Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	die_v	son_n	year_n	8,542	5	4.8430	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
B18588	The case of John Forster, respondent to the petition of appeal of Henry Forster, which seeks to reverse a decree of dismission made in Chancery the last day of May last; and to affirm a decree made in 1674 against the said John Forster (he being then an infant of seven years of age) unless cause shewn when he came of age.	Forster, Henry.; Forster, John, b. 1666 or 7.	1690 (1690)	Wing C930A; Interim Tract Supplement Guide L.R.305.a.7.[31]; ESTC R227805	3,970	2

The Case of JOHN FORSTER Respondent to the Petition of Appeal of Henry Forster which seeks to Reverse a Decree of Dismission made in Chancery the last day of May last and to affirm a Decree made in 1674 against the said John Forster he being then an Infant of Seven Years of Age unless Cause shewn when he came of Age. Arthur Forster the Grandfather had three Sons Nicholas his eldest who died without Issue Cuthber his 2d who had Issue John the Respondent and three other Children Henry his third the Petitioner THIS Respondent saith That Arthur Forster the Petioner's Father and this Respondent's Grandfather having three Sons viz. Nicholas his eldest Cuthbert this Respondent's Father his second and the Petitioner his youngest Son and being seized in Fee of Free-hold Copy-hold and Customary Lands worth 300 l. per annum in England and about 116 l. per annum in Scotland besides about 10 l. per annum in England which he devised to the said Cuthbert his second Son died about 20 years since After whose death the same descended on the said Nicholas the eldest Son who entred and was seized in Fee and purchased other Lands of good value and about 16 years since died so seized without Issue Upon whose death all the said Estate descended on this Respondent as Nephew and Heir of the said Nicholas the said Cuthbert this Respondent's Father being dead and leaving this Respondent an Infant of three years old and another Son and two Daughters That the Petitioner taking advantage of this Respondent's Minority and that his Mother had but 10 l. per annum for the Maintenance of her self and four Children immediately after the death of the said Nicholas entred into all the said Estate as well in England as Scotland and got all the Deeds into his Custody And this Respondent's Guardian having afterwards in this Respondent's Name and upon his Title obtained a Verdict for the Customary and Copy-hold and part of the Free-hold the Petitioner exhibited his Bill in Chancery against this Respondent then but four years old to be quieted in his Possession and for an Injunction pretending three Titles two at Law and one in Equity * Note The Petitioner when he drew his Bill made Walter Scot Father to the Petitioner's Wife Complainant in the Bill and set forth by the Bill That the Treaty of Marriage made by Nicholas Forster was with Walter Scot which Walter Scot died seven years before the pretended Marriage-Agreement which the Petitioner after the Respondent's Answer put in apprehending got an Order to amend his Bill and in his amended Bill sets forth That the Treaty of Marriage was with Sir Gideon Scot who they never examined as a Witness to prove the Agreement I. By the supposed Settlement in the Petition set forth pretended to be made by the said Arthur one day before his death II. By an Agreement pretended to be made by the said Nicholas on the Petitioners Marriage with Sir Gideon Scott's Nicce in Scotland for the setling all his Estate after his own death without Issue on the Petitioner in tail Male with remainder to the right Heirs of Nicholas in consideration of 10000 Scotch Marks Portion which was a meer suggestion to prevent a Demur And III. By a supposed Will made by the said Nicholas whereto an Answer being put in by this Respondent's Guardian on this Respondent's behalf the Petitioner took a Commission into Cumberland and there examined several of his Wife's Relations who lived in Scotland to prove several paroll Discourses Whereupon the Cause proceeded to an hearing in 1674 before the then Lord Keeper assisted with the late Judge Wyndham who Decreed That the Petitioner should enjoy to himself and his several Sons and their respective Issue Male according to the said pretended Settlement all the Lands contained therein and also to Him and his Heirs all other the Free-hold and Copy-hold Lands which were the Lands of the said Nicholas And that this Respondent when he came of Age should convey the same accordingly unless he should then shew cause to the contrary and in the mean time awarded an Injunction by colour whereof the Petitioner kept Possession of the said Estate above 14 years and received above 4000 l. for the Profits That in May last this Respondent coming to shew cause against the said Decree and having by the Assistance of Friends procured Counsel and Instructions proper for his just Defence which was not done at the former hearing by reason of his Infancy and his Mothers Inability the Court on long debate of the matter and hearing the Proofs read and what could be alledged on either side saw no cause to give the Petitioner any relief but discharged the former Decree and dismissed the Bill with Costs which is enrolled as by the Orders and Proceedings may appear And this Respondent doth humbly insist That the said Dismission is Just and Regular and the former Decree Unjust and Erroneous and that if the matters insisted on at the last hearing had been observed to the Court on the former hearing they would then have dismissed the Bill as this Respondent is advised And this Respondent farther saith That he having twice recovered at Law upon full Evidence on both sides the said customary and Copy-hold Lands and so much of the Freehold as was purchased by the said Nicholas which being in ejectment the Petitioner may have and ought to take his proper remedy at Law in case he be agrieved thereby as this Respondent is also advised Wherefore and for that the first Decree was not absolute but only unless this Respondent should upon his attaining his Age shew cause to the contrary and upon this Respondent's shewing cause was discharg'd and that upon good grounds and just cause he humbly hopes your Lordships will be pleased to dismiss the Petition and confirm the said Dismission c. And that for these Reasons I. For that the first Decree as well as this Petition is beyond the Bill which seeks only an Estate-Tayle in all the Lands as well what is in the pretended Settlement as what was afterwards purchased and yet by the Decree the Petitioner is to have the Lands not in the Settlement in Fee II. For that it appears by the Decree that Nicholas who is supposed to agree to confirm his Father 's pretended Settlement was thereby but Tenant for Life So that if that was a good Settlement 't was not in his power to confirm it or to do any Act to prejudice his next Brother's Right III. For that by the Bill and Proofs it appears Nicholas was to be Tenant in Tail before the Petitioner whose Remainder might have been barred by Nicholas's suffering a Recovery IV. For that an Heir at Law ought not to be disinherited by uncertain parol discourses without writing much less when neither the Petitioner nor his Witnesses agree what the effect of such discourses was but contradict themselves and each other V.