Cargo and the Master acted accordingly and that 't is the Opinion of those who are learned in the Maritime Laws That where Freighters Goods are equally in danger and a like opportunity for the salvage thereof if the safety of the one be preferred and the other comes to be lost such preference obliges the Goods preserved to contribute to those which are lost it being a General Rule in Causes Maritime That one Man's Interest ought not to suffer for the Safety of anothers On the other side it was argued with the Decree That this Pretence was new that 't was a Notion unpresidented that the Rule of Averidge went only to the cases where the loss of one Man's Goods contributed to the safety of anothers as by Lightning the Vessel c. and not to this Case that here each Man was to undergo the Peril of his own Goods that in case of Damage to Goods within the Vessel other Goods were not contributory but the Owner must endure his own loss and had only his Remedy against the Master if it were occasioned by his Defect or Miscarriage that the reason of Averidge was a meritorious Consideration in the common Case because there the loss of one did actually save the other but here was no such thing The loss of these Oyls did not save the Silk nor did the saving of the Silk lose the Oyls for if the Silk had not been saved the Oyls had been lost for they were so bulky that they could not easily be removed without further time and if part only be saved 't is to the advantage of the Owner and where all cannot be saved at a time the Benefit is accidental to him whose Goods the Master's discretion directs to be saved And in this case here was no such Commodity as could contribute to the loss of a Ship if it had been kept on Board for the Silk if on Board had not assisted to her sinking But besides here were six or eight days between the landing of the Silk and the seizing of the Ship by the French in which time all the Oyls might have been landed and thereby both them and the Ship saved and the apprehension of the Danger could not so soon be removed by losing sight of the Enemy in the Morning and therefore there was no reason for the Master immediately to forbear landing his Oyls Therefore 't was prayed that the Appeal might be dismissed and the same was accordingly done and the Decree of Dismission below affirmed Whitfield Ux ' al' Appellants versus Paylor Ux ' al' Respondents APpeal from a Decree in Chancery The Case was thus Sir Lawrence Stoughton a young Baronet in Surrey having an Estate of near 1000 l. per Annum was a Servant to the Respondent Mary the Daughter of one Burnaby a Brewer reputed to be very rich Upon the first Proposal of Marriage Burnaby did agree to give 5000 l. certain and insisted to have a Jointure of 500 l. per An. settled and that she should have the Inheritance of the Jointure if he died without Issue Sir Lawrence did refuse to agree to this but afterwards he renewed the Treaty himself and accepted of Articles for payment of 5000 l. Portion and made a Settlement of a Jointure of Lands worth 500 l. per Annum and likewise made another Deed in the nature of a Mortgage of all his Estate as well the Reversion of her Jointure as the rest for securing the payment of 5000 l. to her in case Sir Lawrence died without Issue and died within a Fortnight after Marriage without Issue The Lady Stoughton prefers her Bill and prays the Appellants might be fore-closed of the Equity of Redemption on Failure of Payment The Appellants exhibit their Bill to be relieved against this as a Fraud and upon hearing of these Causes before the Master of the Rolls the Appellants were decreed to pay the 5000 l. by the first Day of Hillary Term 1695. without Interest but with Costs And in default the estate to be sold to raise it with Interest from that Day And upon a re-hearing before the Lord Keeper his Lordship confirmed the Decrees and gave a Twelve-months further time for payment And now it was argued for the Appellant That it was proved in the Cause that Sir Lawrence was a sickly weak Man that on his Death-bed he declared he had made no such Agreement but that the 5000 l. was to pay his Debts and no part of it was to return to his Wife and his Wife present and not contradicting it that it did not appear that he had any Counterpart of this Deed or that he ever advised or acquainted any of his own Relations with it and the Draught of the Deed was confessed to be burnt And further that the Agreement in its own nature was unreasonable that she should have both Portion and Jointure and that one was a merit for the other but that both should be vested in the same Person the Portion returned and the Jointure enjoyed was very hard and therefore to be set aside That Equity was to relieve against such pretended Agreements as things done without any Consideration inducing them and therefore void On the other side 't was insisted on for the Decree That the Man was of Age that there were two Treaties of Marriage which shews a deliberation that here was no mis-representation or imposition the Bargain in it self might be upon good reason the Gentleman being sickly and the Money was to be returned only upon a Contingency of his dying without Issue that in case of his having Issue the Agreement was common that perhaps she had the worst on 't under all Circumstances that all Bargains are not to be set aside because not such as the wisest People would make but there must be Fraud to make void their Acts and his forgetting that he had done such an Act when on his Death-bed is no reason for to annul it and the Marriage had been a good Consideration for a Jointure of it self And reasonable or unreasonable is not always the question in Equity if each Party was acquainted with the whole and meant what they did much less is it sufficient to say that 't was unreasonable as it hapned in event for if at the time 't was a tolerable Bargain nay if at the time this Bargain was the meaning of the Parties and each knew what was done and neither was deceived the same must stand And accordingly the Decree was affirmed Thomas Arnold Appellant Versus Mr. Attorney General Respondents Matthew Johnson Esq Respondents Thomas Bedford Gent. Respondents APpeal from a Decree in Chancery The Case was thus One Edmund Arnold Proctor being seized in Fee of the Mannor of Furthoe to the yearly value of 240 l. per Annum and also of some Personal Estate but having no Child or Brother living made his Will in writing and thereby amongst other Legacies to many other Persons he gave to the Appellant by
of the greatest Members of the House Selden Hollis Maynard Palmer Hide c. that the Earl Marshal can make no Court without the Constable and that the Earl Marshal's Court is a grievance Rushworth 2 Vol. 1056. Nalson's 1 Vol. 778. Spelman in his Glossary verbo Mareschallus seems to say 't was officium primo Servile and that he was a meer Servant to the Constable and gives much such another account of it as Cambden doth and pag. 403. is an Abstract or rather Transcript of all that is in the Red Book in the Exchequer about the nature of this Office and there 't is said that if the King be in War then the Constable and Marshal shall hold Pleas and the Marshal shall have the Amerciaments and Forefeitures of all those who do break the Commandments of the Constable and Marshal and then it was further alledged by the Councel for the Defendant in the Writ of Error that they knew of no Statute Record or Ancient Book of Law or History that ever mentioned the Earl Marshal alone as having Power to hold a Court by himself So that taking it as a Court held before an incompetent Judge a Prohibition ought to go and the Party ought not to be put to his Action after he has undergone imprisonment and paid his Fine since it hath the semblance of a Court and pretends to act as such and if it be a Court before the Earl Marshal alone in case it exceeds the Jurisdiction proper to it a Prohibition lies either by force of the Common-Law which states the boundaries and limits of that Jurisdiction or by force of the Statute of 8 Rich. 2. which is not repealed by the subsequent Law in that Reign and if such Prohibition do lie in any Case that here was cause for it the subject matter of the Articles being only a wrong if any to a private Officer who had his proper remedy at the Common-Law and therefore it was prayed that the Judgment should be affirmed and it was affirmed Smith Vx ' Versus Dean and Chapter of Paul 's London and Lewis Rugle APpeal from a Decree of Dismission made by the Lord Jeffreys the Bill was to compel the Dean and Chapter as Lord of the Mannor to receive a Petition in nature of a Writ of false Judgment for Reversing a common recovery suffered in the Mannor Court in 1652. whereby a Remainder in Tail under which the Plaintiff claimed was barred suggesting several Errors in the proceeding therein And that the said Lord might be commanded to examine the same and do Right thereupon To this Bill the Defendant Rugle demurred and the Dean and Chapter by Answer insisted That 't was the first Attempt of this kind and of dangerous consequence and therefore conceived it not fit to proceed on the said Petition unless compelled thereto by course of Law That Rugle being the Person concerned in interest to contest the sufficiency of the Common-recovery they hoped the Court would hear his defence and determine therein before any Judgment were given against them and that they were only Lords of the Mannor and ready to Obey c. and prayed that their rights might be preserved This demurrer was heard and ordered to stand And now it was insisted on by the Council with the Appellant that this was the only Remedy which they had that no Writ of Error or false Judgment lies for Reversing of a recovery or Judgment obtained in a Copyhold Court that the only method was a Bill or Petition to the Lord in nature of a Writ of false Judgment which of common right he ought to receive and to cause Errors and defects in such recovery or Judgment to be examined and for this were Cited Moore 68. Owen 63. Fits N. B. 12. 1 Inst 60. 4 Rep. 30. is such a Record mentioned to have been seen by Fenner where the Lord upon Petition to him had for certain Errors in the proceedings Reversed such Judgment given in his own Court 1 Roll's Abridg. 600. Kitchin 80. 1 Roll's Abridg. 539. Lanc. 98. Edward's Case Hill 8. Jac. 1. by all which it appears that this is an allowed and the only remedy Then it was argued That in all Cases where any Party having a Right to any Freehold Estate is barred by Judgment Recovery or Fine such Party of common Right may have a Writ of Error if the same be in a Court of Record and a Writ of false Judgment if in a Court Baron or County Court and reverse such Judgment Recovery or Fine for Error or Defect and there can be no reason assigned why a Copyholder especially considering the great quantity of Land of that Tenure in England should be without remedy when a false Judgment is given and the rather for that in Real Actions as this was the Proceedings in the Lord's Courts are according to those in Westminster-hall and now tho' a Common Recovery be a Common Assurance yet it was never pretended that a Writ of Error to Reverse it was refused upon that pretence and if the Lord of a Mannor deny to do his Duty the Chancery hath such a Superiour Jurisdiction as to enjoyn him thereto 'T is the Business of Equity to see that Right be done to all Suitors in Copyhold Courts Fitsh Abridg. Subpena 21. 2 Cro. 368. 2 Bulstr. 336. 1 Rolls Abridg. 373. If an Erroneous Judgment be given in such Court of a common Person 's in an Action in the Nature of a Formedon a Bill may be in Chancery in nature of a false Judgment to Reverse it and Lanc. 38. Tanfield says that he was of Counsel in the Case of Patteshall and that it was so decreed which is much more then what is here contended for and tho' Common Recoveries are favoured and have been supported by several Acts of Parliament yet no Parliament ever thought fit to deprive the Parties bound by such Recoveries of the benefit of a Writ of Error On the other side 't was urged in defence of the Dismission That the Person who suffered this Recovery had a power over the Estate that she might both by Law and Conscience upon a Recovery dispose of it as she should think fit that she hath suffered a Recovery and that it was suffered according to the custom of the Mannor tho' not according to the form of those suffered in Westminster-hall That the suffering of Recoveries in any Court and the Methods of proceeding in them are rather notional then real things and in the Common Law Courts they are taken notice of not as Adversary Suits but as Common Assurances so that even there few Mistakes are deemed so great but what are remedied by the Statute of Jeofailes or will be amended by the Assistance of the Court And if it be so in the Courts at Westminster where the Proceedings are more solemn and the Judges are Persons of Learning and Sagacity how much rather ought this to stand which was suffered in 1652. during the Times of
Disorder and most Proceedings informal and in the English Tongue in such a mean Court where are few Precedents to guide them where the Parties themselves are not empowered to draw up their own Proceedings as here above but the whole is left to the Steward who is a Stranger to the Person concerned and therefore 't is hard and unreasonable that Mens Purchases should be prejudiced by the Ignorance Unskilfulness or Dishonesty of a Steward or his Clerks that there is scarce one Customary Recovery in England which is exactly agreeable to the Rules of the Common Law that the questioning of this may in consequence endanger multitudes of Titles which have been honestly purchased especially since there can be no aid from the Statutes of Jeofailes for they do not extend to Courts Baron 'T was further urged That there was no Precedent to enforce Lords of Mannors to do as this Bill desired that the Lords of Mannors are the ultimate Judges of the Regularity or Errours in such Proceedings that there 's no Equity in the Prayer of this Plaintiff that if the Lord had received such Petition and were about to proceed to the Reversal of such Recovery Equity ought then to interpose and quiet the Possession under those Recoveries That Chancery ought rather to supply a Defect in a Common Conveyance if any shall happen and decree the Execution of what each Party meant and intended by it much rather than to assist the annulling of a Solemn Agreement executed according to Usage tho' not strictly conformable to the Rules of Law For which Reasons it was prayed that that Appeal might be dismissed and the Dismission below confirmed and ' was accordingly adjudged so The Countess of Radnor versus Vandebendy al. APpeal from a Decree of Dismission in Chancery the Case was to this effect The Earl of Warwick upon Marriage of his Son settles part of his Estate upon his Lady for a Jointure and after failure of Issue Male limits a Term for 99 years to Trustees to be disposed of by the Earl either by Deed or Will And for want of such Appointment then in trust for the next in Remainder and then limited the whole Estate in such manner as that a third part of a Moiety thereof came to the Lord Bodmyn the Appellants late Husband in Tail general with the Reversion in Fee to the Earl and his Heirs The Son died without Issue the Earl by his Will appoints the Lands to his Countess for so many years of the Term as she should live and to her Executors for one year after her Death and charges the Term with several Annuities some of which remain in being The Respondent's Father purchased part of these Lands from the Lord Bodmyn after his Marriage and had the Term assigned to him The Lord Bodmyn dyes the Appellant brings her Writ of Dower in C. B. the Respondent pleads the Term for 99 years and she Exhibits her Bill praying that she may after the discharge of the Earls Incumbrances have the benefit of the Trust as to a third of the Profits of this Term and upon hearing the Cause the Lord Chancellor saw no cause to give Relief but dismissed her Bill There were many Particulars in the Case and many Proceedings before both in Law and Equity but this was the whole Case as to the general Question Whether a Tenant in Dower shall have the benefit of the Trust of a Term which is ordered to attend the Inheritance against a Purchaser after the Marriage The Lord Chancellor Jeffryes had been of opinion with the Appellant but the Cause coming to be heard again a Dismission was decreed and now it was argued against the Decree on behalf of the Appellant that Equity did entitle her to the Thirds of this Term that a Tenant by the Curtesie is intitled to it and br the same reason a Tenant in Dower that the Term created by the Settlement was to attend all the Estates limited by that Settlement and in Trust for such Persons as should claim under it which the Appellant doth as well as the Respondents that it was in consequence to attend all the particular Estates carved or derived from the others the Term was never in its creation designed for this purpose to prevent or protect against Dower that in the Case of Snell and Clay the Tenant in Dower had it in Chancery against the Heir at Law and that this was the same Case a Purchaser with notice of that Incumbrance of Dower the Vendor being then married this was an Estate of which the Husband was full Owner and received the whole Profits that in proportion 't is as much a Trust for her for her Thirds during Life as it is a Trust for the Respondents for the Inheritance she claims under her Husband who had the benefit of the whole Trust If there be a Mortgage by an Ancecestor upon the whole Eqinty will permit her to redeem paying her proportion according to the value of her Thirds for Life and the same reason holds in this Case and there 's no Precedent in Equity to the contrary And many Precedents in favour of Tenant in Dower were cited and much Reason well urged from parallel Cases to entitle the Lady to her proportion of the Trust of this Term. On the other side 'T was said that Dower is an Interest or Right at the Common Law only that no Title can be maintained to have Dower but where the Common Law gives it and that is only to have the Thirds of that which the Husband was seized of and if a Term were in being no Feme was ever let in but after the determination of that Term that this is the first pretence set up for a Dower in Equity the Right is only to the Thirds of the Rent reserved upon any Term and 't is a new thing to affirm that there shall be one sort of Dower at Law and another in Chancery that 't is and always hath been the common received Opinion of Westminster-hall and of all Conveyancers that a Term or Statute prevents Dower that if a Purchaser can procure it the same becomes his Defence that this is what the Wisdom of our Forefathers thought fit to use and tho' some Mens reasoning may render it in appearance as absurd yet the consequence of an alteration will be much more dangerous than the continuance of the old Rules that tho' this Lady's Case be unfortunate yet the multitude of Purchasors who have bought upon full consideration and have been advised and still conceive themselves safe under this Law will be more unfortunate if the Law be broken Then ' was argued That there could be no Equity in this Case for it must be not only from the Party Appellant but also against the Respondent and that 't is not because he bought the whole Her Portion her Quality and her being a Wife create no Equity as to the Purchaser 't would perhaps be prevalent against an Heir but
good for them and that they had the like Power of Appeals Writs of Error and Impeachments c. and that the Cognizance of such Appeals in England would produce great inconveniencies by making poor people to attend here whereas they might with less trouble and expence have Justice at home that this did agree with the reasons of that Ancient Statute 4 Inst 356. that persons having Estates in Ireland should Reside in that Kingdom else half of their Estates should go to maintain the Forts there That this practice of receiving Appeals here would be vexatious to the people of that place and that no Court could have Jurisdiction but by grant or prescription and that there could be no pretence for either in this place Then was it ordered in these or the like Words Whereas a Petition and Appeal was offered to the House the Day of last from the Society of the Governour and Assistants London of the New Plantation in Ulster in the Kingdom of Ireland against a Judgment given by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of Ireland in Parliament there Assembled on the day of last upon the Petition and Appeal of William Lord Bishop of Derry against the Decree or Orders made in the said Cause in the Court of Chancery there Whereupon a Committee was appointed to consider of the proper method of Appealing from Decrees made in the Court of Chancery in Ireland and that pursuant to the Orders of the said Committee and a Letter sent to the Lords Justices of Ireland by Order of this House several precedents have been transmitted to this House by the said Lord Justices Copies whereof were ordered to be delivered to either side After hearing Counsel upon the Petition of the said Society of London presented to this House praying that they might be heard as to the Jurisdiction of the House of Lords in Ireland in receiving and judging Appeals from the Chancery there as also Counsel for the Bishop of Derry after due Consideration of the Precedents and of what was offered by Counsel thereupon It is ordered and adjudged by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament Assembled That the said Appeal of the Bishop of Derry to the House of Lords in Ireland from the Decree or Orders of the Court of Chancery there made in the Cause wherein the said Bishop of Derry was Plaintiff and the said Society of the Governour and Assistants London of the New Plantation in Ulster in Ireland were Defendants was coram non judice and that all the proceedings thereupon are null and void and that the Court of Chancery in Ireland ought to proceed in the said Cause as if no such Appeal had been made to the House of Lords there and if either of the said Parties do find themselves Agrieved by the said Decree or Orders of the Chancery of Ireland they are at liberty to pursue their proper Remedy by way of Appeal to this House Sir Caesar Wood alias Cranmer versus Duke of Southampton APpeal from a Decree in Chancery the Case was thus Sir Henry Wood the Appellant's Unkle makes a Settlement in Consideration of a Marriage to be had between his Daughter Mary and the Duke c. to the uses following i.e. in Trust to Receive and Pay out of the Profits 450 l. a Year to the Lady Chester for the Education and Maintenance of his Daughter till twelve years of Age then 550 l. a year till Marriage or Seventeen years of Age which should first happen and in Trust to pay the Residue of the Profits to the Duke after Marriage he first giving Security to the said Trustees to provide Portions and Maintenance for the Daughters of the Marriage equal to the Sum he should receive and in case there should be none then the same Money to remain to the Respondent and if the said Mary should die before Marriage or Age of Seventeen years to such Uses as Sir H. W. should appoint And if Mary after Sir Henry's death die under Sixteen the Respondent then unmarried to any other Woman or after and before Seventeen the Respondent then living and unmarried or if before Seventeen she should marry any other or if she should refuse the Respondent then 20000 l. out of the Profits to the Duke But if the said Marriage shall take effect after Mary's Age of Sixteen years and she shall have Issue Male by the Respondent then for the better Settlement of the Premisses upon the Issue Male and a more ample Provision and Maintenance for the Respondent and his Wife and the longest Liver of them in Trust for the said Duke and Mary for and during their Lives and the Life of the longer liver of them and after their Deaths to the first Son c. in Tail Male and for default of Issue Male to the Daughters And for default of such Issue in Trust for such Persons only as Sir Henry should appoint and in default thereof to the right Heirs of Sir Henry Sir Henry W. at the same time makes his Will tho' dated after the Settlement reciting that he had settled the Premisses upon the Duke and Mary for their Lives and the Life of the Longer liver of them c. and confirms it and in Case the said Martiage should not take effect according to the Limitations of the Settlement or if the said Respondent should die without Issue by Mary or if he have Issue by her and that Issue die without Issue then the Remainder to Mary for Life and afterwards to her first Son and after several mediate Remainders then to the Appellant for Life c. and after to Thomas Webb c. Sir Henry Wood dies the Marriage between Mary and the Duke afterwards takes effect upon her arrival to years of Consent and they lived in that state till she was near Seventeen years of Age and then she dies without Issue The Court of Chancery decreed the Profits of the Estate to the Duke for Life It was argued for the Appellant That here was a precedent Copulative Condition that if the Marriage take effect after Sixteen and there be Issue then to the Duke and neither of these being in the Case the Decree is not consistent with the positive words of the Settlement for that the Duke was to have it upon no other terms That by this Settlement the Duke was thus provided for 1. If the Marriage did not take effect by Mary's refusal or taking another Husband the Duke was to have 20000 l. 2. If the Marriage did take effect and Issue was had then the Duke was to have an Estate for Life but not otherwise that the words are plain and certain that there must not only be a Marriage but Issue Male between them that tho' it should be agreed to be a good Marriage within the intention of the Settlement she living till after Sixteen years of Age yet when a Condition Copulative consisting of several Branches as this doth is made precedent to any Use or
the Sentence given by the Constable and Marshal in the Suit before them concerning a Coat of Arms Rot. Claus 12 Rich. 2. m. 4. Appeal by Bond vers Singleton 't is in a Cause of Arms in our Court before our Constable and Marshal wherein Sentence was given by them 1 pars Pat. 17 Rich. 2. m. 12. Thus it appears by a Commission for the Execution of the Office of Constable of England Committimus vobis officium hujusmodi Constabularii ad querelam Thome Moor in hac parte una cum Edmundo de Mortimore Mareschallo Anglie audiendum secunda pars Patent ' 48 Edw. 3. m. 20. in dorso As also by a Claim at the Coronation of H. 5. before Beauchamp Earl of Warwick then Lord Steward John Mowbray Earl Marshal Son to the then Duke of Norfolk claimed under a Grant in 20th of Rich. 2. of the Office of Earl Marshal of England to hold Court with the Constable and to hold Pleas before them and Copies of these Precedents were said to have been ready in Court Further to prove the joynt Authority were cited several of our Old Books 48 Edw. 3. fol. 3. in a Case of Debt upon an Indenture by which P. was retained by the Defendant with two Squires of Arms for the War in France Belknapp said of such Matter this Court cannot have conusance but 't is triable before the Constable and Marshal In the Case of Pountney and Bourney 13 Hen. 4.4 the Court of King's Bench call it the Court of the Constable and Marshal And in 37 Hen. 6.3 upon another occasion Prisot said this Matter belongs to the Constable and Marshal And Coke 4 Inst 123. says that they are both Judges of the Court and that the Constable sometimes gave Sentence is no Argument that the Marshal was no Judge with him it only proves him the Chief who in most Courts doth usually give the Rule Nor is the Earl Marshal's receiving Writs from the Constable to execute his Commands any Argument that he sits there only as a Ministerial Officer and not as a Judge for he may be both as in many Corporations Mayors are Judges of the Court and yet have the Custody of their Goals too and so have the Sheriffs of London their Compters tho' they strictly are Judges of their several Courts 2. During the Vacancy of the Earl Marshal's Office the Constable alone had the Judicature as in 11 Hen. 7. on holy-rood-Holy-rood-day the Earl of Darby being then Constable of England sate and gave Judgment alone in a Cause between Sir Thomas Ashton and Sir Piers Leigh upon a Coat of Arms but this needs no Proof since 't is contended on the other side that the Court doth belong only to the Constable 3. 'T was argued that the Earl Marshal hath set alone and given Judgment and to prove that it was said this Court was held when there was no Constable before Thomas Howard Duke of Norfolk Lord High Treasurer and Earl Marshal of England who Died 16 Hen. VIII and next after him before Charles Brandon Duke of Suffolk then Earl Marshal who Died 37 Hen. VIII after him the Court was held and Sentences given by Thomas Howard Duke of Norfolk who Died in 1512. and after him in the 30 Eliz. the Earl of Essex sat as Earl Marshal and heard and determined Causes judicially and the chief Judge sat then as Assistant with him in Court and then after the Death of the Earl of Essex it was in Commission to my Lord Treasurer Burleigh and others and then the great Oase of Sir F. Mitchell was heard and determined at which several Judges assisted and the Sentence of degradation was executed upon him 26. April 1621. and then was Cited the Case of Pool and Redhead 12 Jac. 1.1 Roll's Rep. 87. where 't was held that the proper remedy for Fees of Knighthood was to sue to the Earl Marshal and Coke says in the same Case the Common-Law does not give remedy for precedency but it belongs to the Earl Marshal And since that in Parker's Case which was 20 Car. II. Syd 353. the Earl Marshal was agreed to have the absolute determination of matters of Honour in the Court of Chivalry as much as the Chancellor hath in matters of Equity And the Error on the other side was occasioned by not distinguishing between the Ancient Jurisdiction of this great Court at the Common-Law and the Jurisdiction given to the Constable and Marshal under those names by Statute for the latter cannot be executed by one alone and that distinction answers the Authority in 1 Inst 74. which grounded the mistake that there is no Court of Chivalry because there 's no Constable whereas the reason why in Sir Francis Drake's Case the not constituting of a Constable silenced the Appeal was from the 1 Hen. IV. Cap. 14. which orders all Appeals of Murder committed beyond Sea to be before the Constable and Marshal by name But the Ancient Jurisdiction of this Court by prescription wherein both the Constable and Marshal were Judges severally or together and which each of them did and could hold alone remains still as much in the Earl Marshal alone as it ever was in him and the Constable Then it was argued that no Prohibition lay to this Court because none had ever been granted and yet greater occasions then now can be pretended by reason of the large Jurisdiction which this Court did in Ancient time exercise many Petitions were frequently preferred in Parliament Complaining of the Incroachments of this Court in Edw. I. Edw. III. Rich. II. Hen. IV. and Hen. VIth's time as appears in 4 Inst. 125. 2 Hen. IV. num 79. and 99. 1 Roll's Abridg. 527. and yet no Prohibition granted or moved for which according to Littleton's Text is a very strong Argument that it doth not lie The Statute of 13 Rich. II. 2. is an Argument against it because after several Complaints of the Incroachments of this Court another remedy is given which had been needless if this had been legal nay it shews the Opinion of the Parliament that there was no other way of relief and soon after the making of this Statute in the same Reign two Privy Seals were sued upon it in the Case of Poultney and Bourney 13 Hen. IV. 4. 5. Besides this might be grounded on the Antiquity and greatness of this Court for as to the subject matter of it 't is by Prescription a Court for determining matters of Honour to preserve the distinction of degrees and quality of which no other Courts have Jurisdiction and the right and property in Honours and Arms is as necessary to be preserved in a Civil Government as that in Lands or Goods Then 't was urged that this Court hath Jurisdiction even of Capital Offences its extent is large 't is throughout the Realm even in Counties Palatine even beyond the Seas its manner of proceeding is different in a Summary way by Petition its trial of Fact may be by Duel as is 4
Denbigh and Montgomery leaving three Daughters and Coheirs Mary Penelope and Susan Susan married Sidney Godolphin one of the present Appellants In July 1674. Mary and Penelope in consideration of 4000 l. paid to the said Mary by Richard Carew Esq and in consideration of a Marriage to be had and which was afterwards had between Penelope and the said Richard Carew by Lease and Release convey all those their two Parts of the said Lands in Denbigh Salop and Montgomery to Trustees and their Heirs to the use of Richard Carew for Life then to Penelope for Life for her Jointure then to the said Trustees and their Heirs during the Lives of Richard and Penelope to preserve contingent Remainders then to the first and other Sons of Richard and Penelope in Tail-Male successively And in default of Issue-Male to the Daughters of Richard and Penelope in Tail And in default of such Issue as to one Moiety of the said two Parts to the first and other Sons of the said Penelope by any other Husband in Tail the Remainder of all and singular the Premisses to the said Richard Carew and his Heirs for ever subject to this Proviso That if it should happen that no Issue of the said Richard upon the Body of the said Penelope should be living at the decease of the Survivor of them and the Heirs of the said Penelope should within Twelve Months after the decease of the Survivor of the said Richard and Penelope dying without Issue as aforesaid pay to the Heirs or Assigns of the said Richard Carew the Sum of 4000 l. that then the Remainder in Fee-simple so limited to the said Richard Carew and his Heirs should cease and that then and from thenceforth the Premisses should remain to the use of the right Heirs of the said Penelope for ever After this Mary intermarried with the Appellant Sir Evan Lloyd and a Partition was made of the Premisses and the same had been enjoyed accordingly ever since and Mr. Carew and his Lady levied a Fine to Mr. Godolphin and his Lady of his part who did thereupon by their Deed dated 23 Sept. 1676. covenant to levy a Fine of Mr. Carew's two Parts to such uses as he and his Lady should limit and appoint but have not yet levied the said Fine Richard Carew and Penelope his Wife to avoid all Controversies that might happen whereby the Estate of the said Richard Carew or his Heirs might be question'd or incumbred by the Heirs of Penelope and to the End to extinguish and destroy and barr all such Estate Right Title Equitable or other Interest as the said Penelope then had or her Issue and Heirs might have or claim to the same by any Power Settlement or Condition on payment of 4000 l. or otherwise to the Heirs of Richard Carew by the Heirs of the said Penelope and for the settling of the same on the said Richard Carew and his Heirs did in Michaelmas Term 1681. levy a Fine of the Share and Part allotted to them and by Deed of 10 Decemb. 1681. declare that the said Fine should be to the use of the said Richard for Life Remainder to Penelope for Life the Remainder to the said Richard Carew his Heirs and Assigns for ever And do further declare That the Fine agreed to be levied by the Appellants Sidney Godolphin and Susan his Wife by their Deed dated the 23 Sept. 1676. should be to the same uses and then direct the Trustees by the first Settlement to convey to those uses Penelope died without Issue in 1690. Richard Carew made his Will in Aug. 1691. and devised the said Lands to Sir John Carew Baronet his Brother subject to pay all his Debts and Legacies and made Sir John Carew his Executor In Decemb. 1691. Richard Carew died without Issue and Sir John Carew entred and was seized and possessed of the Premisses and paid 4855 l. for the Debts of Richard Carew Sir John Carew died and the Respondent Sir Richard Carew an Infant is his Son Heir and Executor The Appellants Mary and Susan claiming the Lands as Heirs to Penelope by virtue of the said Proviso in the first Settlement upon payment of the 4000 l. exhibited their Bill in Chancery to compel the Trustees to convey the Estate to them upon such payment Upon hearing of this Cause on Bill and Answer the Court ordered a State of the Case to be drawn which was as above and afterwards the Court assisted by the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas and Mr. Justice Rooksby seeing no Cause to relieve the Plaintiffs dismissed their Bill And now it was argued on behalf of the Appellants That such Dismission ought to be set aside and amongst other things it was insisted on in favour of the Appeal that this Proviso was not void that it was within the reason of the Contingent Limitations allowed by the late Lord Chancellor Nottingham in the Case of the Duke of Norfolk and there were quoted several Paragraphs in the Argument made by the said Lord Chancellor as that future Interests springing Trusts or Trusts Executory Remainders that are to emerge or arise upon Contingency are quite out of the Rules and Reasons of Perpetuities nay out of the Reason upon which the Policy of the Law is founded in those Cases especially if they be not of remote or long Consideration but such as by a natural and easie Interpretation will speedily wear out and so things come to the right Channel again That tho' there can be no Remainders limited after a Fee-simple yet there may be a Contingent Fee-simple arise out of the first Fee that the ultimum quod sit or the utmost Limitation of a Fee upon a Fee is not yet plainly determined that tho' it be impossible to limit a Remainder of a Fee upon a Fee yet 't is not impossible to limit a Contingent Fee upon a Fee that no Conveyance is ever to be set aside in Chancery where it can be supported by a reasonable Construction especially where 't is a Family Settlement Then these Paragraphs were applied and further urged That there could not in reason be any difference between a Contingency to happen during Life or Lives or within one year afterwards that the true reason of such Opinions which allowed them if happening within the time of the Parties lives or upon their deceases was because no Inconvenience could be apprehended thereby and the same Reason will hold to one year afterwards and the true Rule is to fix Limits and Boundaries to such Limitations when so made as that they prove Inconvenient and not otherwise That this Limitation upon this Contingency happening was the considerate Intention of the Family the Circumstances whereof required Consideration and this Settlement was the Result of it and made by good Advice That the Fine could not barr the Benefit of this Proviso for that the same never was nor ever could be in Penelope who levied the Fine As to the Pretence That if the