Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A29951
|
Non compos mentis, or, The law relating to natural fools, mad-folks, and lunatick persons inquisited and explained for common benefit / by John Brydall, Esq.
|
Brydall, John, b. 1635?
|
1700
(1700)
|
Wing B5265; ESTC R19885
|
74,121
|
154
|
Infant This Case being in the Chancery between the Parishioners and Rolt was referred by the Court to Hobart and Tanfield and they resolved clearly that it was within the Relief of the Statute of 43 Eliz. for tho' the Devise was utterly void yet it was within the Words limited and appointed to charitable Uses Otherwise if he were an Infant Lunatick or the like that gave it or that one appointed that that were not his own to charitable Uses VIII QUERY Actions touching a Lunatick's Lands whether they must be brought in his own Name SOLUTION One Cockes brought an Action of Trespass of Trover and Conversion of Beans against Darson and coming to Trial at the Assizes upon Hobart's Rep. 215. Cockes v. Darson Not Guilty because it was a small Cause the Judge took not the Jury but directed to move the Court and so it was and the Cause was That the Lands whereupon the Beans grew were a Lunatick's and Copyhold and the Lord had granted unto one the Custody of the Land by whose Leave and Assent the Plaintiff did sow the Land And the Court was of Opinion That the Action was to be brought in the Name of the Lunatick For there was no Interest gained in his Land by this Commitment That an Action must be brought in the Name of the Lunatick I shall subjoin what Popham has reported in the Matter The Custody of a Copyholder that was a Lunatick was committed to I. S. Popham's Rep. f. 141. Darcy's Case in the Common Pleas. and for Trespass done upon his Land it was demanded of the Court In whose Name I. S. should bring the Action And their Opinion was That it should be in the Name of the Lunatick IX QUERY Whether the Lord of a Mannor can grant the Custody of a Copyhold belonging to a Lunatick without a special Custom SOLUTION Lord Chief Justice Hobart did not agree That the Lord hath power over the Hobart's Reports f. 215 216. Cockes v. Darson Lunatick's Land without a special Custom for the imitation of the King's Power over Freeholds makes no Consequence For tho' he takes the Statute to be but an â—…ffirmance of the Common Law in the Case of the King â—…et the Collateral Incidents of Estates as Dower Tenancy 〈◊〉 the Courtesie Wardships and the like are not without secial Custom That Copyhold Estates shall not have such Qualities as â—…states at Common Law without special Custom See â—…ore 4 Co. f. 21. Brown's Case f. 22. b. Rivet's Case 〈◊〉 23 Deal Rigden's Case f. 23. Bullock Dibley's Case Cro. Eliz. f. 391. Pl. 14. Clun v. Pease and â—…urner and Palter v. Cornhill f. 361. Pl. 22. X. QUERY Whether the Acts of a Lunatick during his Intermissions or lucid Intervals be binding SOLUTION The Acts that Lunatick Persons do during the time of their Lucida Intervalla tho' it be by Deed in the Country as by Feoffment Obligation or the like shall bind them and others concerned in it as any other Men are by their Acts bound Sheppard in his Abridgment Part 2. Tit. Idiot 4 Co. f. â—…125 a. Beverley's Case of Non compos mentis Bracton lib. 5. tract 5. de Exceptionibus c. 20. nu 1. f. 420. b. Fleta lib. 6. c. 40 n. 1. XI QUERY Whether the King who is to keep the Lunatick his Wife and Children with the Profits of the Lands can granâ—… them over to the proper use of another Person SOLUTION In Trespass Quare clausum fregit and cutting hiâ—… Trees in Paddington in the Country of Middlesex bâ—… Iohn Francis against William Holms The Defendant Hil. 28. H. 8. Rot. 401. in the Common Pleas Francis Holms Case Dyer f. 25. b. 26. a. Pl. 164. Edit 1688. 4 Co. 128. b. Beverley's Case pleaded that it was found by Office before thâ—… Escheator of the said County of Middlesex that thâ—… said Iohn Francis was a Lunatick and that he was seizeâ—… in Fee of the Land in which c. for which the King seised his Person and his Land and by his Letters Patentâ—… granted the Rule Government and Custody of the same Person and Lands to the said Holmes Quamdiu that the Person was Lunatick to take the Profits to his own use and so justified and prayed in Aid of the King and thereupon it was demanded in Law If he should have Aid or not And it was adjudged That he should not have Aid of the King for this Grant was utterly void for the King is bound to keep the Lunatick his Wife Children and Houshold with the Profits of the Lands and without taking any thing to his own use but all to the use of the Lunatick and his Family and all to the intent that the King may provide that he who wanteth Reason should not alien his Lands and waste his Goods And the King after Office found hath only Provision and hath not any Custody of the Body or Lands of a Lunatick as he hath of an Idiot and he hath nothing to grant over But if the King provides one to have Care and Charge of him who is Non compos mentis that his Family shall be maintained and that nothing be wasted or if one of his own Head taketh so much upon himself in this Case he is but as Bailiff of him that is Non compos mentis and shall be accountable to him as Bailiff or to his Executors or Administrators and he cannot cut down Trees but for necessary House-boot Plough-boot and Cart-boot and to repair the ancient Pales and all that the Bailiff may do he may do and not otherwise XII QUERY Whether the Committee of a Lunatick can grant Copyhold Estates SOLUTION The Committee of a Lunatick cannot grant Copyhold Estates but he himself may do so by his Steward as appears by this subsequent Resolution A. seised of a Mannor for Life where there were many Copyhold Estates grantable Trin. 9 Iac. in the Court of Wards Blewits Case Leonard 47 48. by Copy of Court-Roll for Life in Possession and for another in Reversion granted the Stewardship by Deed under his Hand and Seal to I. S. for Life with a Fee for executing thereof and after he became a Lunatick and Non compos mentis and so was found by Inquisition who was committed to I. D. under the Seal of the Court of Wards The Question was Whether the Steward by the Consent of the Committee or the Committee himself by their Steward might grant Copyhold Estates according to the Custom of the Mannor It was resolved by Hobart Chief Justice and Tanfield Chief Baron That the said Committee could not grant any Copyhold Estate for that they themselves by Law had no Estate in the Mannor nor are Lords thereof for the time being but that the said Lunatick by his Steward might grant Copyhold Estates according to the Custom of the Mannor XIII QUERY If a Dean of Paul's happen to be a Lunatick who shall have the Custody of him SOLUTION In the Reign of H.
himself before the making of his Testament altho' he do not prove the Testator's Madness at the very time of the making of the Testament the Reason is It being proved that the Testator was once mad the Law presumeth him to continue still in that Case * Praesumptioni standum est nisi contrarium probetur D. 23. 3. 57. in fine D. 4. 2. 23. D. 12. 4. 6. 10. 2 Inst. 477. 10. Litt. 373 b. Bracton l. 1. c. 9. n. 4. Fleta l. 1. c. 6. unless the contrary be proved For like as the Law presumeth every Man to be an honest Man unless the contrary be proved and being proved then he which is evil to be evil still So concerning Furor the Law presumeth every Man to have the use of Reason and Understanding unless the contrary be proved which being proved accordingly then he is presumed in Law to continue still void of the use of Reason and Understanding unless the Testator were besides himself but for a short time and in some peculiar Actions and not continually for a long space as for a Month or more or unless the Testator fell into some Frenzy upon some accidental Cause which Cause is afterwards taken away or unless it be a long time since the Testator was assaulted with the Malady for in these Cases the Testator is not presumed to continue in his former Furor or Frenzy III. QUERY Furor or Madness whether hard to be proved And how it may be proved SOLUTION It is a hard and difficult Point to prove a Man not to have the use of Reason and therefore it is not sufficient Swinburn Part 2. § 3. f. 38. a. Edit 1590. for the Witnesses to depose that the Testator was mad or besides his Wits unless they yield a sufficient Reason to prove this their Deposition as that they did see him to do such Things or heard speak such Words as a Man having Wit or Reason would not have done or spoken namely they did see him throw Stones against the Windows or did see him usually to spit in Mens Faces or being asked a Question they did see him hiss like a Goose or bark like a Dog or play such other Parts as Mad-folks use to do This or the like Reason whereby the Judge may be induced to esteem the Testator not to be of sound Mind ought the Witnesses to yield altho' they be not interrogated of the Cause of their Knowledge IV. QUERY Madness whether it may be proved by singular Witnesses SOLUTION This Furor or Madness may be proved by singular Witness so that the Witnesses be not singular in Swinburn in his Treatise of Wills Part 2. § 3. f. 38. a b. time for if one Witness depose of the Madness of the Testator at one time and another Witness of his Madness at another time this doth not sufficiently prove that the Testator was mad But when the Witnesses agreeing in time one deposeth of one mad Prank another Witness of another mad Act at the same time these prove that the Testator was then mad tho' they do not both depose of one and the same mad Act But if some Witnesses do depose That the Testator was of perfect Mind and Memory and others depose the contrary their Testimony is to be preferred which depose he was of sound Memory as well for that their Testimony tendeth to the Favour and Validity of the Testament as for that the same is more agreeable to the Disposition of Nature for every Man is a Creature reasonable V. QUERY Whether the Grant of a Copyhold Estate made by the Lord of the Copyhold Mannor that is a Mad-man can be good in Law SOLUTION It is to be known That any Person who may be a Grantor in a Deed may be a good Grantor of a Copyhold Estate For this any Person Coke of Copyholds f. 89. 4 Co. f. 23. Clerk Penifather's Case Sheppard's Court-Keeper's Guide cap. 19. p. 108 109 4th Edit 1656. 8 Co. f. 63. b. Swain's Case Man or Woman that hath a lawful Estate in a Mannor for a time may be a good Lord to grant Copyholds take Surrenders make Estates and Admittances according to the Custom of the Mannor notwithstanding the Disability of his Person or Exility of his Estate and therefore 't is held that an Infant an Excommunicate Person a Person Outlawed in an Action Personal a Felon before his Attainder by Outlawry Verdict or Confession a Lunatick or a Man distracted being Lord of a Mannor may grant Copyhold Estates for any time according to the Custom of the Mannor as another Man may do and the Estates made by them are unavoidable VI. QUERY A Mad-man being seized of Land and granting a Rent-Charge out of this same Land dies his Heir entring and the Grantee distraining for Rent-Arrear whether the Heir may bring an Action of Trespass SOLUTION If a Man Non Sanae Memoriae being seized of a Carve of Land in Fee and die and his Heir enter and the P. 12 E. 4. 8 H. 39. H. 6. Perkins § 21. Tit. Grants Grantee distrein for the Rent behind the Heir shall have an Action of Trespass but if the Grantee had distreined in the Life of the Grantor for the Rent behind the Grantor should not have an Action of Trespass for he cannot avoid his own Deed by disabling of himself VII QUERY A Man of Sane Memorie seised of Land makes a Feoffment in Fee and after when he is besides himself or distracted makes a Letter of Attorney for Livery of Seizin which is executed accordingly the Feoffor dies whether the Heir may lawfully enter upon the Feoffee SOLUTION If a Letter of Attorney to make Livery of Seisin is made of certain Land by a Man of unsound Memory 17 Ass. Pl. 17. Perkins § 23. Tit. Grants and the Charter of Feoffment of the same Land was made before when he was of good Memory and then Livery of Seisin was made by force of the Letter of Attorney without other Assent of the Feoffor and the Feoffor die now his Heir may enter upon the Feoffee but the Feoffor himself cannot enter VIII QUERY Whether the Entry of the Heir of a Furor Man be lawful maugre a Descent had in the Life of his Ancestors SOLUTION If a Man that is bereft of his Wits hath cause to enter into his Lands and Tenements Littleton Sect. 405. which another hath in Fee c. and suffers a Discent during the time he was out of his Wits and after dies the Heir of Non Sane Memorie may well enter upon him that is in by Discent for the Heir in this case can well disable the Person of his Ancestors for his own Advantage because no Latches can be adjudged by the Law in him which hath no Discretion in such case And yet his Ancestors which had the same Title could not enter For he who was out of his Memory at the time of such Discent if he will enter after such a Discent