Selected quad for the lemma: friend_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
friend_n answer_v know_v think_v 806 5 3.6946 3 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A93927 The reading upon the statute of the thirteenth of Elizabeth, chapter VII. touching bankrupts, learnedly and amply expained, by John Stone of Gray's Inn, esquire. Stone, John, d. 1640. 1695 (1695) Wing S5730; ESTC R43936 72,205 137

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

some say it is not for Bona Ecclesiae sunt partimonia pauperum the Apostles distributed communes distributiones quotidianas distributiones at Lincoln to this day Linwood Sacriledge But I hold it is for as in our Case if he pay it before hand it goes out of his own Purse if afterwards though it go out of his Benefice yet it is to be intended this is benefit to the Patron for since the Statute of 39 Eliz. cap. 3. made for the relief of the Poor the more the Parson gives the less the Patron needs give and Charity ought to be voluntary and not for hope of a Benefice or a Reward But I will agree that if it had been in consideration that he shall maintain the Patron if he be at any time in want during his life this is no Simony Patronum faciunt dos edificatio fundus Patrono debentur honos onus emolumentum Linwood fol. 157. De beneficiis est onus alendi Patron Ecclesiae ubi ad summam pervenit paupertatem Ergo c. But this is likewise given to the poor to the end that he may be made Minister Whether this be Simony I think this is Simony in the highest degree and the very same which Simon Magus would have committed for he offered the Apostles money to be admitted into the Ministery he knew and saw that they received nothing to their own private use all things were common with them and as I said they distributed to every man as he had need yet you all know how he was answered and what became on him even eo quod voluit and yet non potuit quod voluit facere malum But the Statute for gift reward or benefit to the Ordinary or any Friend of his and so thought to be Simony in Spiritual Law yet it is not within the Statute yes indeed it is for even as they say Si quis aliquid dederit alio quam praesentandi aut ordinatori si alias beneficium non esset habiturus est Simonia But then saith the Statute if such a Minister be to be presented instituted and inducted into any Benefice for seven years after that immediately after the induction the Benefice shall be void and it shall be lawful to the Patron to present another But here is the Question upon this Statute by the first branch the King is intituled by the second the Patron but the Kings interest makes it no induction at all A. dies and B. is instituted and inducted 4. But admit here is no Simony in the Case then riseth another Question Whether here be any good presentation or not Where the Case is no more but this one presents and his Clerk is instituted one other presents the first Clerk after institution and before induction dies whether this presentation when another was instituted be good at all Or whether his death before induction have made it good whereby the second may be instituted and inducted It is plain if one present in the life time of the incumbent the presentment is void 22 H. 6.27 By admission and institution one is Parson before induction and Linwood saith he hath jus ad rem in re But 5 Eliz. Dyer he hath jus ad rem but not in re and Hare and Buckley's Case he is like a Tenant in Dower that hath Judgment but no Execution Or like a Copy-holder after a Surrender and before admittance but neither to charge nor bring action But as in my Lord Digbies Case in Coke l. 4. A Parson having one Benefice is instituted into another and then gets a dispensation and then is inducted the induction shall so relate that the dispensation is of no force So his death shall make that he had by the institution no interest at all but that the second presentation is good and consequently the induction But if in the life time of A. B. had been both presented and instituted the institution had been meerly void and then the induction could never be good 13 Ja. B. R. if it be not in the Kings Case 5. Afterwards B. being inducted into the Benefice of 5 l. value is inducted into another and then recovers Lands of 20 l. value to the first whether this first be void by the Statute 21 H. 8. and I take it it is not The Statute is That having a Benefice of 8 l. accepts of another and is inducted into the same then the former Benefice shall immediately be adjudged to be void And altho' I am of opinion that this Law shall be taken strict and even extended by equity because it is to repress a great inconvenience in the Church and Common-wealth That yet nevertheless this word having shall be construed as it is in the Statute of 32. of Wills in Buttler and Bakers Case pro ut the Case so here And here is also this word immediately which is much inforced there because the Land could not descend immediately till disagreement A man infeofts a Feme Covert and then grants rent charge the Husband dies she waves if she had agreed it would have avoided the charge and yet the disagreement shall not make it good But I cannot compare it to a better Case than the Case of a Ward the Rule is If Tenant in Knights service die seised his Heir within Age shall be in Ward with this addition to the Rule that if he were disseised and might enter or if he had made a Feoffment upon Condition and the Condition were broken if the Lord or the Heir enter he shall be in Ward or if the Tenant for Term of Life of a Ward make a Feoffment and the Heir enter the Land shall be in Ward So be the Books of 17 ass 18 ass 18. 19 E. 3. Gard 114 and 48 E. 3. fo 8. But 12 H. 7.20 Frowick if the Heir recover by action Auncestrell he shall not be in Ward 15 E. 4.13 Urfwick chief Baron the same or if he pay money to redeem Land and enter for the Condition performed he shall not be in Ward so here I hold the same Rule if B. had been disseised of parcel of his Glebe or that it had been forfeited for a Condition broken the first Benefice would have been void but not in this Case I hold that if his Rectory were a Signiory and but of 5 l. value and then he accept a second Benefice and afterwards by the Escheat of a Tenancy it had come to be of 8 l. or 10 l. value it shall not in this Case be void 6. But this Clerk was a Marchant and turns Priest and now leaves his old debts unpaid whether he can be a Bankrupt because of the words using the Trade c. He is ruled in John Quarles Case my Lord Chief Justice being Recorder was a Commissioner for he left his Marchandizing and was turned Gentleman 7. Whether yielding of himself to Prison in the Admirals Court in an action whereof their Court hath no Jurisdiction be a yielding himself