Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 05.pdf/197

 172

The labors of their predecessors are not ap preciated by many of the present practi tioners in the State. Those labors were confined largely to questions growing out of the land laws, and those arising under the technical rules of pleading of the common law. Statutory enactments swept away the refinements of the common law, and that mass of learning was made useless. Lapse

of time has perfected the titles to land in the more populous parts of the State, and the land law is terra incog nita to nearly all the lawyers of the State outside of East Ten nessee. But the cases found in the reports covering the period from 1835 to 1847 are familiar to all, and in them are to be found the principles from which the rules that to-day determine all controversies in the courts of the State, are to be drawn. When these three judges entered upon their work, the nature of the litigation had NATHAN changed from what it had been. From the foundation of the State, its courts, had been vested with equity jurisdiction. However, the machinery for the exercise of the juris diction was most imperfect. There was a lack of those officers that are such valuable adjuncts to courts of chancery, and largely increase their efficiency. There were no es tablished rules of procedure. The absence of a special forum for the determination of causes by equitable principles made the lawyers unfamiliar with its practice. The result was that this extraordinary power of what was ordinarily a court of law was rarely

invoked. In 1827 the Legislature had created separate courts of chancery. Nathan Green was one of the first two chancellors; and on his elevation to the Supreme bench in 1831, William B. Reese became his successor. When these two became associated with Judge Turley in 1835 on the highest court of the State, the business of the new chan cery courts had grown amazingly. Two chancellors were at first able to dispose of the business for the whole State. In 1836 it became necessary to add a third chan cellor, and a fourth in 1840. To declare the rules of equity which should govern in these courts, was the most difficult and important work of the Supreme Court. For that work all three judges were well fitted. Each bore a conspicuous part, and none of them can be said to have distin guished himself above his fellows, though it fell to the lot of Judge Green to deliver GREEN more opinions in this class of cases than either of the other judges. And the impress he left on the judicial policy of the State was much greater by reason of the fact that his term of service was nearly double that of either of the other two judges. Succeeding generations have respected their handiwork. Most States have abolished separate courts of Chancery; but in Tennes see legislatures and constitutional conven tions have uniformly declined to take from a special tribunal the administration of the beneficent principles then enunciated. The period was one in which there was