Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	earl_n	lord_n	sir_n	21,670	5	6.9416	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A64839	The reports of Sir Peyton Ventris Kt., late one of the justices of the Common-pleas in two parts : the first part containing select cases adjudged in the Kings-Bench, in the reign of K. Charles II, with three learned arguments, one in the Kings-Bench, by Sir Francis North, when Attorney General, and two in the Exchequer by Sir Matthew Hale, when Lord Chief Baron : with two tables, one of the cases, and the other of the principal matters : the second part containing choice cases adjudged in the Common-pleas, in the reigns of K. Charles II and K. James II and in the three first years of the reign of His now Majesty K. William and the late Q. Mary, while he was a judge in the said court, with the pleadings to the same : also several cases and pleadings thereupon in the Exchequer-Chamber upon writs of error from the Kings-Bench : together with many remarkable and curious cases in the Court of Chancery : whereto are added three exact tables, one of the cases, the other of the principal matters, and the third of the pleadings : with the allowance and approbation of the Lord Keeper an all the judges.	Ventris, Peyton, Sir, 1645-1691.; Guilford, Francis North, Baron, 1637-1685.; Hale, Matthew, Sir, 1609-1676.; England and Wales. Court of King's Bench.; England and Wales. Court of Common Pleas.	1696 (1696)	Wing V235; ESTC R7440	737,128	910

1 W. M. After which Judgment for the Defendants 166 That the said Defendants shall go sine die and have their Costs 167 Averment that the said Judgment remains in full force That the Goods in the said Action of Trespass and this of Trover are the same That the Conversion in this Action and the Taking in the other is the same That the Cause of Action was the same in both And that the Plaintiffs and Defendants are the same Et hoc parati sunt verificare unde petunt Judicium si praedicti the Plaintiffs Actionem suam versus eos habere debeant c. Not guilty to the residue of the Goods The Plaintiffs demur The Defendants joyn 168 Vsury Pleaded Vid. Debt 7. Way Action for stopping it Vid. Action on the Case 5. WE all knowing the Great Learning and Judgment of the Author do for the Benefit of the Public approve of and allow the Printing and Publishing of this Book Intituled The Reports of Sir Peyton Ventris Kt. Late One of the Justices of the Court of Common-Pleas J. Som̄ers C.S. J. Holt Geo Treby Ed Nevill Joh. Powell W. Gregory N. Lechmere Tho. Rokeby G Eyre Jo Turton John Powell Sam. Eyre April the 20 th 1965. The Second Volume TERMINO SANCTI HILLARII Anno Vicesimo primo secundo Caroli Secundi IN COMMUNI BANCO Craw versus Ramsey IN an Ejectment of Lands and the Rectory of Kingston upon Thames in Surrey Vpon Not Guilty pleaded the Jury found a Special Verdict to this effect viz. That Robert Ramsey Born in Scotland before the Accession thereof to the Crown of England had Issue four Sons Robert Nicholas John and George Antenati Robert died they do not find when leaving Issue three Daughters Margaret Isabel and Jane who were also Aliens and alive 1 Octob. 14 Car. 1. Nicholas had Issue Patrick born in England 1 May 1618. They also find that at the Parliament holden 10 Car. 1. in Ireland it was Enacted That all Persons of the Scottish Nation should be reputed the Kings Natural Subjects to all intents constructions and purposes of that his Realm of Ireland as if Born there And they find the Act of Parliament at large Nicholas Ramsey was alive at the making of that Act. John the third Son afterwards Earl of Holderness was Naturalized by Act of Parliament in England 1 Jacobi and purchased the Lands and Rectory in question and being seised 22 Jac by Indenture Tripartite between him of the First part Sir William Cocke and Martha his Daughter of the Second part and Charles Lord Effingham of the Third part In Consideration of a Marriage to be had between him and Martha did Covenant to levy a Fine to the use of himself for Life and afterwards to Martha for Life the Remainder to the Heirs Males of his Body the Remainder to his own right Heirs And 29 Septemb. 22 Jac. the Marriage was had and the Michaelmas Term after a Fine was Levied accordingly The 24 of Jan. 1 Car. 1. the Earl died without Issue Martha Entred and was seised for her Life and died 17 Car. Et eodem anno it was found by Office that the Earl of Holderness died seised of the Rectory as before and without an Heir and that King Charles anno decimo granted this Rectory to one Murray George the fourth Son of Robert was Naturalized by the Parliament here 7 Jac. He had Issue John the Defendant Nicholas died Patrick his Heir in 1651. bargained and sold to the Earl of Elgin and one Sydenham virtute cujus vigore Statuti c. they were seised prout Lex postulat and in 1662. bargained and sold for years to Amabel Countess of Kent and Jane Hart and afterwards Released to them and their Heirs in 1665. They being seised bargained and sold by Lease and Release also to Pullen and Neale who Entred and bargained and sold to Sir Lionel Talmash and West the Lessors of the Plaintiff upon whom John the Defendant Entred Vpon which the Action is brought and the great Question in the Case was Whether Patrick the Son of Nicholas might claim these Lands as Heir to the Earl of Holderness by virtue of the Act of Parliament in Ireland 10 Car. or that they should descend to the Defendant the Son of George Naturalized the 7 of Jac. in England Wyld and Archer who Argued first were of Opinion That however the Point was adjudged the Plaintiff could not have Judgment upon this Verdict for they do not find that Patrick entred or was seised but that he in 1651. did bargain and sell c. Virtute cujus the Bargainees were seised prout Lex postulat and then bargained and sold in 1662 and do not so much as find their Bargainees seised prout Lex postulat But they find the Defendant Entred and so the primer Possession is in him which is a good Title against the Plaintiff for whom none is found it not being found that Patrick Entred Again If the Naturalization in Ireland will serve in England the Title appears for the Daughters the Heirs of Robert the eldest Son for 't is found that he died but not when so it might be after the Act of 10 Car. But Tyrrell and Vaughan Chief Justice differed in these two Points As to the First They said it would be intended Patrick entred for a Verdict that leaves all the Matter at large to the Iudgment of the Court will be taken sometimes by Intendment as well as where the Jury Conclude upon a Special Point 2 Cro. 64. find an Incumbent Resigned the Resignation shall be intended accepted So in 4 Co. Fullwood's Case it was found that one came before the Recorder of London and Mayor of the Staple recognovit se debere c. and did not say per scriptum suum Obligatorium nec per formam Statuti yet intended so Vid. Hob. 262. And where they find the Bargainees seised prout lex postulat that doth not leave it doubtful whether seised or no but whether by right or wrong for Seisin must be taken as found expresly Neither do they find any other in possession nor that the Defendant made any Claim in Twelve years after which enforces the Intendment as before And it is found expresly that Pullen and Neale Entred in 1665. so that the Defendant had not the primer Possession however or if he had he should not have Judgment if no other Title were found for him as is Resolved in 1 Cro. 42. Hern and Allen's Case As to the Second It shall be intended Robert died before 10 Car. For he is found an Alien and shall be presumed to have continued so during his Life unless found to the contrary then the Discent to the Daughters is obstructed by the Incapacity of their Father And tho' when the Title is found for the King the Court shall adjudge for him because the Kings Courts are intrusted with his Rights 't is not so of any other person but they shall take no

inherit If the Father a Natural Subject hath Issue a Son an Alien who is Naturalized the Father dies the Son shall inherit Co. Lit. 129. Touching the retrospect of a Naturalization and whether the Son being an Alien Naturalized after the death of the Father shall direct the Discent to the youngest depends upon the words of the Naturalization which being by Act of Parliament may by a strange retrospect direct it But as the Naturalization in the Case in question is Penned it would not do it the Naturalization hath only respect to what shall be hereafter The Clause of taking by Discent after the Commencement of the Session of Parliament is sufficient to check that Retrospect And this brings me to the Consideration of the Naturalization in the Case in question and the Effect thereof which I shall not Argue as a Point because I take the Point of the Case to be single But I shall deliver my Opinion of it by way of Conveyance to the Case Read the Naturalization First In this Naturalization I shall set down what Effect it hath And Secondly What Effect it hath not First What Effect it hath It doth doubtless remove that Inability and Incapacity that is in John the Earl and George in respect of themselves being Aliens and so put them in the Condition as if they had been Born in England But if there be a Consequential Impediment or Incapacity derived upon them by Robert their Fathers being an Alien which might hinder their Successions one to another which at the present I suppose or admit I say if there be any such Consequential Impediment this I take is not removed by this Naturalization My Reasons are briefly these First Because this Act of Naturalization hath a proper Subject upon which it may work and with which it is satisfied viz. the Personal defects of the Parties Naturalized because this Defect arising from the Incapacity of the Father is not in any measure taken notice of by the Act nor so much as mentioned that the Father was an Alien By the whole scope of the Act and every Clause of it and those Relative Terms As if Born in England is only to supply the Personal defect of the Parties Naturalized arising from their Birth out of England and therefore shall never be carried to a Collateral purpose Touching the Objection Tho' this Remedy will not Cure a Disease of another nature as Illegitimation Half-Blood c. yet it Cures all the defects of Foreign Births whether in the Parties themselves or resulting from the Ancestors And the Act might have been so Penned as it might have done it but it is not The Plaister is applied only to defects in the arising from their own Birth not defects arising from the Father or that Consequential disability arising thereby Second Objection But we find in Curteen's Case Placita Coronae 241. that where the Father was Attainted the Restitution in Blood granted by the Act to the Son cures that disability that results from the Fathers Attainder and this not only to the Son but also to the Collateral Heirs of the Father And I have before observed the Corruption of the Blood by Attainder is only of the Blood of the Father for the Son's Blood was not at all Corrupted By this Act of Restitution 1. Notice is taken of the Father's Attainder 2. It doth Intentionally provide against it and it was the only business of that Act to remove it 3. Had it not removed that Corruption of Blood it had been useless for there had been nothing else for it to provide against and so the Restitution had been idle had it not had that Effect But in our Case the Naturalization as it takes no notice of the defect in the Father nor provides against it so it hath another business to satisfie it doth remedy the Foreign Birth of the Son And let us examine the several Clauses in this Act of Naturalization we shall find the whole scope of it was no other than to put them in the same and no better Condition than as if they were Born in England This is the Governing Clause both in the first and last Sentence and hath an influence upon all the Clauses that intervene It hath been endeavoured to break the Context and to make the Clause As if Born in England to be cumulative and superabundant But this were by a Nicety to alter the scope and intent of the Act. If it were omitted yet the first Clause making him but a Natural Born Subject to all intents and purposes surely makes him no more and meddles not with the disability of his Father or the Consequence thereof There hath been some stress laid upon the Clause which enables him to make his resort and Pedigree to Ancestors Lineal or Collateral as if that should Entitle George at least to some more advantage by Naturalization than if he had been Born here But to this I say First That is a General Clause and cannot make a Legal Ancestor Secondly Vpon the same Reason it may make John or George inheritable to Patrick and not adjudge the disability of Nicholas his Father which no man pretends It makes him as much inheritable to Ancestors Lineal as well as Collateral and yet it makes no Ancestors Lineal The Words are General and create no new Ancestor that the Law doth not enable It is true that in the Argument of Godfrey and Dixon's Case especially Mountague laid some stress upon these Ancillary Clauses but the rest rather rested upon the very Matter that the party Naturalized was become thereby a Natural born Subject And thus I have done with the Naturalization which doth not Cure any disability of Transmission Hereditary between the Brothers resulting from the disability of the Father if any such be But it doth cure the Personal disability in John and George and makes them to all intents as Natural Subjects as if they had been born in England So that now the Case made is no more than this An Alien hath Issue two Sons born in England and one purchaseth Lands and dies without Issue whether the other shall inherit For as I have before observed the Case of John the Son of George is all one with the Case of George himself whom he represents as to the Point of the Discent from John the Earl Before I come to the Argument of the Question the Verdict had need be delivered from a Question which possibly would make an end of the Dispute It hath been said that if the Wife of Robert were an English Woman there would be no question but the Land might discend between the Brothers John and George tho' Robert the Father were an Alien and that it shall be so intended because nothing appears to the contrary To this I say It is true that if the Mother were an English Woman the Discent from John to George his Son would be unquestionable For notwithstanding the Incapacity of Robert the Father by being an

Alien they might inherit their Mother and consequently they might inherit one the other It hath been endeavoured to be Answered that it is not possible the Mother could be an English Woman because the Sons are found to be Aliens But that will not be so altho' an English Man marry an Alien beyond the Seas and having there Issue the Issue will be Denizens as hath been often Resolved Yet it is without question that if an English Woman go beyond the Seas and marry an Alien and have Issue born beyond the Seas the Issue are Aliens for the Wife was sub potestate viri and yet the Issue born in England should inherit tho' the Husband be an Alien But the true Answer is That in this Case Robert the Husband being an Alien born out of the Allegiance of the Crown of England and marrying and having all his Issues born there She shall not be presumed an English Woman but shall be presumed a Native in Scotland where her Husband lived and had Issue unless the contrary had been expresly found Now touching the Point in question it is true that Sir Edw. Coke in his Littl. fo 8. is of another Opinion He says That if an Alien have two Sons born in England and one dye without Issue the other shall not inherit him But I take the Law to be the contrary First I will shew what Reasons do not move me Secondly What Reasons do convince and satisfie me It doth not move me thus to conclude because there is no defectus Parriae or Nationis or Ligeantiae of either of the Brothers for tho' there be no personal defect in either of the Extreams yet it may be possible that a consequential Impediment arising from another Ancestor may hinder the Discent and this is apparent in the Case in question for Patrick the Son of Nicholas the Elder Brother of John the Earl hath no Defectus Ligeantiae for he was naturalized yet the Land shall not Discend from John the Earl to Patrick by reason of the defect of Nicholas his Father neither doth it move me that George or John his Son do not claim the Land from Robert the Father but from John the Earl for if the Grandfather be seized the Father is an Alien The Son of Denizen born the Father dies in the Life of the Grandfather the Son shall not inherit by reason of the defect of the Father tho' he claim nothing from him but from the Grandfather But the Reasons that satisfie me are these three in order as they are propounded My first Reason is because the Discent from a Brother to a Brother tho' it be a Collateral Discent yet it is an Immediate Discent and consequently upon what hath been premised at first unless we can find a disability or impediment in them no impediment in another Ancestor will hinder the Discent between them Now to prove this Discent immediate I shall use these three ensuing Instances or Evidences First In point of Pleading one Brother shall derive himself as Heir to another without mentioning another Ancestor this hath been at large insisted on by others and therefore I shall pass it over Secondly According to the computation of Degrees according to the Laws of England Brother and Brother make one Degree and the Brother is distant from his Brother and Sister in the first degree of Consanguinity According to the Civil Law the Brother is in the second Degre from the Brother for they make one Degree from the Brother to the Father and from the Father a second Degree to the other Brother but yet they say in Collaterals Nullus est proximior Fratre ideoque in Collateralibus nullus est primus Gradus sed secundus Gradus obtinet vocem primi Inst lib. 3. Tit. B. de Gradibus Consaguinitatis According to the Cannon Law Frater Frater Soror Soror sunt in primo Gradu Decret ' gratian Laus 35. quest 5. ad sedem and therefore their Laws prohibiting Marriage in the fourth Degree take Brother and Sister to be the first Degree of the fourth The Laws of England in computation of the Degrees of Consanguinity agree with the Common Law and reckon the Brother and Brother to be the first Degree and this is apparent by Littl ' sect 20. and the Objection of Lord Coke thereupon and the Book of 31 E. 3. Hollands Case cited by Littleton And with this likewise agrees the Laws and Custome of Normandy which tho' in some things they differ from the Law of England as is before observed yet in this particular and divers other touching Discents they agree with it Vid. Glov Com. super Customeir de Normandy in Cap. de Escheat Et doir un ' Scavoir que tonque le Custome de paijs de Normandy pur compter les Degrees en Line Collateral solonque les Cannoists deux freres ont le primier Degree eont que en Degree My third Evidence that the Discent between Brothers is immediate this viz. the Discent between Brothers differs from all others Collateral Discents whatsoever for in other Discents Collateral the half Blood doth inherit but in a Discent between Brothers the half Blood doth impede the Discent which argues that the Discent is immediate The Vncle of the part of the Father hath no more of the Blood of the Mother than the Brother of the Second Venter The Brother by the second Venter hath the immediate Blood of the Father which the Vncle viz the Fathers Brother hath not but only as they meet in the Grandfather The Brother of the half Blood is nearer of Blood than the Vncle and therefore shall be preferred in the Administration And so it hath been resolved in 5 E. 6. in Browns Case and tho' the Book of 5 E. 6. B. Administration 47. mistakes the Law in preferring the Brother of the half Blood before the Mother yet it had been right in the case of a Competition between him and the Vncle. And yet the Vncle is preferred in the Discent before the Brother of the half Blood and the reason is because that is a mediate Discent mediante Patre but the Discent to the Brother must be immediate if at all and therefore the half Blood impedes it Again it is apparent that if in the Line between Brother and Brother the Law took notice of the Father as the Medium thereof the Brother by the second Venter should rather succeed the other Brother because he is Heir to his Father therefore in a Discent between Brothers the Law respects only the mediate relation of the Brothers as Brothers and not in respect of their Father tho' it is true the Bosom or Foundation of their Consanguinity is in the Father and Mother My second principal Reason is to prove that the disability of the Father doth not at all hinder the Discent between the Brothers immediate is this If the Father in case of a Discent between Brothers were such an Ancestor as the Law