Selected quad for the lemma: judgement_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
judgement_n	erroneous_a	error_n	writ_n	2,062	5	9.6571	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A34802	Lex custumaria, or, A treatise of copy-hold estates in respect of the lord, copy-holder wherein the nature of customs in general, and of particular customs, grants and surrenders, and their constructions and expositions in reference to the thing granted or surrendred, and the uses or limitations of estates are clearly illustrated : admittances, presentments, fines and forfeitures are fully handled, and many quaeries and difficulties by late resolution setled : leases, licences, extinquishments of copy-hold estates, and what statutes extend to copy-hold estates are explained : and also of actions by lord or tenant, and the manner of declaring and pleading, either generally or as to particular customs, with tryal and evidence holder may recieve relief in the Court of Chancery : to which are annexed presidents of conveyances respecting copy-holds, releases, surrenders, grants presentmets, and the like : as also presidents of court rolls, surrenders, admittances, presentments, &c. / by S.C., Barister at Law.	Carter, Samuel, barrister at law.	1696 (1696)	Wing C665; ESTC R4622	239,406	434

per quod quer ' communiam suam predict pro averiis suis c. in tam amplo beneficiali modo prout antea habuit c. habere non potuit This is a good Declaration though the Commoner cannot have any Damage for the taking and carrying away the Turffs yet the coming on the Land with Horse and Carts is a prejudice to the Common and the per quod the Common is impaired is the cause of Action and the carrying away a means to impair it 1 Rolls Abr. 89. Terry and Goodier and good tho' Damages were entire Action shall be brought in a Copy-holder Lunaticks name for though the custody of the Land was granted to one by the Lord yet no Interest was gained by this commitment and the Lord hath not power over the Lunaticks Lands without a Custom Hobart p. 215 216. Cox and Darson Trespass Quare clausum fregit Copy-holder of Under-Wood without the Soil shall have Trespass Quare clausum fregit Moor n. 480. Account for Profits Account lies not for an Heir Copy-holder for the Profits of his Copy-hold Lands taken during his non-Age where the Defendant hath not entred and taken the Profits as Prochein Amy but claims by Custom and Grant of the Lord to the Use of the Assignee which Custom is good 1 Leon. p. 226. n. 356. Anonymus Faux Judgment Writ of faux Judgment lies not for a Copy-holder Vide supra Writ of Right Close Writ of Right Close lies not for a Copy-holder 4 Rep. 21. Avowry for Rent by Lessee of a Copy-holder Lessee for years of a Manor distrains a Copy-holder for Rent he Replevins Lessee Avows Per Curiam Avowry may be made for the Rent of a Copy-holder in the Kings-Bench and there is difference between an Ejectione Firmae and this Case For the Ejectione Firmae is brought for the Copy-hold it self But this Avowry is for Rent due to the Lord which is a duty at the Common Law and therefore an Avowry may well be for it Cro. El. p. 524. Laughter and Humphry A Copy-holder in Fee by Licence made a Lease for 21 years by Indenture rendring Rent Covenant by Assignee of a Reversion wherein the Lessee Covenants for himself his Executors and Assigns That he will erect a c. The Lessor surrendred to the Use of the Plaintiff and his Heirs who was admitted accordingly and the Plaintiff as Assignee brings his Action of Covenant Whether the Assignee may maintain this Action by the Common Law or by the Statute 32 H. 8. Cap. 34. was the Question for the Defendant demurred upon the Declaration it was adjourned in Cro. Car. 24. Plat and Plummer But it seems by 1 Keb. 356. Baker and Berisford's Case That the Assignee is not within this Statute to have a Covenant Action of Debt doth not lye for Arrearages of Copy Rents for the Stat. of 32 H. 8. Action of Debt for Rent does not extend to them but to Rents out of Free Land Yelv. p. 135. Appleton and Doily And so Executors shall not have Debt for Arreages of such Rents due in the Life-time of the Testator The Lord of a Manor is and Fines No Remedy for Fines Rents c. after vendition for Admittances and Copy-hold Rents are Arrear and then he sells the Manor he is without Remedy both in Law and Equity He hath deprived himself of the Remedy by his own act viz. the vendition 1 Rolls Abr. 374. Serjeant Hitcham and Finch Copy-holder for Life becomes Lunatick A. Action of Trover to be brought in the Lunaticks name he being a Copy-holder sows the Land The Lord grants the custody of the Lunatick to B. A. takes the Corn to the Use of the Lunatick B. Brought Trover in his own name it s ill brought It ought to be brought in the Lunaticks name and not in the name of the Committee Noy p. 27. Cox and Dawson Covenant by Rent Custom is when a Copy-holder dies seized of Copy-hold Lands or Rent That his Wife shall have the one moiety and his Issues the other moiety A. B. so seized takes Mary to Wife and they have Issue John A. B. dies so that Mary is seized of the moiety for her Life and John of the other moiety in Fee and of the first moiety as his Reversion Mary and John her Son make a Lease to J. B. for twenty one years rendring fifty pounds Rent to Mary and fifty pounds to John and after the death of Mary one hundred pounds to John John marries Margaret they have Issue three Sons John dies so that a fourth part comes to his Wife and the other fourth part to his three Sons Rent is behind Margaret brought Debt on Covenant for the Rent Per Curiam it was well brought by her sole Joynder in Action without joyning Mary with her Tenant in Commonn shall joyn in Action so long as the privity of Contract remains but when the privity is determined as it is here they may sever and such Contract shall ensue the nature of the Land and also there is a vesting by Custom and express several Reservations 2 Siderfin p. 9. Baker and Berisford CAP. XXX Of Copy-holders being Impleaded and Impleadable in the Lords Court Vide supra Tit. Customs COpy-hold Lands are as the Demesns of the Manor and are the Lords Freehold and therefore are not impleadable but in the Lords Court Croke Jac. 559. Pymmock and Hilder One recovered certain Copyhold Lands in the Court of the Lord of the Manor by Plaint in the nature of a Writ of Right A Precept cannot be made and awarded out of the Court to execute the said Recovery Posse Manerij and to put him who recovered into possession with the Posse Manerij for force in such cases is not justifiable but by command out of the Kings Courts 3 Leon. 99. A Woman recovered Dower of a Copy-hold within the Manor and 40 l. Damages 40 l. Damages recovered yet no Execution or remedy but by Petition and she brought Debt for the Damages in B.R. Per Cur. it lyes not because the Court Baron cannot hold Plea nor award Execution of 40 l. Damages though the Damages were there well assessed and because no Writ of Error or Faux Judgment lyes upon such a Recovery of a Copy-hold but only a Petition to the Lord of a Manor so that Copy-hold Plaints are not within the Jurisdiction of this Court of Kings-Bench Moor n. 559. Shaw and Tompson If an erroneous Judgment be given in a Copy-hold Court of a common Lord in an Action in nature of a Formedon a Bill may be exhibited in Chancery Faux Judgment how relieved in nature of a Faux Judgment to reverse this Pateshall's Case in Scaccario 1 Rolls Abr. 373. and Co. on Lit. p. 60. a. He cannot have the Kings Writ of false Judgment in respect of the baseness of the Estate and Tenure being in the Eye of the Law but a

Copy-holder It hath been a Question when a Copy-holder bargains and sells his Copy-hold to the Lord of a Manor in Lease for years whether the Copyhold Estate was extinguished But in Hutton p. 81. it is agreed that this Copy-hold is not extinguished but that the Lord who is Lessee for years is Dominus pro tempore and may grant it by Copy de novo The Lord of a Manor demised Copy-hold Lands to three Sisters Habend to them for their Lives successive the eldest Sister married one C. after which the Lord by Indenture leased the same Land to the eldest Sister the Remainder to the Husband Remainder to the second Sister and no Agreement was made thereunto by the second Sister by Deed before or after making the said Indenture but four days after the Lease made she agreed to it in pais and then married a Husband Agreement to an Indenture by one in Remainder for Life and they claim the Land The point is if by Agreement of the second Sister her Right to the Copy-hold were extinct The Interest of the eldest Sister is gone by her acceptance of the Estate by Indenture now if the second Sister may come and claim her customary Interest Per Cur. it s no extinguishment in the second Sister and yet Judgment was against her for Per Gaudy none can take advantage of the eldest Sister's Estate being determined the Lord against his Lease cannot enter or claim and the second Sister cannot enter during the Life of the eldest Sister for her Remainder takes effect in possession after the death of her said Sister 1 Leon. p. 73. Curtis and Cottell's Case 28 Eliz. Trin. B. R. By acceptance of a new Estate of Free-hold Baron and Feme Copy-holders to them and their Heirs the Baron in consideration of mony paid by him to the Lord obtaineth an Estate of the Freehold to him and his Wife and to the Heirs of their Bodies Baron dieth having Issue the Feme enters and suffers a Recovery and his Heir enters Per Statute 11 H. 7. Per Cur. the Entry is lawful for the Copy-hold by the Acceptance of the new Estate was extinguished Cro. El. 24. Stockbridge's Case Where and how Right to a Copy-hold shall be Extinguished by Release A man makes a Surrender of his Copy-hold Land to J. S. which is not good and after J. S. is admitted he which made the Surrender releaseth to him being in possession and after enters upon him The Question was if his Entry be congeable and if by the Release by Deed the customary Right of the Copy-holder was extinct And Per Cur. it is extinct by the Release for he to whom the Release was made was Copy-holder in possession and admitted to the Tenements and therefore the Release of a customary right may enure to him and the Lord hath no prejudice for he hath received his Fine for Admittance and he to whom the Release is made is in by Title viz. by Admittance of the Lord and so this Release enures by way of extinguishment And there is great difference between transferring of an Estate and an extinguishment of a Right Diversity between the transferring of an Estate and the extinguishment of a Right But if a Copy-holder be ousted per Tort there his Release to the disseisor or other wrong doer does not transfer his Right or Bar him 1. Because there is no customary Estate upon which a Release of any customary Right may enure and then 2. It would be a prejudice to the Lord who would lose his Fines and Services Co. 4 Rep. 25. b. Kite and Queinton In Replevin bar to the Conisance That K.D. was seized of the Manor of R. in Fee and that the Tenements in which c. were customary held of the said Manor and that at such a Court a Copy was granted to the Plaintiff whereby he entred and put in his Beasts The Defendant protesting the Premisses were not customary for Plea saith That before the Plaintiffs Title J. Abbot of the Monastery of B. was seized of the Manor of R. c. and one R. T. being seized of the customary Lands in which c. in Fee at the will of the Lord the said R. surrendred to the Abbot who was possessed and occupied the said Premisses for divers years and afterwards demised the said Manor for 40 years to W. M. and then surrendred the entire Manor and Abbathy to H. 8. who granted the entire Manor to the Duke of Norfolk in Fee and he with the assent of the Termor made a Feoffment to Drury of the Manor to whom the Termor surrendred his Lease Drury dyes and it descends to his Heir who granted the Land in which c. again by Copy to Tillot for his Life who entred and put in his Beasts Demurrer The Question was if the Custom is destroyed or if Drury the Defendant may avoid his Grant by Copy Note The custumary Land was never severed from the Manor but granted with the Manor as part of it and was demisable by Copy by all the Lords of the Manor and so it remained till the 15th of Eliz. when the Defendant granted the Copy to the Plaintiff Winch Ent. 991 992. Where a Copy-hold shall be perpetually extinct or where it shall after become a Copy-hold by regrant Forfeit Escheat If a Copy-hold Estate be forfeit or escheat to the Lord or otherwise come into the Hands of the Lord if the Lord make a Lease for years or for Life or other Estate by Deed or without Deed this Land shall never after be granted again by Copy for the Custom is destroyed for that during such Estates the Land was not demised nor demisable by Copy of Court Roll So if the Lord make a Feoffment and enter for the Condition broken it shall never be granted again by Copy But if the Lord keep it in his Hands a long time or let this at will then he may re-grant it Lach p. 213. 1 Rolls Abr. 498. Downcliff and Minors So if the interruption be tortious as if the Lord be disseised and the disseisor dye seized or the Land be recovered against the Lord by false Verdict or erroneous Judgment yet after the Land recovered or the judgment reversed this is grantable again by Copy Legal Interruptions But if the Land so Forfeited or Escheated before any new Grant be extended upon a Statute or Recognizance acknowledged by the Lord or the Lords Wife hath this assigned to her in a Writ of Dower though these are impediments by acts in Law yet the interruptions are lawful and the Lands may never again be granted by Copy 4 Rep. 31. Frenches Case If Copy-holder takes a Lease for years of the Manor by this his Copy-hold is destroyed but such Lessee may re-grant the Copy-hold again to whom he will for the Land was always demised or demisable If a Copy-hold be surrendred to the Lessor of a Manor or be Forfeited to him he his Executors or Assigns may well

Lord shall have one Action and the Copy-holder another and each one shall recover Damages according to his Interest Vide Leon. 1. 272. Copy-holder dyes Lord admits a Stranger the Heir may enter and upon a re-entry maintain Trespass without Admittance Noy p. 172. Simpson and Gillion Vide Admittance For non-Admittance no Action by Surrendree Action on the Case against the Lord lyes not for non-Admittance A Copy-holder in the Eye of the Law is but Tenant at the Lords Will and if the Lord will not hold Court he hath no remedy to compel him but by order in Chancery Cro. Jac. p. 368. Ford and Hoskins No Action on the Case by a named Successor By Surrendror Surrendror may have an Action on the Case for not admitting but not the Surrendree 2 Keb. 357. Quaere Remedy in faux Judgment The Demandant in a Pleint in nature of a real Action recovereth the Land erroneously with remedy for the party grieved for he cannot have the Kings Writ of faux Judgment in respect of the baseness of the Estate and Tenure being in the Eye of the Law but a Tenant at Will and the Freehold being in another yet he shall have Petition to the Lord in nature of a Writ of faux Judgment and therein assign Errors and have remedy according to Law Co. Lit. 60. And if there be cause the Judgment may be reversed Assise Tenant by Copy shall not have Assise against his Lord as Tenant in ancient Demesn shall have because he hath no Frank-Tenement 4 Rep. 21. but he shall be relieved in Equity Tothil p. 108. The Copy-holders Actions and Remedies against Strangers and where A man grants all the Coals and Coal-Mines within a Manor and parcel was Copy-hold for Life to J. S. Where Copy-holder shall have Trover for Coals digged out of his Copy-hold Land Lessee enters into the Copy-hold and digs a new Pit in the Copy-hold Land during the Life of the Copy-holder and takes the Coals and converts them c. And Lessee of the Coal-Mine brought Trover against the Lessor Per Curiam he may do it for when the Lessor or Lessee of the Coals or a Stranger enters and digs the Coals out of the Pits these belong to the Lessee and if any one else take the Coals he shall have Trover Jones Rep. 243. Player and Roberts Lessee of a Copy-holder for a year Ejectment shall maintain an Ejectione Firmae for in as much as his Term is warranted by Law by force of the general Custom of the Realm it is but reason if he be ejected that he shall have Ejectione Firmae and it is a speedy course for a Copy-holder to have the possession of the Land against a Stranger 4 Rep. 26. As to the Declaration in Ejectment Vide Tit. Declaration In Cro. El. p. 224. It is said to be adjudged Ejectment Per tot Cur. That an Ejectione Firmae doth not lye of a Copy-hold Estate But it was agreed That an Ejectione Firmae doth lye of a Lease made by a Copy-holder but not of a Demise made by the Lord of a Copy-hold by Copy of Court Roll Cole and Wall 's Case A Copy-holder had Licence from his Lord to let his Land for 21 years he lets it to the Plaintiff for three years who entred and being Ejected brought Ejectione Firmae Ejectment by Lessee upon a Lease not warranted good against a Stranger Per Cur. he may maintain this Action at Common Law for it is a good Lease between the Pa●●●s and against all others but the Lord and as this Case is it is good against him because it is done by his Licence and it is a good Lease and well warranted by the Licence Cro. El. 535. Goodwin and Longhurst A Copy-holder made a Lease for one year excepting one day which was warranted by the Custom Lessee being ousted by a Stranger brings Ejectione Firmae it well lyes and if there were not any Custom yet it shall be good against all but him who had the Inheritance and Freehold So if a Lessee for Will at the Common Law had made a Lease for years for the Tenant at Will is only a Disseisor and the Lease is good against him Cro. Trin. 41 El. p. 676. Spark's Case So 717. Erish's Case Moor n. 709. Stoner and Gibson Ejectment by the Heir without Admittance to presentment If customary Lands do descend to the younger Son by Custom and he enters and leaseth to another who takes the Profits and after is Ejected he shall have an Ejectione Firmae without any Admittance of his Lessor or Presentment that he is Heir 1 Leon. p. 100. Rumny and Eves n. 128. If a Copy-holder had Common by Prescription in the Waste of the Lord and the Lord stores the Waste with Conies every Copy-holder may have Action on the Case against the Lord averring That by this the Common is impaired 1 Rolls Abr. 106. Clayton and Sir Jerom Horsey Trespass for Beasts depasturing his Common by every Commoner Copy-holder prescribes to have Common in the Waste of the Lord and brings Trespass on the Case against a Stranger for his Beasts depasturing on the Common there The Question was whether this Action lyes for 15 H. 7.12 it s agreed a Commoner cannot maintain an Action of Trespass nor no other but the Owner of the Soyl 12 H. 8.2 And the Commoner hath no right till he hath taken it by the mouth of his Beasts and the Damage is to the Tenant of the Land and then every other Commoner may have Action of Trespass and so the Stranger shall be infinitely punishable Per Coke If a Commoner may distrain Damage feasant doing Damage which proves lie hath wrong then by the same reason if the Beasts are gone before his coming he may have Action on the Case otherwise one that hath many Beasts may destroy the Common in a night And it s not like a Nusance for that is Publick and may be punished in a Leet But the other is private to the Commoners and cannot be punished in another course he cited one Whitehand's Case Many Copy-holders prescribe to have the Loppings and Toppings of Pollards the Lord cuts them every Copy-holder may have his Action and also Hill 5. Jac. Rot. 1427. Geo. England's Case and Warburton of the same Opinion 2 Brownl p. 146. Crogate and Morris If a Copy-holder by the Custom of a Manor had used to have Common for all his Beasts Action on the Case for digging Turffs on the Common Levant and Couchant upon his customary Tenements in a certain parcel of the Manor and a Stranger digs Turffs there and takes them away by which his Common is impaired Action on the Case lyes declaring That the Defendant digged so many Turffs there and then with his Horses and Carts Herbam tunc ibid crescen ' predict ambulando conculcando Declaration from the place aforesaid minus rite ceperit abcarriavit

surrendred all the three Lives and though it was not a Copy-hold in Fee yet it was decreed That the Agreement should be performed and that the Defendant do Surrender to the Plaintiffs Use and an Injunction for quiet enjoyment A Woman Copy-holder for Life took an Husband and the Reversion of the said Copy-hold was granted to three viz. A. B. C. cum acciderit by Surrender or Forfeiture for their Lives successive according to the Custom The Husband doth Surrender to the Use of A. for Life to whom the Lord doth grant a Copy accordingly A. and B. dye and the Opinion of the Court was That C. hath no right to be admitted by the Law nor in Conscience for that after the death of the Husband the Wife may enter and have a Plaint in nature of a Cui in vita contradicere non potest and during the Husbands Life the Lord may have it in the nature of an Occupancy But the Case did proceed farther viz. That the Husband and Wife were willing to release all the Right of the Wife to the surviving Reversioner The Lord Decreed to hold a Court. and the Lord would not receive it nor hold a Court But it was decreed That the Lord should hold his Court and accept their Conveyance or else avoid the Possession thereof Dyer 246. a. Copy-hold Estate in some cases not to be passed but by Decree Where the Lord grants the Reversion of the Copy-holds the Tenant cannot Surrender there being no Dominus servitiorum as the Custom will warrant and he cannot pass his Estate any way but by a Decree in Chancery and this will bind the person only 4 Rep. p. 25. in Murrel's Case vide supra Fines and Rents arrear not relieved after Sale of the Manor Copy-hold Tenant in Fee surrenders to the Use of one for Life Remainder to B. in Fee Tenant for Life dies and B. pays no Fine for his Admittance but after dies and this descends to his Son and after his Son surrenders to the Use of J. S. in Fee and no Fine paid for it and also the Rents for divers years are behind and after the Lord grants the Manor in Fee to J. B. and after sues in a Court of Equity for the Fines and Rents due before the Sale of the Manor and alledgeth in his Bill That the Copy-holder had Free Land intermixed with the Copy-hold Land so that he could not know where to Distrain for it yet he shall not be relieved in Equity for this for it is against a Maxim in Law for as much as by his own Act he had destroyed his Remedy P. 10 Car. B. R. Serjeant Hicham Plaintiff and Finch and Block Defendants and a Prohibition was granted to the Court of Requests where the Suit was Gold versus Dore Martis 23. Oct. 2 Jac. The Plaintiff delivered to the Defendant an 100 l. to buy a Copy-hold in the Defendants Name but to the Plaintiffs Use because there were differences between the Lord of the Manor and the Plaintiff so as the Plaintiff had no hopes to prevail for himself and when the Copy-hold should be obtained then the Trust was That the Defendant should Surrender the same to the Use of the Plaintiff The Defendant accordingly bought the Copy-hold Trustee refusing to surrender according to his Trust not relieved and took it in his own name and his Childrens but afterwards would not surrender it to the Use of the Plaintiff notwithstanding the same was bought with the Plaintiffs mony for this the Plaintiff Exhibited his Bill in Chancery and this appearing to be the true state of the Case my Lord would not relieve the Plaintiff because he said he would never ground a Decree upon a Lye a Falsity it appearing to him that this packing was used to thrust a Tenant upon the Lord whom he liked not and so dismist the Cause Tracy versus Noel M. 2 Jac. Copy-holder in Fee takes a Lease the Manor is sold Copy-holder not relieved though the Purchaser had notice A Copy-holder of Inheritance took a Lease for years of his Copy-hold from the Lord of the Manor the Lord sold his Manor to J. S. who had notice of this Copy-hold of Inheritance yet would not this Court relieve the Copy-holder his Lease being ended for by Law his Copy-hold Estate is determined Robes Purchased the Inheritance of a Copy-hold in the Name of B. and another in Trust B. surrendred his moiety to the Use of his own Son and the other died seized The Son of B. and the Heir of the other for mony sold the Copy-hold to C. for 50 l. being of the value of 80 l. Robes sued the Son of B. and the Heir of the other and C. in Chancery for the 80 l. It was decreed That A. should recover this 50 l. only from B. and the Heir of the other No Recompence for the over-value of an Estate because no Fraud and C. should be discharged of it and hold it in peace But if notice had been proved in C. Robes shall have the Land and no recompence for the over-value was given against the Vendors because no Fraud Moor Rep. n. 745. Kobes Bent and Cock's Case Copy-hold devised without Surrender executed by Decree in Chancery A Copy-hold devised without Surrender it cannot be executed in point of Interest but only by Decree in Chancery by a Concessum in 2 Keb. 837. Harrison's Case A Copy-hold granted out of a Manor confirmed Court Rolls produced A Copy-hold granted at a Court kept out of the Manor confirmed against the Lord who made it Tothil 107. Mark contra Suliard In Corbet and Peshal's Case 12 Jac. it was Ordered That Court Rolls should be brought and shewed to Councel to shew which is Copy-hold and which is Free-hold Composition Decreed Sterling's Case a Composition formerly made between Lords and Tenants Decreed to bind a Purchasor or an Heir 9 Car. Bill in Chancery to reverse a Faux Judgment in the Lords Court If an erroneous Judgment be given in a Copy-hold Court of a common Lord in a Formedon a Bill may be exhibited in Chancery in nature of a Faux Judgment to reverse it Pateshull's Case in Scaccario 1 Rolls Abridgment 373. Admission by Letter of Attorny Copy-holder ought not to be admitted to a Copy-hold Estate by Letter of Attorny for he ought to do Fealty at the time of his Admittance which must be done in person 21 Car. 2. Flyer and Hedgingham Fines certain or not having been tryed at Law no farther Relief here Smith contra Sallet 24 Car. 2. Fines of Copy-holders whether certain or arbitrary it having been tryed at Law and in two Tryals Verdict for Fines certain This Court would not relieve the Plaintiff other than for the preservation of Witnesses and so dismist the Plaintiffs Bill it being to have an Issue directed to try whether certain or not Morgan versus Scudamore 29 Car. 2. The Lord limitted to a