Selected quad for the lemma: act_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
act_n	council_n	parliament_n	privy_a	2,717	5	9.7040	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A26141	An enquiry into the jurisdiction of the Chancery in causes of equity ... humbly submitted to the consideration of the House of Lords, to whom it belongeth to keep the inferiour courts within their bounds / by Sir Robert Atkyns, Knight ... ; to which is added, The case of the said Sir Robert Atkyns upon his appeal against a decree obtained by Mrs. Elizabeth Took and others, plaintiffs in Chancery, about a separate maintenance of 200£ per annum, &c.	Atkyns, Robert, Sir, 1621-1709.	1695 (1695)	Wing A4137; ESTC R16409	49,475	54

or at any time should be where there might be the same mischiefs viz. by Impeaching Judgments given in the King's Courts which are so often declared to be in Subversion of the Law He affirms That the Proceedings by English Bill in Chancery are not Coram Domino Rege in Cancellaria as the Latine Proceedings are but by a Bill or Petition directed to the Lord Chancellor and not to the King This Case was adjourn'd and we heard of no further Proceeding I was then of Council for the Plaintiff at Law to maintain the Stat. of 4 H. 4. and the Demurrer Crompton's Jurisdiction of Courts in the chapter of the Chancery fol. 67. he allows of the Statute of 4 H. 4. and agrees it extends to the Chancery and mentions what is written by Doctor and Student upon that point So that here are all sorts of Resolutions in this very point and from all sorts of Authorities in Law and in several Reigns Ancient and Modern by the whole Parliament declared by several Statutes by the House of Lords by all the Twelve Judges at several times by all the Courts of Law in Westminster-hall and in particular by the Court of Exchequer most of whose business is to Relieve in Equity grounded upon a Power and Jurisdiction vested in them by Act of Parliament if not by Prescription the two onely ways whereby a Jurisdiction in Equity can be given as has been often resolved and was before observed And all these are Unanimous not one Judge dissenting or doubting not any one Resolution Book or Authority in the Law to the contrary And yet as I am informed the Court of Chancery constantly and without any hesitancy or scruple made of it proceeds to Relieve in Equity after Judgment at Law The Plea and Argument for it on the Chancery side which we may find in a late Author the Title of whose Book is Reports of Cases in the Court of Chancery Printed 1693. to which is added Arguments to prove the Antiquity Dignity Power and Jurisdiction of that Court And much to that purpose is recited in Sir Edw. Coke 3 Instit. fol. 125. in the beginning of that folio It is a Privy Seal 14 Jac. Anno 1616. whereby that King assuming to himself a Power to Arbitrate between the Courts of the Common Law and the Chancery in questions concerning their Jurisdiction and more especially in the great Dispute between the Judges and the Chancellor Whether the Chancery could Relieve in Equity after a Judgment obtained at Common Law which Dispute did arise upon the construction of the Stat of 4 H. 4. cap. 23. whichdid by Law belong to the Judges to determine and resolve as hath been proved and they had determined it King James taking it to belong to his Kingly Office to Arbitrate in such Cases Decides as they would believe the Controversie by adjudging it with the Chancery which he signifies under his Privy Seal and thereby does Will and Command the Chancellor shall from thence-forward proceed to give such Relief in Equity And this was done against the Unanimous Resolution of all the Judges of England and without calling the Judges to Debate it and without any Hearing of them looking upon them as Parties concerned and practical which is a Scurvey Reflection and Scandal upon the Justice of the Nation See the 2d Instit. of Sir Edw. Cok. fol. 617. The Answer of the Twelve Judges to the Twenty fourth Objection to this purpose so that the King upon hearing his own Council Learned in the Law only took upon him to Over-rule all the Twelve Judges in a point of Law and to Interpret and Expound an Act of Parliament which properly belongs to the Judges next under the Supream Court And no wonder is it if King James I. took this Arbitrage upon him as belonging to his Kingly Office and resolved it under his Privy Seal when his constant Opinion was that he was above the Law and that it was Treason to affirm the contrary which yet all the Twelve Judges stoutly did and cited Bracton for it Rex sub Deo Lege See a Collection of King James's Works in a large Folio Printed 1616. pag. 203. where he affirms that the King is above the Law and that he may Interpret it And pag. 534. That it is his Office to make every Court to contain it self within his own Limits See the Act for regulating of the Privy Council c. 16 Car. 1. cap. 10. before-mentioned in the 5th Paragraph it is Declared and Enacted That neither his Majesty nor his Council have or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Authority by Petition Articles or any other way to draw into question determine or dispose of the Lands or Goods of any of the Subjects of this Kingdom but the same ought to be Tried and Determined in the ordinary Courts of Justice and by the ordinary Course of Law See the several ancient Statutes that require and command the Judges to proceed to administer Justice without Regard had to the Great or Privy Seal that command the contrary Magna Charta cap. 29. 2 E. 3. c. 8. 14 E. 3. c. 14. 20 E. 3. c. 11. Some will argue for the Jurisdiction of the Chancery in Equity from the Statute of Westminster the 2d 13 E. 1. cap. 24. which directs That Nemo recedat à Curia Regis sine Remedio from hence they Collect that where there is matter of Equity wherein the Common Law cannot Relieve there the Chancery by this Statute is enabled to provide Remedy Whereas the Design and Scope of that Statute extends no further than to the framing of Writs in order to Relief by Actions at the Common Law where the Register of Writs that ancient Book of Law had for some new and special Cases provided no Writ which is the first step in every Action and is proper work for the Chancery which is therefore styled Officina Brevium It is very far from giving that Court any Jurisdiction in Equity but it shews what Remedy is to be given towards a Proceeding at the Common Law and not to Relieve against it But it may be noted from this ancient Statute that neither the Chancellor nor the Chancery could alter an Original or so much as frame a new Writ were there never so great Necessity for it till enabled by this Statute It could be done only by the Parliament and in such Cases the Parties were forced to wait till the meeting of a Parliament tho they had manifest Right and clear Equity on their side but no Remedy at Law If it were then a Court of Equity why did not the Chancery Relieve in Equity because the Party was without Remedy at Law Note in the next place That the Parliament by that Statute doth not entrust the Chancellor alone nor any one Person with the framing of new Writs fitted to such new Cases tho they were Cases that had a manifest Right but not a Legal Remedy and yet Writs

Sages of the Law but the Judges to whom by Law belongs the Construction of the Acts of Parliament and the pronouncing of our Laws See the 2 Instit. fol. 611. The Judges in their Answ. to the 16th Objection 614 618. the Judges only are to expound Acts tho they concern Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Here is no need of a distinct Court of Equity Such a Case of Equity was that of Reniger and Fogassa the first Case in Plowd Comment tho determin'd by a Privy Seal it being in the King 's own Case concerning the Customs There is another Equity says that Case of Eyston and Studde in the Comment which differs much from the former and may be thus defin'd Equitas est verborum legis directio efficiens cum una res solummodo legis cavetur verbis ut omnis alia in aequali genere eisdem caveatur verbis As for instance the Stat. of 9 E. 3. Cap. 3. which gives an Action of Debt against Executors shall be extended by Equity to Administrators tho not within the words But this also is done by the Judges of the Common Law Here is no mention of a Chancery-Equity and it had been according to the right Rules of Logick no good Division if it had not taken in all the parts called the Membra Dividentia which ought to be Toti adaequata Keckerm Systema Logicae pag. 245. regula quarta Doctor and Student pag. 27 28. Equity is to be exercised in the mild and merciful Construction of a Law and in some Cases departing from the strict and rigorous words of a positive Law rather than oppress any Man by it which is not by appealing from that Law or from the Court where that Law is administred but resorting from the Letter to the true intent and meaning of the Law and the true mind of the Makers of the Law Ubi aliud suadet necessitas cessat humanae constitutionis vigor cessat voluntas Nomothetae But this is the Duty of the Judges of the Common Law and to be done in the same Court and in the same Suit and Action and not in another Court and by a new Suit under pretence of Equity for that were to censure the Law and the Judges of the Common-Law Courts and to charge the Law-makers either with Ignorance or over-much Severity which is not to be suffered And this says St. Germin the Author of that Treatise is secretly intended and understood in every general Rule of every positive Law according to what is before remembred in this Discourse out of the Case of Eyston and Studde in Plowd Comment and what is said by the Author of Doctor and Student pag. 27. Laws says he covet to be ruled by Equity which is not meant meerly to be done in another Court Proceeding by Equity but by an equitable Construction of the Law in the Court of the Common Law as appears pag. 28. b. the latter end of that Chap. And those Equitable Constructions are there called Reasonable Exceptions of the Law and hold as well in Cases at Common Law as upon Statutes as appears by the Case there put at Common Law pag. 29. Cap. 17. and on the b. side of that page in medio it is said the Parties shall be relieved in the same Court and by the Common Law Plowd 88. b. 205. b. Thus in the Exposition of a Statute Judges depart from the words of the Law rather than run into an absurdity or inconvenience by a too literal Exposition as in the Case upon the Stat. of Marlbr concerning Distresses The Judges Hill 30. E. 3. gave Judgment against the express words of that Stat. tho the words were in the Negative too as is observed in the argument of Reniger and Fogassa's Case In Plowd Comment fol. 9. b. and it is a Rule in the exposition of Statutes many times to depart from the words to meet with the mind of the Law-makers whose intent as it must be presum'd is to do no Man wrong See in the same Case in Plowd fo 10. and in the same Book fol. 57. b. 199. b. 203. Laws expounded not only different from the words but contrary to them rather than do any Man wrong Such sence is to be made of the words of an Act of Parliament as may best stand with reason and equity and which most avoids rigour and mischief Plowd 364. a. in the Case of Stowell against the Lord Zouch It is spoken there by one or more of the Judges Some Cases by necessity in Construction are to be excepted out of a Stat. 2 Instit. 25. Many Cases may be within the Letter yet not within the meaning of an Act 2 Instit. 107. in Principio 110 111. and general words of a Stat. may be restrained by Construction 2 Instit. 502. and the Exposition of Statutes belongs to the Judges of the Common Law 2 Instit. 618. Hill 13 Jac. 1. in the King's-Bench Vaudry and Pannell's Case Rolles's Rep. first part 331. It is there said that if a Court of Equity made a false Sentence it may be revers'd by the King that is by his Commission for Mic. 42 43 Eliz. in a Suit in Chancery by the Countess of Southampton against the Lord of Worcester and others for the Mannor of Henningham It was resolv'd by all the Justices under their hands which is now in the Chancery That when a Decree is made in the Chancery upon a Petition to the Queen she may refer it to the Justices but not to any others to examine and to reverse it if there be Cause and the Lord Chancellor agreed to this Resolve and upon such a Petition and Reference the Decree made in that Case in Chancery was revers'd by the Justices This was in time before any Contest between the Two Jurisdictions viz. in Queen Elizabeths time and before the Judges were look'd upon as not indifferent It appears 3 H. 5. Nu. 46. That the Commons in a Petition complain That many were grieved by Writs which were called Writs of Sub-Paena which they say were not used till the time of the last King Richard That John de Waltham Bishop of Salisb. of his Subtilty invented and began such Novelty against the Common Law and that they proceeded upon those Writs according to the Civil Law in Subversion of the Common Law and they pray That an Action of Debt of Forty pounds may lye against such See the Record at large Roll. Abr. first part 371. too briefly Abridged by Sir Robert Cotton This is of the Nature of a Presentment by the Commons of England the Grand Jury of the Nation and it doth invincibly prove and testifie the time when this Jurisdiction was first set up in Chancery for the Writ of Sub-Paena is the first Process of that Court in Cases of Equity and 't is call'd a Novelty and Names the first Inventer John de Waltham who was Keeper of the Rolls in the time of King