Definition
"Court of" is a truncated designation used as the first element of compound court names throughout English and American legal history. It does not stand alone as a legal term but functions as a naming convention identifying courts by their jurisdiction, sovereign authority, subject matter, or place of sitting. Examples include Court of Chancery, Court of Common Pleas, Court of King's Bench, Court of Appeals, Court of Claims, Court of Errors, Court of Hustings, and Court of Policies of Insurance, among dozens of others.
The phrase signals that the institution named is a formally constituted tribunal with defined jurisdiction, as distinguished from ad hoc panels, arbitral bodies, or administrative agencies (though the boundary between these categories has shifted considerably over time). In research contexts, "Court of ___" entries in legal dictionaries, digests, and reports should be understood as discrete entries, each requiring separate investigation.
---
Common Confusion
Because "Court of" entries proliferate across historical legal dictionaries in fragmented form — often appearing as "See COURT OF POLICIES OF INSURANCE" or "See COURT OF KING'S BENCH" without consolidated treatment — researchers frequently mistake a partial entry for a complete definition, or assume that the historical sources treat the naming convention systematically. They do not. Each historical dictionary treats "Court of" compounds piecemeal, often cross-referencing rather than defining, and coverage is uneven across sources. A court that receives a full entry in Bouvier's may receive only a redirect in Black's, and vice versa.
The phrase should also not be confused with "court of record," which is a term of art with specific legal significance independent of any particular court's name.
---
Why It Matters in Research
The primary research challenge with "Court of" terms is fragmentation. Historical dictionaries — Black's, Bouvier's, Rapalje & Lawrence — scatter court entries alphabetically under their full compound names rather than consolidating them. A researcher working through a 17th- or 18th-century English legal source may encounter references to courts whose full names do not appear in American digests at all, because those courts were abolished before American legal publishing matured. The Court of Hustings (London), the Court of Policies of Insurance, and the courts sitting at St. Martin le Grand that appear in the source materials above are examples: they are English courts of local or specialized jurisdiction whose records, if relevant to American research, must be traced through English sources.
Several traps are worth flagging:
First, the same "Court of ___" name was sometimes used in multiple jurisdictions with different jurisdictions or procedures. "Court of Common Pleas" in 18th-century England and "Court of Common Pleas" in various American states are related in name and lineage but diverge substantially in practice and jurisdiction.
Second, courts designated "Court of ___" were frequently reorganized, renamed, or abolished without their records being transferred under an obvious institutional successor. Tracing jurisdiction requires establishing not just the court's name but its period of operation.
Third, Black's 2nd Edition cross-references for Court of King's Bench and Court of Queen's Bench under a single combined entry reflect the British convention of renaming the court upon the accession of a new sovereign — the court is the same institution; the name changes. American researchers encountering citations to "K.B." and "Q.B." in English reports should understand these as the same court in different regnal periods.
Fourth, the Court of Policies of Insurance — referenced in both Black's and Bouvier's — is a now-obscure Elizabethan and Restoration-era English tribunal established by statute (43 Eliz. c. 12 and 13 & 14 Car. II. c. 23) to handle marine insurance disputes summarily. It is not a precursor to any modern American court and should not be analogized to contemporary insurance regulatory bodies. Its significance for Law Mind corpus researchers is primarily historical: it appears in English commercial law sources and may surface in treatises on early insurance law.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
The source dictionaries treat "Court of" entries inconsistently, which is itself instructive. Black's 1st Edition provides a substantive entry for the Court of Policies of Insurance, identifying its statutory basis, composition (admiralty judge, Recorder of London, civil lawyers, common lawyers, and merchants), summary procedure, and appeal to Chancery. This is one of the more complete treatments of an obscure English court in any American legal dictionary. Black's also provides a brief entry for the Court of Hustings as an ancient London court held in a church — a characteristically spare notation that leaves the reader to pursue English sources for any further detail.
Rapalje & Lawrence adds procedural texture, noting the writ of error pathway from the sheriff's courts in London to the Court of Hustings, and thence to justices sitting at St. Martin le Grand, with a final appeal to the House of Lords. The citation to F.N.B. 32 (Fitzherbert's Natura Brevium) grounds this in the primary writ literature.
Bouvier's, characteristically, redirects: "See COURT OF POLICIES OF INSURANCE." This economy is typical of Bouvier's treatment of English courts that had no American analog.
Black's 2nd Edition consolidates King's Bench and Queen's Bench under a shared cross-reference, correctly identifying them as the same institution under different sovereign names.
What none of these sources do is provide a systematic account of the "Court of" naming convention itself, its relationship to royal grants, statutes of establishment, or the distinction between courts of record and courts not of record. That analytical framework must be assembled from treatises — Blackstone's Commentaries and the works of Sir Edward Coke being the foundational sources — rather than from dictionary entries.
---
Jurisdictional Note
"Court of" designations in American state systems vary considerably. Some states retain historically derived names (Court of Common Pleas, Court of Chancery in Delaware); others use purely functional names (Court of Appeals, Supreme Court). Federal usage is largely statutory. Researchers should not assume that a court bearing the same "Court of ___" name in two different jurisdictions shares jurisdiction, procedure, or precedential relationship.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
The Law Mind Tax Encyclopedia: Tax Court Appeals to Circuit Courts (tax_178) — relevant when researching the specialized "Court of" structure in federal tax adjudication.
The Law Mind Family Law Encyclopedia: Family Court Jurisdiction and Unified Family Courts (family_214) — relevant for modern "Court of" designations in domestic relations and juvenile jurisdiction.
The Law Mind Criminal Law Encyclopedia: Criminal Contempt of Court (criminal_262) — relevant for the distinction between courts of record and other tribunals in contempt doctrine.
---