Selected quad for the lemma: honour_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
honour_n	earl_n	lord_n	succeed_v	1,584	5	10.0270	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A51217	An exact abridgement in English, of the cases reported by Sr. Francis More Kt. serjeant at law with the resolution of the points in law therein by the judges / collected by William Hughes of Grayes-Inn Esq.	Hughes, William, of Gray's Inn.; Moore, Francis, Sir, 1558-1621.	1665 (1665)	Wing M2538; ESTC R22481	260,319	322

sold Lands to B. and C. by Deed enrolled they suffered a Recovery to the use of A. and his Wife who was the Daughter of B. for her Joynture the Remainder over in Tail to their Issues A. dyed his Heirs within age Resolved in this Case it was an Assurance by A. himself for the advancement of his Wife and her Issues within the Statute of 34 H. 8. and the Heir of A. should be in Ward for the third part of the Land The Earl of Bedfords Case 954. The Case was this Francis Earl of Bedford made a Feoffment in Fee of the Mannor of D. to the L. St. John and others to the use of himself for 40. years and after to the use of John his second Son and the Heirs males of his body and for want of such Issue to the use of the right Heirs of the Feoffor Afterward Edward Lord Russell Heir apparent of the Earl dyed without Issue male of his body having issue Eliz. and Anne Daughters Afterward Francis by Indenture between him and I. S. and others for the advancement of the Heirs males of the body of the said Earl and the establishing of his Mannors in his blood Covenanted to stand seised of the said Mannor to the use of himself for life and after his decease to the use of Francis Lord Russell his youngest Son and the Heirs males of his his body with divers Remainders over Afterwards Francis Lord Russell dyed having Issue Edward Lord Russell and after dyed and if the Daughters of the said John Lord Russell or the Earl of Bedford should have the Mannor of D. was the Question in the Court of Wards It was Resolved the Daughters should not have the said Mannor but the Earl because there was no right Heir to take as purchasor when the estate Tail was determined by the death of John Lord Russell without Issue male for the Remainder to the right Heirs cannot be preserved by the mean estate for years for it ought to be a Freehold at least which ought to preserve such a Remainder till there be one to take it by the name of a purchasor as right Heir Andrews and Sheffields Case 955. A. hath Issue three Sons B. C. and D. and seised of Lands in P. by Will deviseth them in this manner viz. I will that all my Lands in P. shall Remain after the death of my Wife to C. my Son and his Heirs and if it fortune that D. liveth untill the said Lands come to C. then I will that C pay to D. 10 l. every year as long as D. liveth A. dyeth C. commeth to the Lands and payeth the Rent hath Issue and dieth It was Resolved that in this Case the devise did enure as a Rent-seck for the life of D. and the Lands in the hands of the Heir or Assignes of C. should be chargeable with the same Wrotesleys Case 956. A. seised in Fee of the Mannors of N. and W. of the Mannor of D. in Tail Covenanted to stand seised to the use of himself and his Wife and to his own right Heirs Afterward he dyed seised of these Mannors and also sole seised of other Lands in Fee The Mannor of D. was holden in Capite It was found that A. dyed his Heirs within age the body and Lands of the Mannor of D. was committed to I. S. and I. D. the committee ousted the Wife of D. It was Resolved that the Wife of A. should have recompence to the value of the said Mannor of D. out of the other Lands of the Heir of which his Ancestors dyed seised Boydell and Walthalls Case 957. The Case was A. seised of Land in Fee an Indenture was made purporting a Feoffment to B. and C. with Waranty There was another Indenture bearing date the same day with the first between the Feoffees and the Feoffor whereby the Feoffer reciting the former Feoffment to them granted that immed●atly after the said Feoffees and their Heirs and Assignes have taken and received the profits of the Lands during the Terme of 100 years then it should be Lawfull for A. his Heirs and Assignes to reenter and have the said Lands in their first right and Title It was Resolved by the Justices in this Case that the Intent upon the Livery was that the Feoffor should have the Lands after the 100. years quit possession of the Feoffees and that the use did immediately arise to the Heirs of the Feoffor as soon as the Lands had been enjoyed for 100. years and that by the Statute of 27 H. 8. the Heir of the Feoffor might enter The Earl of Rutlands Case 958. Ed. Earl of R. seised in Fee of and in the Reversion or Remainder of the Mannor of E. expectant upon the death of B. Countesse of B. who held the same for life for the augmentation of the Joynture of I. his Wife Covenanted 21 Eliz. with I. S. and I. D. before the last day of Trinity Term next following by Fine or other assurance to assure the Reversion or Remainder of the said Mannors to them and their Heirs and the parties thereof seised should stand seised of and in the Reversion and Remainder of the said Mannor to the use of the said Earl and the said I. his Wife and the Heirs of the said Earl for ever Afterwards in the same year by another Indenture made between the said Earl the Lord Treasurer and the said I. S. and others of the other part for the advancement of him who should succeed him in the Earldom and the advancement of the Heirs male of T. late Earl of R. his Grandfather to convey the Castle and Honor of B. and the said Mannor of E. amongst other Lands to the said Lord Treasurer and others to the use of the said Earl and the Heirs males of his body and for want of such Issue to the Heirs males of Tho. his Grandfather with divers Remainders over and by the last Indenture further Covenanted that if the said Earl before the Feast of our Lady next should not sufficiently convey all the said Honors Mannors c. in the last Indenture in manner and forme as therein is mentioned that then he and all other persons seised should from thenceforth stand and be seised to the uses in the last Indenture No Fine was levyed of the Mannor of E. before the end of Trinity Term but in Mick Term a Fine was levyed of the said Mannor within the time limited in the last Indenture and another Fine was levyed of other Land but not of the Mannor of E. and after the Earl died The Quest on in this case only was whether I. the wife of the said Earl might during the Life of B. Countess of B trayerse the Office found after the death of the Earl viz. That the Fine levyed of the Mannor of E. was not to the uses limited in the latter Indenture Resolved that the Office was insufficient for the Incertainty where it found the Earl was seised of the Reversion

of himself for Life the Remainder to F. in tail the Remainder to the Defendant in tail and the Remainder to the Right Heirs of the Father F. had Issue I. the Lessor of the Plaintiff and died in the Life of his Father The Father made a Lease for years the Lessee for years made a Feoffment in Fee the Father Releases with Warranty to the Feoffee and dyed The Feoffee enfeoffed the Defendant It was the opinion of the Justices in this Case that the Warranty by reason of the Covyn should not bar and that it was a Warranty which did commence by disseisin The Earl of Lincoln and Fishers Case 644. The Defendant gave the Plaintiff the Lye openly in the Leer for which the Steward assessed a Fine of 20. s. upon him The Plaintiff brought Debt for the Fine It was adjudged the Action was maintainable because they are words of contempt in a Court of Justice to a Judge for which the Judge might fine him Canes Case 645. A Venire fac at the Suit of the Plaintiff was prayed to the Coroners because the Sheriff was his Master and the Defendant confessed it It was tried for the Plaintiff It was said it was a Mis-Tryal because a Venire fac ought not to be to the Coroners upon any suggestion if it be not a principal Challenge But the Court held it good although he did not conclude his Challenge and so favorable Revera and Baptistaes Case 646. Assumpsit The Jury found the Assumpsit but that it was upon another consideration and not upon the consideration layed in the Declaration Adjudged against the Plaintiff Tarrants Case 647. The Father made a Feoffment to the use of himself for Life the Remainder to his eldest Son and the Heirs Males of his Body the Remainder to his own Right Heirs Proviso That if any of them to whom the Estates are limited or any Issue Male of their Body intend or attempt or do any Act by which the Premises or any part of them should be discontinued that then of that part his Feoffees should be seised to the use of him to whom the Premises after the death of the said party should come as if he were naturally dead The Defendant being Tenant in tail suffered a common Recovery he in the Remainder entred It was Resolved that Tenant in tail could not be restrained from suffering a common Recovery vide accordingly Chomeleys case and Germin and Ascotts case before The Lord Cromwell and Andrews Case 648. In Assise the Case was A seised of a Mannor with an Advowson appendent granted bargained and sold the Mannor and the Advowson to B. and his Heis rendring Rent to A. and his Heirs and covenanted to suffer a Recovery to the use of B. and his Heirs and covenanted to levy a Fine to B. and his Heirs with a render of the Rent to A. and his Heirs Proviso that B. shall regrant the Advowson to A. for his Life so as he shall present as often as it should be void during his Life B. and A. both joyn in a Fine to I. S. who renders the Rent to A. in tail with the Remainder to I. D. and renders the Land to B. and his Heirs Afterwards B. died before a Regrant of the Advowson A. enters upon the Heir and enfeoffs the Lord Cromwell upon whom the Heir of B. reenters There were three points in this Case 1. If the Proviso for the regrant of the Advowson made the Estate of B. conditional in the whole Mannor 2. If the condition by the death of B. without regrant of the Advowson be broken 3. If the Condition be extinct by the Conusance and fine and revived as a Limitation in the use of the Fine The case is here only largly argued but not adjudged Vide Resolution of this Case Coo. ● pa. and here before pl. 229. Hiddy and Welhouses Case 649. In Trespass for taking of his Chattel The sole point in the Case was Whether Toll was incident to a Fair of common Right It was Resolved that Toll is not incident to a Fair of Common Right and that none shall have Toll in a Fair if he hath it not by Grant or Prescription But it was agreed that the King might grant Toll with a new Fair if the Toll be reasonable and not excessive but if it be to have 1 d. upon every Beast they took it to be unreasonable vide Cro. 3. part 559. accordingly The Queen and Doddingtons Case 650. In account against the Defendant Executor of Sir Walter Mildmay The Case was The Marquiss of Winton 1 Eliz. being Treasurer of England and Sir Walter Mildmay Chancellor of the Exchequer and of the Court of Augmentation then lately dissolved and united to the Exchequer allowed Sir Walter Mildmay 100 l. per an for diet and 40. l. per an for his attendance in the Office of the Chancellor of the Exchequer After which 2 Eliz. a Privy Seal came to the Treasurer Chancellor of the Exchequer to pay the Fees and Allowances by Patent or Parliament to the Treasurer Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Offices and to give such Rewards to other Officers they should think they deserved There were divers points in this Case 1. If the Treasurer alone ex officio might increase Fees or Allowances to the Queens Officers 2. If a Privy Seal was a sufficient Warrant to do it 3. If he might give a Reward to the Chancellor by the Warrant 4. If the Privy Seal being after the allowance made and before payment come in time to excuse the payment 5. If account did lie against Sir Walter Mildmay himself 6. If his Executors were chargable in account This Case is in this Report only argued but not Resolved But vide in Coo. 11. pa. in the Earl of Devonshires case this case is put and there it was said it was Resolved in this case that no officer of the King might ex officio issue or dispose of the Kings Treasure although it be for the honor and profit of the King without a Warrant from the King and a Warrant by word of mouth or under his privy Signet is not sufficient but the Warrant ought to be under the Great Seal or Privy Seal and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer doth receive the Kings Treasure to his own use he shall be charged in account for the same Worme and Websters Case 651. A seised in Fee of Lands holden in capite made a Feoffment thereof to B. and C. to such intents and purposes and to such uses and estates and in such manner as are declared and limited or should be declared in the last Will of the said A. Afterwards he made his Will in this manner viz. I Will and Devise that E. my wife during her Life shall have and take the profits of all my Mannors and Lands and after her decease I devise them to G. P. and the Heirs of his body and died E. entred and died G. P. entred 1. Question if the