Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pigot's Case (1614) [1] 11 CoRep 26b, [1558-1774] All ER Rep 50, 77 ER 1177[2] is a 17th-century decision of the English courts.[3] It is often simply referred to by reference to the rule in Pigot's Case.[4] The rule has been described as a "ghost of the past".[5]
Pigot's Case | |
---|---|
Full case name | Winchcombe v Pigot |
Decided | 1614, Trinity Term |
Citations | (1614) 11 CoRep 26b [1558-1774] All ER Rep 50 77 ER 1177 |
Court membership | |
Judge sitting | Sir Edward Coke |
Keywords | |
non est factum |
Henry Pigot was indebted to Benedict Winchcombe, and on 2 March 1611 they executed a bond by way of deed relating to the indebtedness. Subsequently, in 1614, Winchcombe was appointed as High Sheriff of Oxfordshire. At this point, some well-meaning but unknown person altered the deed to record this fact by inserting the words "Vicecomiti Comitatus Oxon" (Sheriff of the County of Oxford) immediately after the words Benedict Winchcombe, Esq and before the specification of the amount due. No other changes were made to the deed.[6]
In 1614 Winchcombe brought an action against Pigot on the deed. Pigot, relying on existing case law, entered a plea of "non est factum" (it is not my deed), essentially arguing that because the deed had been altered, it was not the deed that he had originally entered into three years previously.[6]
The case came before the eminent 17th-century English jurist, Lord Coke.
The jury had found as a fact that the amendments (a) were made by a stranger, and (b) that they did so without the permission of Winchcombe. The Court further held that the amendment was not a material one.[6]
Coke held:
when any deed is altered in a point material, by the plaintiff himself, or by any stranger, without the privity of the obligee, be it by interlineation, addition, rasing, or by drawing of a pen through a line, or through the midst of any material word, that the deed thereby becomes void.
Much of Coke's judgment was pure obiter dictum. Having found that the amendments were not material and were made by a stranger, in the way in which Coke commonly did, he still dedicated the larger part of his judgment to consider the legal implications of material alterations by strangers and alterations by parties to the agreement.[7] However, those obiter comments served to formulate the common law jurisprudence on the subject until today.
The decision has been summarised to the effect that:[6]
The rule itself has now been modified by subsequent cases (some of which are summarised below). The most recent edition of Chitty on Contracts describes the rule as:[8]
If a promisee, without the consent of the promisor, deliberately makes a material alteration in a specialty or other instrument containing words of contract, this will discharge the promisor from all liability thereon, even though the original words of the instrument are still legible.
Although the strict consequences of a party to the deed making a non-material alteration to the document appear harsh today, the case actually softened the effect of a much harsher line of earlier authorities. In raising his plea, Pigot was relying upon decisions such as Elliott v Holder (1567) 3 Dyer 261b, 73 ER 580 where it had been held that any alteration of a deed made it "utterly void":
For the deed is entire, and when after the delivery it is altered in any point, otherwise than it was at the time of the delivery, it has become void in its entirety and is not his deed in every part as he delivered it.[9]
In 1791 the scope of the rule in Pigot's Case was extended from deeds to all contracts and other legal instruments by the decision in Master v Millar (1791) 14 TR 320.
The rule remains good law in most common law jurisdictions, and has been cited with approval many times, including by the Privy Council in Goss v Chilcott [1996] UKPC 17.
Other recent citations of the rule include:[10]
The rule has been repealed by statute in New South Wales.[13]
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.