Selected quad for the lemma: judgement_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
judgement_n	error_n	say_a	writ_n	1,727	5	9.8884	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A58990	The second part of Reports of cases taken and adjudged in the court of Chancery, from the 20th year of King Charles II. to the first year of Their present Majesties, King William and Queen Mary Being special cases, and most of them decreed with the assistance of the judges, and all of them referring to the register books, wherein are setled several points of equity, law and practice. To which is added, the late great case between the Dutchess of Albemarle and the Earle of Bathe.; Reports of cases taken and adjudged in the court of Chancery, from the 20th year of King Charles II. to the first year of Their present Majesties, King William and Queen Mary. Part 2.	England and Wales. Court of Chancery.	1694 (1694)	Wing S2297; ESTC R217071	188,405	430

and that this differs from ordinary Mortgages the Lease being to commence after failure of Payment by the Heirs Executors or Administrators of the said Alexander and there was no Proviso therein and that the said Lady Ann in all probability hath paid many Hundreds of Pounds and Elizabeth might have lived many years longer and tho' the Lady Ann had paid treble the value yet she must have been contented with her Security and the said Robert Brett did not think the same worth Redeeming and tho' the Reversion in Fee was Extended in 1646 yet the said Robert Brett and the Defendant Ewens continued possession till Judgment on the Writ of Partition and from thence till 1662. which was 20 years after the Plaintiffs Judgment and the Lady Ann was to continue possession till the Children attained 21 years of Age which was in 1636. when the said demise to them made did commence This Court being assisted with the Judges were of Opinion and declared themselves fully satisfied That the Plaintiff ought not to have any Relief against the Defendants but that the Bill ought to be dismissed for that his Lordship doth take a difference betwixt the Lease which is to commence after failure of Payment and a Mortgage with a Condition subsequent Difference betwixt a Lease which is to commence after failure of Payment and a Mortgage with a Condition subsequent and the rather in this case for that the breach was in the failure of payment of 250 l. per Annum which the said Lady was thereby obliged to pay for a young Life and so might have been paid for many years and if it had been paid in the Casualty for 20 years the Heirs would never have redeemed it and therefore no Reason why the Plaintiff should take advantage thereof and also the Agreemant before mentioned between the said Dame Ann and Kirkham weighed much in this Court to which Agreement Robert the Heir by his Enjoying of the premisses so assigned together with the Defendant Ewens and his Wife after he came of Age consented and there was no disturbance during the Tenancy in Common as to the Right but to as perception of Profits only and the Heir permitting the Defendant Ewens and his Wife to have Judgment on the Writ of Partition was a Consent of the whole Redemption after a long time and in this Consent it is not the Heir but a Stranger who seeks to redeem and no man that puts himself after so long a time into a condition to redeem Plaintiff not relieved upon a Judgment entred into 60 years ago and no Consideration proved shall have any Relief here and it is the stronger against the Plaintiff that no Consideration is proved for the said Judgment which was entred into so long since as the Year 1640 and after 60 years this Court will not relieve the Plaintiff but dismiss the Bill Boulter contra Chester al' 22 Car. 2. fo 60. THe Question being Bail Whether the Plaintiff Boulter who was a Surety for one Ree should pay any more than the Sum of 40 l. for which he was Bail for the Appearance of one Roger Ree at the Defendants Suit the Ac etiam Bill being only for 40 l. whenas the Defendant demands 55 l. for a years Rent for the premisses and 10 l. damages for want of Repair of the premisses besides Costs and would fix the same on the Plaintiffs the Bail but the main Question being Whether the Bail ought to answer or pay any more than what was exprest in the Writ which is 40 l. Bail to answer no more than what is exprest in the Ac etiam Bill or whether he ought to answer or pay what might have been recovered in case the said Ree for whom the Plaintiff was Bail had appeared and defended the Action This Court conceived that the Desendant Stretton ought to have no more than what was expressed in the Writ and Ac etiam Bill for which the Plaintiff was only bail but his Costs in the same already taxed at Law and by the Master and ordered the same accordingly Floyer contra Hedgingham 21 Car. 2. fo 809. THat no Copyholder ought to be admitted to any Copyhold Estate by Letter of Attorney Copyholder not to be admitted by Letter of Attorney for that he ought to do Fealty at the time of his admittance which cannot be done by an Attorney but ought to be done in person by reason that no man can swear by Attorney Hunt contra Jones 22 Car. 2. THe Bill is That the Defendant Jones who is the surviving Trustee may assign and convey all his Interest and Estate in Brockley in Com Worcester to the Plaintiff Limitation of a Lease the said Plaintiff Intituling her self thereto as Administratrix to Edward Palmer the Plaintiff setting forth by the Bill That Edmund late Bishop of Worcester did by two Indentures of 30 31 Eliz. demise the premisses to the late Queen and her Assignee during the several Terms and Rent therein expressed that the several Estates Terms and Interests being come and vested in the said Edward Palmer for the Remainder thereof he the said Palmer by Deedin 1652 in Consideration of a Marriage then to be had between him and the Plaintiff Mary assigns the said premisses unto Giles Palmer and the Defendant Jones and their Executors for the residue of the said Terms upon Trust to permit Elizabeth Palmer Mother of the said Edward to enjoy the said premisses for life and then to the said Edward for his life and after their Lives then to the Plaintiff Mary for her life and after their deceases then to heirs Males of the Body of the said Edward Palmer and the Plaintiff Mary and for default of such Issue then upon Trust for the right Heirs of the said Edward to their own use benefit and dispose as by the said Deed c. That the said Edward and Elizabeth Palmer being dead Letters of Administration were granted to the Plaintiff Mary by virtue whereof she is well Intituled to the said premisses and to the trust and benefit thereof for the Remainders of the said Terms to come and that the Defendant Jones as the surviving Trustee ought to assign to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff insists that all the Remainders after her death are void in Law and Equity The Defendant Jones insists That the Trust extends to the Child or Children of the said Edward Palmer and the Defendant Elizabeth Palmer an Infant being his Daughter she may question him for the same in case he should Assign as aforesaid and prays the Court will take care for the Infants But the Plaintiff insisting That both in the cases of Executors and Administrators the Point hath been frequently Adjudged Limitation of a Term in Trust for heirs Males c. void in Law and the Limitation to the heirs Male or heir General being a void Limitation in Law where there is no Executor the Trust shall come

Plaintiff to pay interest for for the 5000 l. to 1641 at 8 l. per Cent. and from 41 to 49 the certain profits of the Mortgaged premisses to go in discharge of the interst till that time and that if the remaining interest with the 5000 l. should in 49 amount to 7000 l. then the Plaintiff to pay Interest for 7000 l. else only for so much as the principal and Interest according to the Statutes in force This Cause was again Reheard by the Lord Chancellor Shaftsbury assisted with Judge Vaughan and Judge Ransford The Defendant insisted that setting of the interest against the certain profits from 41 to 49 as aforesaid was a great advantage to the Plaintiff and that after so long a time the Plaintiff ought not to be permitted to redeem This Court nevertheless was satisfied That the Plaintiff ought to redeem and the Matters now in Controversie being Whether the certain Profits of the premisses shall go against the Interest from 41 to 49 or not and whether the Plaintiff shall pay Interest for any more than the 50000 l. first lent or not and what Interest he shall pay at least during the hard times of War This Court on hearing Presidents was clear of Opinion The certain Profits of the premisses set against the Interest That the Setting the certain Profits of the premisses against the Interest from 41 to 49 ought to be discharged and decreed the same accordingly And touching that Point for what Monies the Plaintiff shall pay Interest either for the 5000 l. only or any greater Sum. This Court with the Judges were of Opinion That the Plaintiff ought not to pay Interest for any greater Sum than only for the 5000 l. the Original Mortgages This Court declaring there is no Reason to give Interest upon Interest Interest upon Interest and that the now Defendant ought not to be in any better condition than Sir Abraham Dawes the first Mortgagee Crisp contra Bluck 25 Car. 2. fo 357. THis Case comes to be heard upon a Bill of Review Bill of Review and an Appeal from a Decree made by the Lord Chancellor Shaftsbury the Plaintiffs Original Bill being to be relieved against a Bond of 1600 l. penalty for payment of 1000 l. and Interest entred by the Plaintiffs Father the Testator and others to William Bluck the younger in 1642. The Defendant commenced Suit on the said Bond in 1662. Bond and Judgment after upon it and the Principal and Interest far surmounted the Penalty when Judgment was entred how payment of Monies shall be applied in such case and had Judgment thereupon against the Plaintiffs Father only and the Principal and Interest due on the said Bond far surmounting the Penalty when Judgment was obtained and the Defendant being 20 years kept out of his Mony but having received several Sums in part since the Action at Law brought it was decreed That whatever Monies were received before the Judgment actually entred should be taken in discharge of the Interest of the said 1000 l. Original debt and that the Defendant should be satisfied after the Judgment entred the whole Mony thereupon recovered with damages from the time the Judgment was actually entred deducting what he had received since the actual entry of the Judgment and allowing his Costs at Law and moderate Costs in this Court And it was found that the Judgment was not actually entred till the Vacation after Michaelmass Term 1662. and so only 250 l. paid in November 1662. Whether Mony paid shall be applied to discharge Interest of the Original debt or towards satisfaction Recovered by Judgment on the same Bond. Judgment when said to be entred was accounted Interest of the Original debt and not towards the Mony recovered by the Judgment and the Account was so setled and decreed and the Mony paid accordingly Yet for Reversal of the said Decree the now Plaintiff for Error assigns that the same tends to the invalidating of the Course of the Court of Kings Bench it being by the Decree admitted that the said Judgment was entred in the Vacation after Michaelmass Term 1662. and not before Whereas it is evident by the Records of the Kings-Bench the said Judgment was entred on Record in Michaelmass Term 1662. and by construction of Law is supposed and presumed to be Recorded the first day of that Term against which Record no Evidence or Averment ought to be admitted and all Monies paid after the first day of that Term ought in Equity to be applied towards satisfaction of the Judgment and so the 250 l. paid in November 1662. in part of a debt in question ought not to go to satisfie the Interest but in part to discharge the Principal The Lord Chancellor Shaftsbury was of Opinion If entred before the Effoin-day of the subsequent Term ought to be accounted a Judgment of the preceding Term. That no Notice could be taken of any actual entry of any Judgment at Law but that every Jugment whensoever entred if before the Essoin day of the subsequent Term ought to be accounted a Judgment of the first day of the Term before and allowed and held the said Error to be good and decreed the 250 l. paid in Nov. 1662. should go and be applied as part of satisfaction of the 1600 l. and damages due on the Judgment and what other Monies were paid by any other of the Obligors their Heirs Executors Administrators or Assigns since the 20th of October 1662. if not paid on other account shall be applied in further satisfaction of the said Judgment first to discharge the Interest and then to sink the Principal and as to so much did reverse the said Decree and the Defendant appealed from this said Decree to the Lord Keeper Finch and insisted That by his Answer to the Original Bill said when the 250 l. was paid the Judgment was not entred and presently after Hearing the Original Cause the late Lord Keeper Bridgman calling to his Assistance the Master of the Rolls who declared That the Defendant should not account for any Mony as received on the Judgment until the said Judgment which was his Security was really and actually entred if the Plaintiff insisted as before which was Over-ruled and the Plaintiff then brought a Bill of Review to which the Defendant pleaded and demurred and thereupon the Lord Bridgman declared the Decree to be Just as to the 250 l. and the Decree made by the Lord Shaftsbury is to unravel the Account setled and to charge the Defendant with 4000 l. when by the Original Bill or Bills of Review they do not charge him with above the Penalty of the said Judgment This Court now declared That the Examination of the time of the actual Entry of the Judgment in this Case Examination of the actual entry of a Judgment at Law only intended to inform the Court and not to impeach the Judgment did not impeach the Judgment but only to guide the

284 Middleton conta Middleton p. 377 Com' Montague contra Com' Bathe p. 417 N NEwton contra Langham p. 108 Newport contra Kinaston p. 110 Nowell contra Robinson p. 248 Nodes contra Batle p. 283 Norton contra Mascall p. 304 O OLiver contra Leman p. 124 P POtter contra Hubbert p. 85 Plummer contra Stamford p. 106 Prigg contra Clay p. 187 Dom ' Pawlet contra Dom ' Pawlet p. 286 Pullen contra Serjeant p. 300 R DOm ' Read contra Read p. 19 Rowley contra Lancaster p. 24 Ramsden contra Farmer p. 115 Ray contra Stanhope p. 157 Raymond contra Paroch ' Buttolphs Aldgate p. 196 Rose contra Tillier p. 214 Ring contra Hele p. 221 S SMith contra Holman p. 23 Shalmer contra Gresham p. 29 Stowell contra Botelar p. 68 Com' Sterling contra Levingston p. 75 Sutton contra Jewke p. 95 Stickland contra Garnet p. 97 Sowton contra Cutler p. 108 Salter contra Shadling p. 117 Still contra Lynn p. 120 Stawel contra Austin p. 125 Stewkley contra Henley p. 166 Saunders contra Earle p. 188 Sale contra Freeland p. 212 Stapleton contra Dom ' Sherwood p. 255 Skinner contra Kilby p. 491 T TOlson contra Lamplugh p. 43 Thorne contra Newman p. 71 Tregonwel contra Lawrence p. 94 Twyford contra Warcup p. 106 Turner contra Turner p. 154 Trethervy contra Hoblin p. 172 Tucker contra Searle p. 173 Thompson contra Atfield p. 216 Turner contra Crane p. 242 W WIndham contra Love p. 14 Wiseman contra Foster p. 22 White contra Ewens p. 49 Warren contra Johnson p. 69 Wallop contra Dom ' Hewet p. 70 Wall contra Buckley p. 97 Winchomb contra Winchomb p. 101 Woolstenholme contra Swetman p. 129 Warwick contra Cutler p. 136 Warner contra Borseley p. 151 Windham contra Jennings p. 247 Woodhall contra Benson p. 290 Com' Winchelsey contra Dom ' Norcliff p. 365 Whitmore contra Weld p. 382 Whitlock contra Marriott p. 386 Y YAte contra Hook p. 39 Books lately Printed for John Walthoe in Vine Court Middle-Temple AN Exact Table of Fees of all the Courts at Westminster as the same were by Orders of the several Courts carefully Corrected and diligently Examin'd by Records and Ancient Manuscripts by the Persons following Viz. The CHANCERY by Sir Miles Cooke Samuel Keck Esq and others The KINGS-BENCH on the Plea-side by W. Turbill and Nicholas Harding On the Crown-side by R. Seyhard and Richard Horton The COMMON-PLEAS by W. Farmerie Silv. Petyt and H. Clift The EXCHEQUER On the Plea-side by R. Beresford Tho. Arden c. On the Equity-side by Butler Buggins Esq Very useful and necessary for all Attorneys Solicitors and Entring-Clerks and indeed for all Persons that have any Business of moment To which is added a Table for the ready finding out the Fees belonging to each Office 2. Reports of Cases Taken and Adjudged in the Court of Chancery in the Reign of King Charles the First and to the 20th Year of King Charles the Second Being Special Cases and most of them decreed with the Assistance of the Judges and all of them referring to the Register-Books Wherein are setled several Points of Equity Law and Practice To which are added Learned Arguments relating to the Antiquity of the said Court its Dignity and Jurisdiction 3. Observations Historical and Genealogical in which the Originals of the Emperor Kings Electors and other the Sovereign Princes of Europe with a Series of their Births Matches more Remarkable Actions and Deaths As also the Augmentations Decreasings and Pretences of each Family are drawn down to the Year 1690. 4. The Law of Obligations and Conditions or an acurate Treatise wherein is contained the whole Learning of the Law concerning Bills Bonds Conditions Statutes Recognizances and Defeazances as also Declarations on Special Conditions and the Pleadings thereon Issues Judgments and Executions with many other useful Matters relating thereunto digested under their proper Titles To which is added a Table of References to all the Declarations and Pleadings upon Bonds c. now extant 5. A compendious and acurate Treatise of Fines Fines upon Writs of Covenant and Recoveries upon Writs of Entry in the Post with ample and copious Instructions how to draw acknowledge and levy the same in all Cases Being a Work performed with great Exactness and full of Variety of Clerkship The Third Edition enlarged REPORTS AND CASES Taken and Adjudged in the COURT of CHANCERY In the REIGN of King CHARLES II. Every contra Gold 20 Car. 2. fo 921. THE Bill is to be Relieved for two Legacies of 1500 l. apiece which the Plaintiff claims as Administratrix to her Daughters Susanna and Martha Every given and secured to them by several Conveyances and by the last Will of William Every their Grandfather The Case is viz. Portions raised by Deed. That the said William Every the Grandfather in consideration of a Marriage between William Every his Son and the Plaintiff Martha a Daughter of Sir John Pool by Deed 22 April 7 Car. 1. did provide That if William his Son should die without Issue male by him on the body of the said Plaintiff Martha and should have two Daughters by the Plaintiff Margaret then living or if the said William should fail to have issue Male which should be living until the same Daughters should respectively attain 18 years of Age or be married that then the Recoveror therein named should stand seised of the Premisses to the use of the Recoverors and their Heirs for the raising 1500 l. apiece for the Portions of the said Daughters and 20 l. a piece per annum for each of their Maintenance in the mean time to be paid at their respective Ages of 18 years or days of Marriage which should first happen and if either of the said Daughters should die before that Age or Marriage the Portion of her so dying to be distributed to the Survivor and if all the said Daughters should die their Portions not paid or payable then the same should be paid to the next Heir of William Every the Grandfather That William Every the Son New Provision by a second Deed and a Will thereupon had Issue by the Plaintiff one Son named William and two Daughters the said Susan and Martha and by Deed of Bargain and Sale and Release thereupon both dated in December 1651 in which Release so much of the Tripartite Indenture as relates to the Daughters Portions is recited William Every the Grandfather Conveys to Gold Doble and Holloway and their Heirs Lands in Somersetshire to the use of William the Grandfather for life and after to Gold Doble and Holloway for 200 years with other Remainders over upon Trust out of the Profits or by granting Leases or Estates to pay his Debts first and then for raising to and for the said Susan and Martha so much Mony as should supply and advance their respective Portions to them severally thereafter to be given by William

of his Real Estate on Trustees and thereby made a provision for the Maintenance of William the younger during his Minority and therefore they opposed the Plaintiff Frances getting Administration of William the Elder The said Plaintiff Frances Whitmore insisted That by the Will of William the Elder there was no joynt devise made to the said William the Son and the Issue Male and Female of the Sisters of William the Father but a several devise to William the Son with Remainder to the Sisters Issue and that the said William the Son having an Interest vested in him by the Will of his Father and being 18 years Old when he died and he having then a power to have proved his Fathers Will the Earls Executorship during his Minority being determined might have spent or given away the said Estate in his life-time he might surely give away the same by his Will which he having done to the Plaintiff Frances she is thereby well Intituled to the same and that the remainder over to Issue Male and Female of the Sisters the Estate being purely personal is absolutely void This Court hearing several Presidents quoted Devisee Infant lived to 18 years and makes his Will and Executors and dies the Executor shall have the Legacy for that an Interest was vested in the Infant declared That by the Will of the Father there was an Interest vested in William the Son and the remainder over to the Issue Male and Female of the Sisters of William the Elder was void and that William the Son living to 18 years and making his Will as aforesaid and the Plaintiff Frances his Executrix she is thereby well intituled to the surplus of the said personal Estate and decreed the same accordingly Whitlock contra Marriot 1 Jac. 2. fo 700. THis Case being upon a Scandalous Answer Defendant ordered to pay the Plaintiff 100 I for putting in a Scandalous Answer His Lordship declared the said Answer to be very Scandalous and Impertinent and that the expressions taken by the Defendant to the Masters Report were not only more scandalous but also Malicious and that it appearing that Ryley the Defendants Solicitor had put Mr. Lynn a Councellors Hand to the Exceptions without his Knowledge This Court Ordered the said Ryley to be taken into Custody of the Messenger and declared the Answer and Exceptions were not pertinent to the Cause but meerly to defame the Plaintiff His Lordship Ordered the Defendant Marriot to pay to the Plaintiff 100 l. for his Reparation and Costs for the abuse and scandal aforesaid and the said Ryley to pay 20 l. and to stand committed to the Prison of the Fleet till payment thereof be made Ash contra Rogle and the Dean and Chapter of St. Pauls 1 Jac. 2. fo 154. THis Case is upon a Demurrer Bill to enforce the Lord of a Mannour to receive a Petition in nature of a Writ of false Judgment to Reverse a common Recovery demurred to and the demurrer allowed the Plaintiffs Bill is to inforce the Defendant the Lord of the Mannour of Barnes in Surrey to receive the Plaintiffs Petition or Bill in the Nature of a Writ of false Judgment to Reverse a Common Recovery suffered of some Copyhold Lands in the Mannour by Susan R●gle Widow which the Defendant R●gle holds under the said Recovery the Bill setting forth that Katherine Ferrers by the Will of her Husband or by some other good Conveyance was seized in Fee of Free and Copyhold Lands in Barnes formerly her said Husbands in Trust to Convey 200 l. a year thereof upon William Ferrers her Eldest Son and the said Susan his then Wife and Heirs Males of the Body of William Remainder in Tail to Thomas Ferrers the Plaintiffs Father second Son of Katherine and the Heirs of his Body Edward being obliged by Articles upon Susans Marriage with his Son William to settle Lands of that value on Susan for her Joynture That Katherine on that Trust in 1642. surrendred the premisses to the value of 100 l. per Annum to the use of the said William and Susan and the Heirs of their two Bodies begotten remainder to the Right Heirs of William which was a Breach of the Trust in Katherine in limiting an Estate Tail to Susan when it should have been but an Estate for life That William died before the Admittance leaving Issue only his Son William and in 1652. Susan surrendred to one Mitchell against whom the Common Recovery in question was then obtained wherein one Walter was Demandant the said Mitchell Tenant and Susan Vouchee to the use of her self the said Susan for life the Remainder to William Ferrers and the Heirs of his Body the Remainder to the Right Heirs of the Survivor of them the said Susan and William her Son That William the Son died soon after and Susan died in 1684. and the Plaintiffs Father Thomas being dead without Issue Male in case the Common Recovery had not been suffered the premisses would have come to the Plaintiff being the youngest Daughter to her Father as Couzen and Heir both of William Ferrers the Father and William the Son the premisses being Burrough-English and so the Plaintiff was well Intituled to prosecute the Lord of the Mannour in the Nature of a Writ of False Judgment to Reverse the said Recovery wherein there are manifest Errors and Defaults but the said Lord refuses to receive the said Petition and combine with the Defendant Rogle who is Son and Heir of the said Susan by a second Husband who pretends that his Mother Susan surviving her Son William Ferrers the premisses are discended to him by virtue of the use of the said Recovery limited to the Right Heirs of the Survivor of Susan and her Son William so the Plaintiffs Bill is to examine the defects of the said Recovery The Defendants demur for that the Relief sought by the Bill is of a strange and unpresidented Nature being to avoid and reverse a Common Recovery had in the said Mannour 30 years ago and that upon a bare Suggestion generally that the Recovery is erroneous without instancing wherein which may be said in any case The Master of the Rolls declared That as that part of the Bill which seeks to impeach or reverse the said Recovery for any errours or defects therein or compel the said Lord to receive any Petition for reversal thereof or any ways to impeach the same his Honour declared That this Court being the proper Court to supply the defects in Common Assurances and rather to support than to assist the avoiding or defeating of them and there being no presidents of such a Bill as this is he thought not fit to admit of this nor to introduce so dangerous a president whereby a multitude of Settlements and Estates depending on Common Recoveries suffered in Copyhold Courts for valuable Considerations would be avoided and defeated through the negligence or unskilfulness of Clerks and therefore conceived the said Common Recovery ought