Jarndyce and Jarndyce

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Jarndyce v. Jarndyce)
Jump to: navigation, search

Jarndyce and Jarndyce is a fictional court case from the novel Bleak House by Charles Dickens, progressing in the English Court of Chancery. The case is referred to throughout Bleak House and is a central plot device / thematic element of the novel.

Plot[edit]

Jarndyce v Jarndyce[note 1] concerns the fate of a large inheritance. The case has dragged on for many generations before the action of the novel, so that, when it is resolved late in the narrative, legal costs have devoured the whole estate. Dickens used it to attack the chancery court system as being near totally worthless, as any "honourable man among its [Chancery's] practitioners" says, "Suffer any wrong that can be done you rather than come here!"

All of the main characters are connected in some way through the case, though the legal proceedings appear only as background plot. Aside from the lawyers who sue and defend the case, every character who directly associates with it suffers some tragic fate. Miss Flite has long since lost her mind when the narrative begins. Richard Carstone dies trying to win the inheritance for himself after spending much of his life so distracted by the notion of it that he cannot commit to any other pursuit. John Jarndyce, by contrast, finds the whole process tiresome and tries to have as little to do with it as he possibly can, one of many examples of the character's wise and self-effacing demeanour.

Dickens introduces the case in the first chapter in terms which make the futility of the matter clear:

Jarndyce and Jarndyce drones on. This scarecrow of a suit has, in course of time, become so complicated, that no man alive knows what it means. The parties to it understand it least; but it has been observed that no two Chancery lawyers can talk about it for five minutes, without coming to a total disagreement as to all the premises. Innumerable children have been born into the cause; innumerable young people have married into it; innumerable old people have died out of it. Scores of persons have deliriously found themselves made parties in Jarndyce and Jarndyce, without knowing how or why; whole families have inherited legendary hatreds with the suit. The little plaintiff or defendant, who was promised a new rocking-horse when Jarndyce and Jarndyce should be settled, has grown up, possessed himself of a real horse, and trotted away into the other world. Fair wards of court have faded into mothers and grandmothers; a long procession of Chancellors has come in and gone out; the legion of bills in the suit have been transformed into mere bills of mortality; there are not three Jarndyces left upon the earth perhaps, since old Tom Jarndyce in despair blew his brains out at a coffee-house in Chancery Lane; but Jarndyce and Jarndyce still drags its dreary length before the Court, perennially hopeless.

The ending of the case reduces the whole court to fits of laughter. From Chapter 65:

We asked a gentleman by us, if he knew what cause was on? He told us Jarndyce and Jarndyce. We asked him if he knew what was doing in it? He said, really no he did not, nobody ever did; but as well as he could make out, it was over. Over for the day? we asked him. No, he said; over for good.

Over for good!

When we heard this unaccountable answer, we looked at one another quite lost in amazement. Could it be possible that the Will had set things right at last, and that Richard and Ada were going to be rich? It seemed too good to be true. Alas, it was!

Our suspense was short; for a break up soon took place in the crowd, and the people came streaming out looking flushed and hot, and bringing a quantity of bad air with them. Still they were all exceedingly amused, and were more like people coming out from a Farce or a Juggler than from a court of Justice. We stood aside, watching for any countenance we knew; and presently great bundles of paper began to be carried out—bundles in bags, bundles too large to be got into any bags, immense masses of papers of all shapes and no shapes, which the bearers staggered under, and threw down for the time being, anyhow, on the Hall pavement, while they went back to bring out more. Even these clerks were laughing. We glanced at the papers, and seeing Jarndyce and Jarndyce everywhere, asked an official-looking person who was standing in the midst of them, whether the cause was over. "Yes," he said; "it was all up with it at last!" and burst out laughing too. ...

"Mr. Kenge," said Allan, appearing enlightened all in a moment. "Excuse me, our time presses. Do I understand that the whole estate is found to have been absorbed in costs?"

"Hem! I believe so," returned Mr. Kenge. "Mr. Vholes, what do you say?"

"I believe so," said Mr. Vholes.

"And that thus the suit lapses and melts away?"

"Probably," returned Mr. Kenge. "Mr. Vholes?"

"Probably," said Mr. Vholes.

Real-life cases[edit]

In the Preface to Bleak House, Dickens cites two Chancery cases as especial inspirations:

At the present moment (August, 1853) there is a suit before the court which was commenced nearly twenty years ago, in which from thirty to forty counsel have been known to appear at one time, in which costs have been incurred to the amount of seventy thousand pounds, which is A FRIENDLY SUIT, and which is (I am assured) no nearer to its termination now than when it was begun. There is another well-known suit in Chancery, not yet decided, which was commenced before the close of the last century and in which more than double the amount of seventy thousand pounds has been swallowed up in costs.

Based on an 1853 letter of Dickens,[1] the first of these cases has been identified[2][3] as the dispute over the will of Charles Day, a boot blacking manufacturer who died in 1836. Proceedings were commenced in 1837 and not concluded until at least 1854. The second of these cases is generally identified[2] as the dispute over the will of the "Acton Miser" William Jennens. Jennens v Jennens commenced in 1798 and was abandoned in 1915 (117 years later) when the legal fees had exhausted the Jennens estate of funds;[4][5] thus it had been ongoing for 55 years when Bleak House was published.

Some commentators have theorised that the Jarndyce v Jarndyce case was inspired by the dispute over the will of the father-in-law of eighteenth-century writer Charlotte Smith. That Chancery case has been reported to have taken thirty-six years to get through the court,[6] although this may not be correct.[3]

"Jarndyce and Jarndyce" has become a byword for an interminable legal proceeding. For example, Lord Denning, when referring to Midland Bank v Green (1981) 1 All ER 583,[7] said, "The Green saga rivals in time and money the story of Jarndyce v Jarndyce."

See also[edit]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ Dickens consistently refers to the case as "Jarndyce and Jarndyce", the way it would be referred to in speech. However, in reporting court cases, the abbreviation v for versus is used.

The "v" separating the parties is an abbreviation of the Latin versus, but, when spoken in Commonwealth countries, it is normally rendered as "and" or "against" (as in, for example, Charles Dickens' Jarndyce and Jarndyce).

References[edit]

  1. ^ 15 Graham Storey, Kathleen Tillotson and Angus Easson (editors), The Letters of Charles Dickens, VII. 1993. pages 128-129.
  2. ^ a b Dunstan, William. "The Real Jarndyce and Jarndyce." The Dickensian 93.441 (Spring 1997): 27.
  3. ^ a b Leslie Katz, "Bleak House in Australian Reasons for Judgment." http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1315862
  4. ^ BBC QI 8 Dec 2012, Series J, Episode 12 – Justice
  5. ^ The Guidott / Guidotti family, Acton Place, Summary of William Jennens
  6. ^ Jacqueline M. Labbe, ed. The Old Manor House by Charlotte Turner Smith, Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview Press, 2002 ISBN 978-1-55111-213-8, Introduction p. 17, note 3.
  7. ^ UK Law LLB

Other sources[edit]

Willful Behavior by Donna Leon, p. 308, Penguin Books 2010

External links[edit]