The Better Chancery Practice Blog

In my prior post on former Chancellor George Warner, I focused on some of his more humorous rulings. But there was sagacity in his rulings, too. Here are a few excerpts his opinions that show his shrewd understanding of the law, as well as the trial court’s and lawyers’ role in enforcing its rule. These are from opinions published in Judge Warner’s book, Through the Eyes of a Judge …

From a 1987 opinion in which he distills the purpose of a court of equity …

That there is no existing case means nothing. If courts never ventured past existing law, our law would become musty, stale, out of date, and soon cease to exist.

This court believes the first great maxim of equity is certainly applicable, to-wit: Equity will not suffer a wrong without a remedy. The plaintiff has suffered a wrong, and this court will provide a remedy.

From a 1988 opinion on the maxims of equity in the grand scheme of jurisprudence …

In law school we hear talk about the great maxims of equity. Sometimes we get so wrapped up in modern practice, we neglect the fact that our Court system is the greatest in the world. Some of the great part on which we operate is embodied in the maxims of equity. These are statements or principles of how Courts should treat litigants and the rights of parties that come before the Court. A lot of our maxims, in my opinion, rise even above the Constitution because they go to the guts and heart of what is going on. The last great maxim of equity was: “No one should be condemned without a legal chance to be heard.” The maxim is so clearly founded in natural justice that even a savage would understand it, and modern government observes it as an indidpensable principle.

From a 1987 opinion on burgeoning family law …

In thirty-two and a half years as a member of the Bar and a member of the bench, the Court has found on numerous occasions why very few lawyers would accept an appointment or ever serve as a Chancery Judge. Those who do, sjhould sometimes have their sanity examined. This is a field of law and this is the Court in which himan emotions and family prroblems are generated with all the animosity God gives people the ability to produce. The more the problems, the better the lawyers, the more the law. This is why family law evolved in the last five years to a third branch of law. A decade ago, we had two branches of law, Civil and Criminal. Family law is the most prolific law in the changing and evolving of laws, rules, procedures, and concepts.

I am quite aware that this case will give the appellate court, and the judge thereon to whom it may be assigned, the opportunity to either have a field day in family law and domestic relations, or simply go bananas, depending on his or her temperament.

from a 1992 opinion on enforcing court orders …

The last time I was in Quitman, a gentleman approached me on the street and said, “Warner, I served on grand juries with you [when the judge served as 10th Circuit District Attorney] thirty years ago. I thought you were dead.” In the movie Jeremiah Johnson, a similar statement was made when a prospector said, “Some folks say you’re dead, some folks say you will never die.”

As long as this Judge is living, one of the most dangerous things people can do is disobey court orders. When I took an Oath to see that they were enforced, I meant when I said: “I will.”

And this from a 1990 decision about where the buck stops — or doesn’t …

Courts do not exist to make people happy with their decisions. We simply have to make a decision as best we can, based on what we perceive to be the facts, the evidence and the law.

*   *   *

If anybody desires to appeal, perhaps the Supreme Court will find this is an instance where we need divine appellate reaction. Perhaps the judges in Jackson are far more divine in their knowledge than us trial judges, and if so, I would appreciate their insight.