Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
book_n lord_n time_n year_n 2,576 5 4.6089 4 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A80543 The Copy-holders plea against the excess of fines, uncertain exacted of them by their lords upon their admittance. 1653 (1653) Wing C6240; Thomason E724_4; Thomason E830_1; ESTC R207260 6,173 11

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

THE COPY-HOLDERS PLEA Against the Excess of Fines Uncertain Exacted of them by THEIR LORDS Upon their ADMITTANCE LONDON Printed by Peter Cole in Leaden-Hall and are to be sold at his Shop at the sign of the Printing-press in Cornhil neer the Royal Exchange 165● 1654 The Coppyholders Plea against the excess of Fines uncertain Exacted of them by their Lords upon their Admittance IT is agreed of al hands That a Cook upon Littl. f. 60. Cook 11. Report 44. al excessiveness is abhorred in Law and that b Cook upon Lit. f. 59. b Cook 4 Rep. 27. b. where the Fine is uncertain yet it must be reasonable and so doth the Pleading of the Custome wherby such a Fine is Alleadged to be due to the Lord plainly shew As may be seen in the New Book of Entries f. 646. b. in the Title to Trespass Whether then 3 years Value 2 years Value a year and a half or a years Value at a rack Rent or those Fines exacted by Lords in those latter Ages may be thought to be reasonable is now to be discussed For the true understanding of which this Difference is to be well Observed viz. Between voluntary Grants of Coppyhold Estates forfeited or Escheated and Granted again de nono by the Lord and Admittances upon Surrender to the use of another or of the Hei● upon a Discent In the first Case the Lord may take what Fine he pleaseth upon Admittance being both Donor and Instrument to perfect his own Grant for there it is truly said Arbitrio Dominires aestimari debet That the thing is to be estimated at the Lords or Owners Will. But in the other Case the Lord is but an Instrument to perfect the Surrender or the Heirs Estate Discended to him the Lord Granteth nor doth nothing But what he is compelable to do by the Purchaser or Heir who are in by him which maketh the Surrender or the Ancester respectively after admittance and not by the Lord and therefore shal not be subject to the Charge or Incumbrances of the Lord and also the admittance of a Disseisor or other Lord which hath no good but a defeasible Estate and Interest in the Mannor Cooks 4 Rep. 27 b. Taverner and Cromwels Case 28. b. in Westwicks and Wyers Case shal bind him which hath Right after that he hath recontinued the Mānor by Action or Entry in such case otherwise it is of voluntary Grants made by a Desseisor or Tenant by Sufferance of a Mannor d Cook 4. Rep. 24. Rous and Arters Case as may be seen in Chudleighs Case Cook 's 1 Rep. 140. b. And in Clarks and Penifathers Case Cook 4. Rep. f. 23. b. and 24. where the Earl of Arundels Case T. 17. El. Dy. 343. is cited and several good Cases put upon this Difference Omitting therefore voluntary Grants upon Escheate or Forfeiture and to speak only of Admittances upon surrender and discent where the Lord giveth nothing nothing passeth from him he is only an Instrument and compellable to admit and the Party admitted is not in by him but by him which made the Surrender or his Ancestor How can a ful yeers rack Rent or those Fines now exacted and taken upon such Admittance in latter ages be deemed or thought to be equal or reasonable In the new Book of Entries in the title before cited p. 3. fol. 644. b. you shal find that famous Case adjudged in the Common Pleas p. 6. Jacob Rot. 1468. upon a Demurrer as is said there fol. 617. b. The Case was between Stallon Plaintiff and Brady Servant of Thomas Willows Lord of the Mannor of Fendi●ton in the County of Cambridge Defendant in which the Fine of Five pounds six shillings and eight pence demanded by the Lord of the Plaintiff who was Purchasor for his Admittance to a Coppyhold Cottage and an Acre of Pasture let at Two pounds Thirteen shillings and four pence which was two yeers value at a rack Rent was adjudged an unreasonable Fine And in the Report of that Case it is to be seen that the Lord Cook being then Chief Justice said That for the Lord of a Mannor to demand of his Coppyholders Two yeers Profits for his Fine for his Admittance it was a damnable thing And Justice Walmsely said That it was worse than Extortion and Warberton That it was a lamentable case Daniel and Foster Justices said If mean Lords might take such unreasonable Fines it would overthrow all the Estates of Coppyholders which are a great part of the Realm and that upon deliberation they al agreed in one That Copyholders are to be compared unto Land that is holden in Capite upon sale whereof if a Lycence of Alienation be sued forth there was paid to the King but a Third Part of one yeers Profit and said They could see no Reason that a mean Lord should have any more for an Admittance to any Copyhold for the Lord doth but give a Breath for his Money and doth neither add nor diminish any thing to or from himself But in Case where a Third Part of One yeers Profit had not been paid for a Fine then they held the greatest Fine that had been paid to be a reasonable Fine and no more This Case is Observable and very worthy of our notice as coming neerest to the Ancient Presidents of Fines taken in former ages appearing in the Court Rolls of Mannors where they be truly kept and not imbeziled as in too many places they are to the great injury of Copyholders who either by the wilful or negligent keeping of those Rolls are many times deprived of those Advantages and Remedies which otherwise they might have against the Exaction and Usurpations of their Lords both of Fines and Herriots and otherwise For before these hundred yeers last past or therabouts there never did arise any Questions or Controversies about the reasonableness of Copyholders Fines which do appear so moderate were they before That the Copyholders had then no Cause to Complain in that Particular and the Cases and Controversies upon that Question in our Books or Reports are but of late times Actions upon the Case for Words are not so Rare in our yeer Books as this Question about the Reasonableness of Copyholders Fines The Fines anciently taken were indeed but very smal and inconsiderable rather Gratuities and Acknowledgments given to the Lords for their Stewards Wages and Charges in keeping of those Courts at which the Copyholders had their Admittances than out of any reference or respect had to the rack Rent of the Copyhold the improvement whereof by Building or good Husbandry and by the Industry and Charges of the Tenant could in no reason be thought to be a good consideration for the Lord to ask a higher Fine the Lord bearing no share at all either in the Costs or Pains in the improvement And therfore that vulgar Objection made for the Justification of Excessive Fines taken in these daies because of the yeerly value of