Selected quad for the lemma: judgement_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
judgement_n	find_v	issue_n	plaintiff_n	1,545	5	10.3134	5	false

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

At the Court Baron of the Honour of Hampton J. S. and J. D. Tenants of the Honour of Hampton do present An Honour That J. R. did Surrender into the Hands of two Tenants of the Honour Per Jones This being a Court of the Honour and into the Hands of the Tenants of the Honour it s not good but by the other three Justices its good enough For Toddington being in the Margent it shall be said a distinct Court by it self For an Honour consisteth of many Manors yet all the Courts for the Manors are distinguished and have several Copyholders Cro. Car. 366. Seagood and Hone. Special Verdict was That Copy-holder of Inheritance bargained and sold his Copy-hold Land c. to the Lessee of the Manor and this was by Indenture and the Indenture was to this effect Verdict found not according to the Indenture That he bargained and sold all his Lands and Tenements as well Copy-holds as other Lands bought of John Culpepper in such a Town but it is not found by the Verdict nor averred by the Party That the Land was bought of John Culpepper and so ill Winch Rep. p. 67. Hasset and Hanson Custom not well found A Copy-holder of Inheritance made a Letter of Attorny to two Joyntly and severally to Surrender his Copy-hold Lands in Fee to certain Uses after his death but the Verdict doth not find that the two Attornies were custumary Tenants nor doth it appear that they were customary Tenants at the time of the Admittance and the primier possession will make a disseisin by the Defendant if the Custom be not well found It is not found that the two Attornies were customary Tenants but it was objected here is so much found as shall make it to be presumed that they were Tenants of the Manor for it is found that the party is admitted secundum consuetud Manerij which cannot be a good Admittance if they were not Tenants But Rolls answered to be admitted secundum consuetudinem goes to the Admittance not to the Letter of Attorny the Custom is not good neither is it found that the Land is demisable at the will of the Lord c. and so it may be free Land and the Custom reaches it not Stiles p. 311. Wallis and Bucknal The Plaintiff entitles himself to have Common of Pasture c. to his Copy-hold and the Custom was traversed it was found he ought to have the same Common but that every Copy-holder used to pay time out of mind c. pro ead communia unam gallinam quinque ova annuatim upon this Verdict the Plaintiff shall have Judgment Failure of Custom found this is not a common sub modo for the Ter-Tenant had remedy for the Hen and Eggs by distress and it is not parcel of the Issue but had the Jury found that the Plaintiff shall have Common paying so many Hens and Eggs the Issue had been against him and it had been parcel of the Custom it s not Modus Communiae but collateral recompence One prescribes to carry Water out of the River the Jury find he ought to have this paying 6 d. yearly Failure of Prsecription found Per Cur. he hath failed of his Prescription for he had prescribed absolutely and the Jury found it conditionally or sub modo and the Ter-Tenant in this Case hath no remedy but by disturbance 5 Rep. 68. Gray's Case If the Issue be whether Jury must find directly and not argumentatively where a Copy-hold is granted to three for the Lives of two he who dies seized c. ought to pay an Harriot Custom and the Jury find there never was a Grant of such Estate within the said Manor This is not well found for this is but an argument that no Harriot ought to be paid but they ought to have found it directly M. 15 Jac. B. R. Ven and Howel If the Issue be whether by the Custom of the Manor a Copy-hold may be granted to three for the Life of two and they find that by the Custom it may be granted for three Lives this is not well found because it is only by Argument because if a greater Estate may be granted a lesser may be So if the Issue be whether a Copy-hold may be granted in Tail and they find it may be granted in Fee mesme Case What shall be intended by the Juries finding if c. then for the Plaintiff Special Verdict upon a Patent from King H. 8. which Patent was adjudged void to pass the Estate the Jury find if it were a good Patent then for the Defendant if otherwise they find for the Plaintiff It is intended there is a sufficient Title found for the Plaintiff unless by this Patent it be defeated If Jury be satisfied the Plaintiff hath Title the Court ought not to doubt thereof so that if the Jury be satisfied that the Plaintiff hath any good Right by any other manner of Title the Court ought not to doubt thereof and so is Goodal's Case 5 Rep. 97. Cro. Car. 21. Castle and Hobbs Custom was pleaded by the Defendant That if a Copy-holder in Fee hath a Wife at the time of his death and two Sons or more that the Wife shall have her Free-Bench during her Life and that if the eldest Son dye living the Wife though he hath Issue his Issue shall not have it Custom must be found in the manner that he pleads it but the second Son The Jury found the Custom that the youngest Son should have it unless the eldest Son was admitted thereto as to the Reversion or made a Fine for it with the Lord in his Life-time Per Cur. The Custom is not found in that manner that he pleaded it therefore it is found against him that pleaded it for he pleaded a general Custom without exception and the Custom found is with an exception and special as the Case is in Dyer 192. Where a Custom was pleaded That a Feme should have it and it was found she should have it Verdict not aptly concluded durante viduitate but in this Case there was not any Verdict upon this Issue for they concluded their Verdict Si c. they found the Defendant guilty if otherwise not guilty and so there is not any conclusion of the point in Issue Per Cur. a gross fault and a Venire Facias de novo was awarded Cro. El. 415. Boraston and Hay In Trespass the Plaintiff in his Replication makes Title That this Land is parcel of the Manor of D. and demisable c. by Copy in Fee in Tail for Life or years c. and the Land was let to him by Copy in Fee Substance found the Prescription was traversed and found that it was demisable c. in Fee but never in Tail and that it was granted to the Plaintiff in Fee this was found for the Plaintiff for the Allegation That the Land was demisable in Fee or in Tail

to him might have been barr'd and interrupted by non-claim so in case of forfeiture the reason of the Rule is because the Law conceives he will have that knowledge to preserve his right when he is of full Age Carter's Rep. 86. in Smith and Painton's Case It was holden in Rumny and Eve's Case Not bound during his Minority to pray Admittance 1 Leon. p. 100 Pl. 128. If a Copy-holder dyeth his Heir within Age he is not bound to come into any Court during his non-age to pray admittance or to tender his Fine An Infant who surrenders his Copy-hold Land within Age may enter at his full Age Infant Surrenders he may enter at full Age. without being put to any Suit for it A Case cited in Popham 39. in Bullock and Dibler's Case Infant Copy-holder in Fee makes a Lease for years without Licence Infant shall not forfeit by making a Lease without Licence Acceptance at full Age makes it good to Lessee rendring Rent at full Age he accepts the Rent and after outs the Lessee Lessee brings Ejectment and Judgment for Lessee Per Cur. this Lease may be affirmed by acceptance and such a Forfeiture shall not bind an Infant 8 Rep. 44. Noy 92. Of Copy-holds and Copy-holders in respect of the King and his Prerogative Per Stat. 2 Ed. 6. Cap. 8. Copy-holders shall enjoy their Estates where the King is intituled by Office though they be not found by Inquisition The Statute of Chantries gives no Copy-hold Land to the King 1 Ed. 6.14 The Estates of the Kings Copy-holders confirmed by Decree in the Exchequer or Dutchy-Chamber shall be good according to the same Decree Stat. 7 Jac. Cap. 21. A Popish Recusant shall forfeit all his Copy-hold Land 35 Eliz. Cap. 2. Whether the King shall have the Copy-hold granted in Trust for an Alien It was a Question in Car. 1. between the King and Holland whether the King shall have a Copy-hold which is granted to one in Trust for an Alien The better Opinion seems to be that he shall Styles Rep. p. 20.37 75. Vide this Case Reported in Rolls 1. Abr. 194. Tit. Alien If an Alien Amy Purchase Copy-hold in Fee in the Name of J. S. in Trust for himself and his Heirs It was a great Question and much Argued whether the King shall have the Trust of this Copy-hold but no Opinion given as to this Point But the Trust being traversed and found for the King yet Judgment was given against the King because by the Inquisition by which this Trust and matter was found J. S. who was the person trusted and who had the Estate in Fee in the Law in him Where the King hath no possion by force of the Inquisition was put out of possession of it by the Inquisition where the Alien had but the Trust and no possession and therefore admitting that the Trust should have been given to the King yet the King may not have the possession by force of this but ought to have sued to have the Trust executed in a Court of Equity The King is seized of a Manor in Fee in which is a Copy-hold demisable at Will according to the Custom of the Manor The King demised this Copy-hold to J. G. for Life King need not recite in his Grant that it is Copy-hold by Letters Patents J. G. dyes The great Question was if it be destroyed or the King may grant it again by Copy Per Cur. 1. The King need not recite in the Grant that it is Copy-hold 24 H. 8.21 2. Copy-holder for Life dyes the King may regrant That after the Estate for Life determined the King may grant this House and Land again by Copy of Court Roll It is otherwise in the Case of a common person The Rule That a Custom is an entire thing and cannot be apportioned shall not bind the King although it do bind a Common person The Kings Gifts shall be taken favourably and not extended to two intents where there is no necessity for it Kings Grants favourably construed as there is not here and we are not here to intend a collateral intent and so the Copy-hold is not destroyed for the Law takes care to preserve the Inheritance of the King for his Successors and it may be a benefit to the King to have it continue Copy-hold viz. to have Common Stiles p. 266. Cremer and Burnet If a Bishop Tenant in Tayl for Life or Years le ts a Copy-hold yet this shall not bind the Successor Issue in Tayl or him in Reversion to grant this by Copy again neither shall it bind an Infant Lord of Manor and the Estates and Possessions of the King are in like manner under the protection of the Law And if this Copy-hold should be extinguished Extinguishment perhaps a common Appendant or Appurtenant would be lost 2 Rolls Abr. p. 197. mesme Case If the King grants a Manor in which are Copy-holders in Fee-farm the Lands or Goods of the Copy-holder are not lyable to the Fee-farm Rent although the Freehold is Fee-Farm Rent because the Copy-holders are elder than the Rent being by Prescription 2 Rolls Abridgment p. 157. Loss of Issues If the Lord of a Manor lose Issues being summoned upon a Jury Process shall issue out of the Exchequer to levy them upon the Lands of the Copy-holders Lessees for Life or Years for the loss of Issues lyes upon the Land as an inherent Servitude by the Law in whose Hands soever it comes 1 Rolls Abr. 157. Surrender to the King without other matter of Record A Surrender of a Copy-hold to the King Lord of a Manor was in Lee and Boothby's Case 1 Keb. 720. adjudged good without other matter of Record All the Demesn Lands The King grants all his Demesn Lands in W. his Copy-hold Lands shall not pass Aliter in a common person 1 Rep. 46. Alton Wood's Case CAP. IV. The Nature of Custom in general Maxims of Customs What things are requisite to make a good Custom Time out of Memory Explained What shall be said to be an Interruption of Custom or not The reasonableness of Customs how to be judged of Several particular Customs Ratione Loci Of Customs enabling and disabling Of Customs and Prescriptions their difference and the different manner of Pleading them The several sorts of Prescription and how Prescription to be made and when and when not and by whom And when a Custom shall be said to be pursued or not Custom The Nature of Custom in general A Custom which hath obtained the force of a Law is always said to be Jus non scriptum for it cannot be made or created either by Charter or by Parliament which are Acts reduced to Writing and are always matter of Record But being only matter of Fact and consisting in Use and Practice it can be recorded and registred no where but in the Memory of the People For a Custom taketh beginning and

mortem sursum redditionem vel forisfacturam of the Feme and after the Husband Surrenders to the Use of B. for Life and so he is Admitted Tenant and after dyes In this Case C. shall not have this because his Estate is not to commence till after the Death Surrender or Forfeiture of the Feme and the Feme here is in Life and had not made any Surrender or Forfeiture and the Wife had right in this in the nature of a plaint de cui in vita But the Lord in this Case may retain it in his own proper hands or disposition Occupant during the Life of the Husband quasi an Occupant Dyer 9 El. 264. Sect. 38. Surrender to whom To the Wife By the Husband to the Use of the Wife is good vide supra and 4 Rep. 29. Bunting's Case for it is done by Surrender to the Lord and Admittance To the Steward A Surrender made to the Steward to the Use of the Steward is good for the Entry is quod sursum reddidit in manus Domini and the Steward is but the Lords Servant and the surrender is to the Lord and not to him Cro. El. p. 717. Erish and Rives So Infant Vide supra Of Countermand of a Surrender Where the Surrender of a Copy-hold may be Countermanded by the Party himself and what collateral Act without the assent and privity of the Party shall be a countermand and where and what not Grant by Baron and Feme shall bind the Feme notwithstanding the Coverture so Grant by non compos mentis Infant Vide supra Vide supra Where and what Grants by Lords of Manors shall be good or defeasible in respect of the Estate they had therein Surrender is not Countermanded by the death of Surrenderor before Presentment 4 Rep. 29 Bunting's Case VVhere the Customs are not pursued the surrenders are void Vide sparsim and 5 Rep. 84. Peryman's Case Surrender by Steward or Deputy Steward and of persuing their Warrants vide Steward supra What remedy to force a Trustee to Surrender A Copy-holder doth surrender to the Use of one A. in Trust In the Lord's Court. that he shall hold the Land until he hath levied certain Monies and that afterwards he shall surrender to the Use of B. The Monies are levied A. is required to make surrender to the Use of B. he refuseth B. exhibits a Bill to the Lord of the Manor against A. who upon hearing of the Cause Decrees against A. That he shall Surrender he refuseth Now the Lord may seize and admit B. to the Copy-hold for he in such case is Chancellor in his own Court Per totam Curiam 1 Leon. 2. Or relief may be had in Chancery CAP. XVI Of Presentment How and when to be made How to be pursuant to the Surrender What the Law is if Surrenderor or Cesty que use or the customary Tenants into whose Hands the Surrender was made dye before Presentment or Admittance VVhere two Surrenders are and the second Surrender is presented first Presentment No good Surrender till presented IF the Surrender be made out of Court into the Hands of the Lord himself which the general Custom will warrant or into the Hands of the Bayliff or of two Tenants of the Manor which is warrantable only by special Custom there must be a true Presentment of the Surrender in Court by the same Persons into whose Hands the Surrender was made and the Admittance of the Lord must be according to the effect and tenor of both the Surrender and Presentment It is not an effectual Surrender till it be presented in Court And therefore in an Action on the Case on Assumpsit in Consideration that the Plaintiff would surrender to the Defendant and his Heirs a Copyhold according to the Custom of the Manor Defendant assumed to pay 500 l. and for breach of this promise the Plaintiff brings the Action and had a Verdict but Judgment was arrested because the Consideration on the Plaintiffs part was not performed for the Consideration was That he should surrender the Copy-hold to the Defendant and his Heirs and he hath alledged the surrender to be into the Hands of a Copy-hold Tenant of the Manor to Use of the Defendant which is no surrender untill it be presented at the next Court and so it is uncertain whether it shall take effect or not Stiles p. 256. Shaan and Shaan The Presentment by the general Custom of Manors is to be made at the next Court day When to be be made immediately after the surrender but by special Custom at the second or third day afterwards and by Rolls in Jay's Case Stiles 275. there is no certain time but as the Custom is so that it be within the Life of the Tenant it is to be made by the same persons that took the Surrender and in points material according to the true tenor of the Surrender But if the Surrender be conditional Presentment must pursue the Surrender and the Presentment absolute the Surrender Presentment and Admittance are void except the Steward in the entry of it omits the Condition and upon sufficient proof made in Court of that the Surrender shall not be avoided but the Roll amended and this shall be no conclusion to the Party to plead or give in Evidence the truth of the matter 4 Rep. 25. Kite and Quinton But in May's Case Norf. Summer Assises 1663. The Custom of a Manor was for a Copy-holder in extremis to surrender into one Tenants Hands in the presence of credible Witnesses and a Surrender was made accordingly but presented to be done to another Tenant yet being proved to be done to a Tenant of the Manor It was holden by Wadham Windham Justice to be good Of Presentment where the Surrenderor or Surrendree Cesty que use or customary Tenants dye before Presentment or Admittance Surrenderor dyes If one Surrender out of Court and dye before Presentment if Presentment be made after his death this is good 4 Rep. 29. Bunting's Case Cesty que use dyes If Cesty que use he to whose Use the Surrender is made dyeth before Presentment yet upon Presentment made after his death his Heir shall be admitted Stiles p. 145. Barker and Denhan Surrenderor and Cesty que use both dye If one Surrender out of Court to the Use of one for Life the Surrenderor and the Lessee for Life both dye before the Presentment yet upon Presentment made he in Remainder shall be Admitted Surrendree dyes Surrendree dyes before Admittance his Heir may be Admitted and if it be Burrough-English the youngest Son 2 Siderfin 38 61. The Tenants into whose hands the Surrender was made dye If the Tenant into whose Hands the Surrender was made dye before Presentment yet upon sufficient proof made in Court That such a Surrender was made the Lord shall be compelled to admit Co. Lit. 62. Nothing passeth till presentment But nothing passeth till Presentment

alledge this as a Grant How a Copy-holder shall plead in making Title to a Copy-hold and this the Law allows for avoiding an inconvenience which will otherwise happen for if the Copy-holder in Pleading shall be put to shew the full Grant either it was before the time of memory and then it is not pleadable or within time of memory and then the Custom fails Admittance pleaded as a Grant and for this cause the Law hath allowed the Copy-holder in Pleading to alledge any Admittance upon a Descent or upon a Surrender as a Grant and yet he may if he will alledge the Admittance of his Ancestor as a Grant and shew the Descent to himself and that he entred and good without any Admittance of him but the Heir cannot plead That his Father was seized in Fee at the Will of the Lord by Copy of Court Roll of such a Manor according to the Custom of the Manor and that he died seized and that it descended to him for in truth such an Interest is but a particular Interest at Will in judgment of Law although it is descendible by the Custom for he is Tenant at Will of the Lord according to the Custom of the Manor 4 Rep. 22. Brown's Case If one Surrender to the intent that the Lord shall grant it to another and he admitts him it was adjuded good yet he ought to plead it as a Grant Lit. Rep. 175. Tenant in Dower may Grant a Copy-hold in Reversion which shall be good Grant of Copy-hold Land in Reversion must be pleaded as a Grant in Reversion and not as a Grant in possession nor by a per nomen though not executed in the Life of Tenant in Dower But then it must be pleaded as a Grant in Reversion and not as a Grant in Possession therefore in Gray's Case Cro. El. p. 661 662. It was there pleaded That he granted Tenementa praedicta per nomen of a Messuage which A. P. held for Life and Per Cur. it s an uncurable Fault for it is not alledged that he granted the Tenement in Reversion and the per nomen will not help Averment del ' v●e Tenant by curtesie of Copy-hold brings Ejectment or Action it must appear that he is in Life or else he cannot have Judgment 1 Anderson p. 292. Ewer and Astwick Where in Pleading the Commencement of the. Estate must be shewn or by whom granted or not In matter of Conveyance to a Title need not shew the Conveyance Replevin the Plaintiff in bar to the Avowry shews that the Land was Copy-hold Land grantable in possession or reversion for Life or in Fee and that the Lord granted the Reversion to him after the death of W. who was Tenant pur vie and shews the death of W. whereby he entred And demurred because he did not shew the beginning of W. his Estate nor by whom W. had the Estate granted him Per. Cur. this is no cause of Demurrer because it is not the Plaintiffs Title but matter of Conveyance thereunto Cro. Jac. 52. Lodge and Fry Admittance of the last Heir to be shewed instead of an ancient Grant If one pleads Seisin of a Copy-holder in Fee and claims under him he ought to shew of whose Grant as he ought to shew of any other particular Estate but perhaps that is so ancient that it cannot be shewn who was the first Grantee yet it was held sufficient to shew the Admittance of the last Heir which is in nature of a Grant and may be pleaded by way of Grant Cro. Jac. 103. Pyster and Hembling In Trespass the Defendant justifies he confesseth the Close to be Copy-hold Land but pleads That long time before it was parcel of the Manor of c. and that long before the supposed Trespass one Pole and M. his Wife was Lord of the Manor in right of his Wife for Life remainder to Stephen in Tayl and he made a Lease of this Land to the Defendant it s an ill Plea because the Defendant hath not shewed as he ought how Pole and his Wife came to this Estate for Life the remainder over they ought to shew how this particular Estate hath its commencement they claiming a derivative Estate from Pole and his Wife for years 3 Bulstr 281. Sandford and Stephens None may entitle himself to any Copy-hold but he ought to shew a Grant thereof In Trespass the Plaintiff in his Rejoynder intitles himself because the place where is customary Land parcel of such a Manor whereof J. S. is seized in Fee and demisable by Copy at Will in Fee and that J. N. was seized in Fee by Copy c. and dyed seized so as it descended to two Daughters as Heirs of J. N. and that at such a Court Dominus concessit eis extra manus suas c. Habend tenend Tenementa praedicta to the said Daughters and their Heirs whereby they were seized in Fee and afterwards demised to the Plaintiff for years The Plaintiff hath not made a good Title and he shewing such an one was seized in Fee without shewing the Grant thereof Per Cur. it s not good Cro. Car. 190. Shepherd's Case yet it was but default of form and Issue for the Plaintiff being found it is a Jeofail Pleading Custom or Prescription A Copy-holder in Pleading need not alledge a Custom to make a Surrender for that is the Custom of all England A Copy-holder need not alledge a Custom to make a Lease for a year It must be pleaded that he used to do it It is not sufficient to alledge a Custom that one might do such an Act but that he used to do it as to alledge dimissibile and dimissum therefore in Brown and Foster's Case the Defendant avows in Replevin for Damage feasant the Plaintiff makes Title as Copy-holder and shews that within the Manor of A. time whereof c. Talis habebatur habetur consuetudo c. That any Copy-holder may surrender into the Hands of two Customary Tenants c. this is not well pleaded for it is pleaded by Usage and Custom but he doth not plead that ever it was put in ure in that manner which ought to be alledged as in Sir William Hatton's Case where it was pleaded Quod Talis habebatur consuetudo within a Manor Quod licebit Seneschall● to impose a Fine c. But in the principal Case the not naming the Steward made the Avowry ill and then Per Cur. the Avowry being ill although the bar to the Avowry were ill Not naming the Steward in the Avowry ill yet he cannot have return Cro. p. 37. El. 392. Brown and Foster Copy-holder pleads Quod infra Manerium praed talis habetur nec non a toto tempore cujus contrarij memoria hominum non existit habebatur consuetudo videl quod quilibet tenens custumar ' praedict tenementa c. hath used to have Common in such a place parcel of the Manor Question was if the