Selected quad for the lemma: act_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
act_n	king_n	parliament_n	void_a	3,949	5	9.2539	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A55583	William Powell alias Hinson Esq; plaintiffe; the Warden and Fellows of All-soules Colledge in Oxford defendants In the Chancellors Court of the University of Oxford in a pretended cause of dammage.	Powell, William.; All Souls College (University of Oxford)	1656 (1656)	Wing P3098A; ESTC R221774	5,578	8

did pay to the Colledge 26. li. 13. s. 4. d. for a Fine It is answered if any such money were by him paid for such a void Leasethen to him made and by him afterwards assigned to Sir Edward Powell this 26. li. 13. s. 4. d. and the dammages for the same if any due to any person is due in equity to the Executors of the said Richard Powell who in his own wrong departed with that money and cannot at all be due to the Plaintiffe as Executor of Sir Edward Powell who as to that payment was and is a meere stranger to the Colledge nor doth the now Plaintiffe by his Libell make any claime thereunto 26 Septem 1656. Charles Holloway for the Defendants William Powell Esquire Plaintiff The Warden and Fellowes of All soules Colledge in Oxon Defendants in the Chancellors Court of the Vniversity of Oxon in a Cause of damages THere is no cause why the Flaintiff should recover dammages against the Defendants for these reasons 1. There is neither Law nor equity to compell them to Lease their land to any one for it was lawfull for them to doe what they would with their own observing this rule sic utere tuo ut alienum non ledas as here they did for they did no hurt to Sir Edward Powell by making their Lease to Heron but lest Sir Edward as they found him 2 Heron was first deceived and it was good reason he should be first repaired Qui prior est tempore poti●r est jure 3 But if the Colledge had made the last lease to Sir Edward Powell had not Heron as good equity to have sued the Colledge for dammages as Sir Edward Powels Executors pretends to now certainly there had been aequale jus if any there was at all in either side to sue the Colledge 4. All the pretence for the Plaintiff is because his testator bought the last lease made in 1641. This in truth was no Lease it being made void by Act of Parliament of 18. Eliz. in which every mans consent was had for him and his heirs that such Lease should be void because the former was not within three yeers of expiration which was unknown to the Colledge but well known to Richard Powell the Lessee who wittingly deceived himselfe that he might cozen Sir Edward Powell the Plaintiffs testator 5. If the case were of a body naturall and that the Plaintiff or his testator had susteined damage by it by an act done unawares as here by making a void Lease yet ignorantia facti excusat 6. No crime can be imputed to a body politick aggregate and this sute is brought against a body politick and the charge of this Libell is grounded upon a deceipt in making a Lease to a wrong man which as is supposed ought to have been made to the Plaintiffs testator Now deceipt is a crime and a body without a soule although it be Allsoules cannot be guilty of a crime and so not be charged to pay damages or any way punishable for a crime And therefore if any sute would have lien it must have been against some naturall persons of that body but to charge them as a body politick there is no colour 7. As for the fine paid to the Colledge for the void Lease he paid it of his owne wrong for non decipitur qui scit se decipi he knew well he paid it for a void Lease and on purpose to cozen some body with it As appears by his so speedy putting it to sale to Sir Edward Powell And it is cleer this Richard Powell if he were living could have no remedy against the Colledge to recover back this fine for if he should it would give countenance to such fraudulent practises which the Law abhorreth and by like reason this Richard Powel's Executor nor any claiming from him can be in better case to recover the fine back againe then Richard Powell himselfe was for titulus derivativus can be no better then primitivus November 8. 1656. Tym. Tourneur William Powell alias Hinson Esquire Plaintiff The Warden and Fellowes of All-Soules Colledge in Oxford Defendants In the Chancellors Court of the University of Oxford in a pretended Cause of damage 1. I Conceive that the Lease being void by an Act of Parliament no remedy lies against the Colledge because the Act which makes it void gives no remedy it being lawfull and valid before 2. I conceive no remedy for this void Lease doth lie against the Colledge because in such cases no remedy was ever given or damages ever recovered though many void leases have been made since the Stat. of 13. and 18. Eliz. 3. The Stat. of 18. Eliz. resolves the question for that Stat. makes void all Bonds and Covenants entred into for making good such void leases Now Bonds and Covenants cannot make the Lease valid that is void but only give a satisfaction by way of damages But by that Law such securities as sound in satisfaction and damages are made void à fortiori an equity imploid is void for equit as sequitur lege●s 4. And in truth if an equity should be good against the Colledge to make satisfaction for the damages which such persons should sustain for want of an intrest in law in the lands then the Stat. ex obliquo must needs be evaded and ecclesiasticall corporations in succession depauperated the mischief solely intended to be remedied by the law for the recovery of damages being against the corporation not against the naturall individuall persons that made that Lease void and received the benefit of the Fine then it doth clearly follow though the corporation in succession enjoies the land and the profits of it yet if they must yeild as much in dammages what is this more in effect but receiving with one hand and paying with another And so the Colledge in succession is deteriorated in the matters provided against by the Parliament Frustrapetis qued statim reddere cogeris 5. Though the Colledge have collaterall security to save them harmlesse for what by law shall be recovered against them in such a case if by law nothing can be recovered against them though de facto there be an appearance of it they shall never have any benefit of their collaterall security so the Colledge is the party politick against whom these damages must be effectually recover'd and for a voluntary re-imbursement it is no argument one way or other 6. For the Court where this controversie is depending viz. the University Court of Oxford which Court cannot have jurisdiction in this cause for two reasons 1. Because they have no jurisdiction but by ancient usage or Letters Patents By usage they can have no jurisdiction in this Cause because the ground of the question or controversie is upon the Stat. of 13. and 18. Eliz. there being no such case that could come in question before those Statutes So not by ancient usage and then not by Letters Patents for they have no jurisdiction granted by Letters Patents herein since those Statutes And secondly Because the King cannot create a Court of equity by Charter and there is no Act of Parliament that doth confirm their jurisdiction herein whether they will lay the foundation of their jurisdiction herein either by ancient usage or Letters Patents because the Act of Parliament by which the jurisdiction of the University Courts of Oxford and Cambridge are confirmed and which doth confirme their jurisdictions formerly enjoied by usage or Letters Patents is a Prior act viz. 13 Eliz. to the Act of Parliament upon which this question doth properly arise viz. 18. Eliz. 7. Admit they have a jurisdiction of the cause yet they must judge secundum legem terrae according to the Law of the Land and not according to the civill Law not formerly used in England 1. Because no part of the Civill Law is of force in England not in the Ecclesiastical Courts of England but what hath been anciently used in England and is thereby become the Law of England and in truth so much of the civill Law as hath been anciently used in England is the common Law of England in those cases 2. Though the University Courts of Oxford and Cambridge do in formula juris that is to say in the method of their procedings seem rather to follow the ecclesiastical Courts then the common law Courts the advocats there are civilians yet in truth they are no ecclesiastical Courts but Courts of Law and equity mixt established by usage Letters Patents and Acts of Parliament and their judgements and sentences doe bind the person and goods to execution and are as the Court of the Marshes of Wales that were mixt of law and equity and so though they have a peculiar jurisdiction in respect of the place yet in their judgements and sentences they must judge secundum legem terrae as the superior Courts of Law or equity would do in those cases From all which I conclude that the University Court of Oxford cannot give damages against All-Soules Colledge in this case November 10 1656. George Starkey