310).

184 CP 40/80, m.186 (M 1289), C.U.L. MS. Dd VII 14, f.241r (Brand).

185 D.4.8.40 (death of arbitrator); D.4.8.40 (absence of arbitrator); D.4.8.21.7 (arbitrator orders dishonorable action); D.4.8.10 (arbitrator convenes in dishonorable place).

186 Scott v. Beracre, above note 118; Y.B. 18-19 Edw. III (RS), p. 460 (1345).

187 JUST 1/1067, m.58d (Yorkshire, 1279-1280). In this case defendant did not explain why he refused arbitration. Hostility of arbitrators gave an exceptio doli to a claim for a penalty under Roman law: D.4.8.32.14.

188 D.22.2.9; D.44.1.77; D.4.8.22pr. The point of many texts was that an action could not be brought until the time set for performance had passed. Knütel, Stipulatio Poenae, at 91-100.

189 D.45.1.113 pr. The passage is dicussed in Knütel, Stipulatio Poenae, at 103 et seq. and by Voci, “Responsibilità”, at 349-51.

190 Quaestiones Dominorum Bononensium, at 222.

191 D.2.11.8.

192 D.4.8.21.2.

193 B.L. Harley MS. 493B, f. 24v-25r.

194 Y.B. Pas. 6 Edw. III, f. 18, pl. 32 (1332).

195 D.19.1.47; D.45.1.5.3a; D.45.1.85.6; Knütel, Stipulatio Poenae, at 82-85; Frezza, Garanzie, at 340.

196 D.21.2.64 pr; D.21.2.56.2; Knütel, Stipulatio Poenae, at 89-90.

197 D.21.2.56.2; Fontes Iuris Romani Antejustiniani, Vol. 3, Nos. 88, 89, 90, 132, 133 (ed. V. Arangio-Ruiz, 3 vols., 1943).

198 D.2.11.9.1.

199 Gloss to D.45.1.85. 6, v° prodest.

200 Quaestiones Dominorum Bononensium, at 254.

201 Y.B. Mich. 5 Edw. III, f. 35, pl. 9 (1331).

202 Y.B. 18-19 Edw. III (RS), p. 116 (1344).

203 E.g. CP 40/145, m.142 (M 1303); B.L. Hargrave MS. 375, f. 194v; B.L. Harley MS. 572, ff. 4r-4v.

205 CP 40/134, m.53, B.L. Add. MS. 37657, f.21v, B.L. Add. MS. 32088, ff. 141v-142r, B.L. MS. 31826, f.83r (T 1300).