Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	act_n	king_n	scotland_n	2,696	5	8.4241	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A34029	Modern reports, or, Select cases adjudged in the Courts of Kings Bench, Chancery, Common-pleas, and Exchequer since the restauration of His Majesty King Charles II collected by a careful hand.	Colquitt, Anthony.; England and Wales. Court of Chancery.; England and Wales. Court of King's Bench.; England and Wales. Court of Common Pleas.; England and Wales. Court of Exchequer.	1682 (1682)	Wing C5414; ESTC R11074	235,409	350

That the Plaintiffs should enjoy the same without interruption by them or any other person or persons whatsoever and alledge that a Stranger claiming a Title did make an Entry upon them and kept them out of possession To this the Defendants plead a local Plea to wit that the said Stranger did not enter upon the Plaintiffs c. upon which Issue is joyned Then do the Plaintiffs make a suggestion and pray a Venire facias into the next County Vpon which there is a Trial. Jones conceived this to be a mis-trial and that the Venire ought to have been de vicineto of the Castle of York where the Covenant is alledged to have béen made First this fault is not aided by any of the Statutes of Jeoffayles not by the last and greatest of all That aids where the Venire facias is awarded from another place then it ought to be but not when awarded from another County which is my Exception That at the Common Law this Venire facias is not well awarded I relie upon Dowdale's case 6 Rep. if an Action be brought upon a matter done out of the Kingdom the Trial shall be where the Action is laid In our case the Action is grounded upon an Indenture supposed to be made within the County of York but Issue is joyned upon a matter done out of the Kingdom for so Berwick is This Issue I conceive ought to be tryed where the Action is laid It is true in the case of Wales the Law is otherwise for I find that Wales is parcel of the Realm of England though the Kings Writs do not run there But Berwick is part of the Realm of Scotland and was conquered by King Edw. 4. and Acts of Parliament name Berwick When Calice was in possession of the Kings of England and a matter arising within Calice came in Issue was ever any Venire facias awarded to Dover Twisd There are two Presidents of such Trials one in 12 Eliz. Rot. 630. and in 2 Rolls 97. I have asked my Brother Withrington who was a knowing man how it came to pass that Berwick was put into Acts of Parliament he said he knew no other reason then that the Recorder of Berwick was at first in Parliament and desired it and therefore it hath continued ever since Mr. Weston said that 3 Cro. 465. was an Authority In this case it hapned that during the Cur. advisare vult one of the Plaintiffs dyed and the question was what should be done Twisd There is a case in Latch wherein this difference is taken viz. If there be no Continuance entred you may enter the Iudgment as at the day in Bank but if Continuances are entred then you cannot go back but must enter the Iudgment to the time of the Continuances It was put off for Counsel to be heard in it Smith Wheeler sup 16. IN this case Serjeant Maynard was about to argue that the residue of the term was not forfeited to the King Keel Brother Maynard you would do well to be advised whether or no you being of the Kings Counsel ought to argue in this case against the King Maynard answered that the Kings Counsel would have but little to do if they should be excluded in such cases and that Serjeant Crew argued Haviland's case in which there was the like question Twisd In Stone Newman's case I know the Kings Counsel did argue against Estates coming to the Crown but if my Lord thinks it not proper my Brother Maynard may give his argument to some Gentleman at the Bar to deliver for him Afterward Term. Pasch 22 Car. 2. 1670. the case came to be argued again Jones argued for the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error 1. Whether this Settlement be fraudulent or no that Fraud is not to be presumed he cited the Chancellor of Oxford's case 10th Rep. 1 Cro. 549 550. But for the second point he held that here is a Trust forfeitable to the King He quoted Sir John Duncomb's case 2 Cro. That the Trust in this case is forfeited he proved from the nature of a Trust which is an equitable Interest or a right of perception of the profits of an Estate the cestuy que Trust hath jus habendi jus disponendi And though he that hath a Trust hath in Law neither jus in re nor jus ad rem yet in Equity he hath both In Equity whatever I have a right to dispose of I have a right to take the profits of For if a man makes a Conveyance to the use of one and his heirs in Trust that he shall convey over though it is not exprest that he shall take the profits yet he shall take them Now in the second Proviso there is a double expression one that amounts to a Revocation the other amounting to a disposition or limitation Now he that hath a power of disposition hath a right that may be forfeited And therefore the Duke of Norfolk's case comes not to this for we are not in the power of Revocation I decline that but we are in a power of disposition Now this is good by way of Trust in Law indéed such a Proviso is naught but in a Trust the intention of the parties carries it I observe in forfeitures at the Common Law where a man hath only jus disponendi though he hath no Estate yet he may forfeit it Plo. Com. 260. A man is possest of a term in the right of his wife though he hath no Estate himself yet he may forfeit it and the reason is because he hath jus disponendi If a man might by such a disposition as this protect his Estate from being forfeited little Land would come to the Crown upon Attainders There are two badges of Ownership the one is a perception of the profits the other a power of disposing both which are in our case and a favourable construction ought not to be put upon a Déed for encouragement of Traitors Winnington contra As for the first point the Fraud ought to be found and this Lease was made long before the Attainder or the Treason committed For the second point the question will be what our Law calls a Trust Then I shall examine whether there was such a thing in Mayn at the time of his decease A Trust I find to be a confidence reposed in the person that another shall take the profits and that the Trustée shall Convey according to his directions this I gather from these books viz. Plowd 352. Delamere's case 1 Rep. 121 122. Co. Lit. 272. Now if these two qualities or either shall fall in this case then Simon Mayn had no Trust to forfeit For that the case will depend upon the true-stating the words of the Deed. For the first Proviso it doth not cohere with any of these qualities for by vertue of that Proviso he could not be said to have any Right he hath no jus disponendi but upon Contingencies If he have no Children he hath no

from her Husband against his will Assumpsit vers Baron Feme pur Wares vend deliver al Feme and continues absent from him divers years afterwards the wife desires to cohabit with her husband again but the husband refuseth to admit her and from that time the wife lives separate from him during this separation the husband forbids a Tradesman of London to trust his Wife with any Goods or Wares yet for divers years before and afterwards allows his wife no maintenance the Tradesman contrary to the prohibition of the Husband sells and delivers divers Wares to the wife upon credit at a reasonable price and the Wares so sold and delivered to the wife are necessary for her and suitable to the degree of her husband The Wares are not paid for wherefore the Tradesman brings an Action upon the case against the husband and declares that the husband was indebted to him in 40 l. for divers Wares and Merchandises formerly to the Husband sold and delivered and that the Husband in consideration thereof did promise to pay him the said 40 l. That the Husband hath not paid the same unto him although thereunto required and for that money the Action is brought against the Husband And whether this Action will lie against the Husband for the Wares thus sold and delivered to the wife against the will and contrary to the Prohibition of the Husband or not is the question This case is the meanest that ever received Resolution in this place but as the same is now handled it is of as great consequence to all the Kings people of this Realm as any case can be it concerns every individual person of both Sexes that is or hereafter shall be married within this Kingdom in the first and nearest Relation that is betwixt man and wife The holy state of Matrimony was ordained by Almighty God in Paradise before the Fall of man signifying unto us that mystical Vnion which is between Christ and his Church and so it is the first Relation And when two persons are joyned in that holy State they twain become one Flesh and so it is the nearest Relation This case toucheth the man in point of his power and dominion over his wife and it concerns the woman in point of her substance and livelihood I will deliver my Opinion plainly and freely according as I conceive the Law to be without favouring the one or courting the other Sex I hold that Iudgment ought to be given for the Defendant The case hath been so fully argued and all the Authorities so particularly vouched by my Brothers who have already delivered their Opinions that nothing is left for me to say which hath not béen spoken by them in better terms than I can express my self It will be a trouble to your Lordships for me to repeat their Arguments and yet without doing so it will be impossible for me to speak any thing to the purpose It shall be my endeavour therefore rather to answer the reasons and objections given and made by my two Brothers who have so copiously argued for the womans power than to argue the case again on the same grounds which have been already delivered It is agreed by all my Brothers who have argued as I conceive that a Feme covert generally cannot bind or charge her husband by any Contract made by her without the authority or assent of her husband precedent or subsequent either express or implyed But the question in this case is if the Contract of a Feme covert for Wares for her necessary Apparel made without the consent and contrary to the Prohibition of her husband shall bind her husband First I hold that the husband shall not be charged by such a Contract although he do not allow any maintenance to his wife Secondly admit the husband were chargable generally by such a Contract yet I conceive that this Action doth not lye for the Plaintiff as this Declaration is and as this Verdict is found against the Defendant in this particular case For the first every gift contract or bargain is or contains an agreement for the contractor or bargainor will that the donee or bargainée shall have the things contracted for and the other is content to take them and so in every Contract there is a mutual assent of their minds which mutual assent is an agreément Plow Com. Fogassa's case Afterwards in the same case fo 17. it is said agreement is a word compounded of two words scilicet agregatio mentium so that aggreamentum is aggregatio mentium or thus aggreamentum is no other but a union or conjunction of two minds in any matter or thing done or to be done according to that of Sir Edward Cokes Com. fo 47. Contractus est quasi actus contra actum But a Feme Covert cannot give a mutual assent of her mind nor do any act without her husband for her will and mind as also her self is under and subject unto the will or mind of her husband and consequently she cannot make any bargain or contract of her self to bind her husband The second ground of the Law of England is the Law of God Doctor Student cap. 6. fo 10. In the begining when God created woman an help-meat for man he said they twain shall be one Flesh and thereupon our Law says that husband and wife are but one person in the Law Presently after the Fall the Iudgment of God upon woman was Thy desire shall be to thy Husband for thy will shall be subject to thy husband and he shall rule over thee 3 Gen. 16. Hereupon our Law put the wife sub potestate viri and says quod ipsa potestatem sui non habeat sed vir suus and is disabled to make any grant contract or bargain without the allowance or consent of her husband Bract. lib. 3. cap. 32. fo 15. The books and authorities of our Law which prove this point have been all particularly vouched already and I will not repeat them again nor do I know any one particular point to the contrary The words of the book are observable namely If a Feme Covert make a contract or buy any thing in the Market or elsewhere without the allowance or consent of her husband although it come to the use of the husband yet the contract is void and shall not charge the husband but if a man command or licence his wife to buy things necessary or agree that she shall buy he shall be bound by this command or licence Old N. Br. 62. 21 H. 7. 70. F. N. Br. 120. which proves that it is not the buying or contract of the wife which binds or charges the husband for that is void in it self but the command or licence of the husband which makes it the contract or bargain of the husband As to my Brother Twisden's saying that all those books are where the Wife deals or trades as a Factor to her husband and all grounded