Selected quad for the lemma: land_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
land_n action_n defendant_n plaintiff_n 1,723 5 10.0998 5 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A55583 William Powell alias Hinson Esq; plaintiffe; the Warden and Fellows of All-soules Colledge in Oxford defendants In the Chancellors Court of the University of Oxford in a pretended cause of dammage. Powell, William.; All Souls College (University of Oxford) 1656 (1656) Wing P3098A; ESTC R221774 5,578 8

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

William Powell alias Hinson Esq Plaintiffe The Warden and Fellows of All-soules Colledge in Oxford Defendants In the Chancellors Court of the Vniversity of Oxford in a pretended Cause of Dammage THis Suit is in the nature of an Action of the Case at the Common Law and the end of this Action is the same with that of an Action on the case at Law and that is to have a Reparation by way of dammage for a wrong supposed to be done by the Defendants to the Plaintiffe The wrong complained of in the present Case is a preterition made by the Defendants of the Plaintiffe in the renewing of a Lease for years of a Mesuage and Lands in Wha●ly in the County of Oxon which Lease as the Plaintiffe pretends the Defendants have to his dammage renewed unto George Herne 1. Wherein I do agree first that the Lease hath been so renewed by the Defendants to George Herne 2. I do admit that this renewing was to the Plaintiffes dammage But as I shall represent the truth of the Case to be I conceive this dammage so much complained of by this Action will fall out to be within the reason of those Cases of the Common Law that being damnum abs●ue injuria there is no punishment of such Acts by any re●ópence to be given in way of damage by any action whatsoever And therefore wheresoever a man hath liberty to do any act which no Law of the Land forbids no Action at Law lieth against him for the doing of such an Act. A Schoole-master teaching Schoole in a Towne brought an Action upon the Case against another that afterwards set up a Schoole in the same Town whereby those Schollars that before gave him twenty pence a quarter 11 Henry 4. Stat. in accon sur le Case now will give him but twelve pence a quarter and this being damnum absque injuria it was adjudged that the Action will not lye So in the Case of a new Mill erected upon the same streame by a Lord of a Mannor to the prejudice of the Lord of the next Mannor who hath an ancient Mill standing upon the same streame whereby the sute to the old Mill is lessened and withdrawn yet this Action lies not 22 of H. 6 14. Bacon jur le case 57. and 42. for albeit it be a dammage to the Owner of the old Mill yet it is absque injuria there being no Law that makes such restraint either in the one case or in the other To apply this to the present Case there are three Competitors to the Defendants for the renewing of the said Lease at Whately 1. The Plaintiffe as Executor to Sir Edward Powell 2. Mr Ba●eman 3. Mr George Herne The Colledge being the Defendants are not only not prohibited nor under any restraint for the renewing of it but are rather enabled by the Statute of 18. Eliz. the present Lease being run within three yeares of expiration to renew this Lease to whom they please So as this being a power recommended to their own liberty and being by them executed according to their power to them given by that Law legis executio non habet injuriam and no man can be said to do a wrong qui jure su● ut●tur The Defendants are the more to be justified herein for that they did not meerely as an act of power nor inconsiderately renew it but first calling in all parties and suffering them to interplead before them and hearing and examining their reasons hinc inde they did at length upon a full and deliberate consideration declare the right of renewing this Lease to belong to George Herne and accordingly renewed it to him wherein I conceive that both in Law and Equity they have done an Act that is most Collegiate and such as best suits with the honour of their Colledge and this will the better appeare by the Case it selfe as it stands in judgement upon the series and course of the Leases themselves made by their Predecessors of this Land now in question Richard Powell being in the yeare 1634. possest of a Lease for years before that time made by All-soules Colledge does in the said yeare 1634. without making any actuall surrender thereof accept of a new Lease for yeares there of from the said Colledge This his acceptance of the said new Lease is in Law an absolute surrender of that old Lease albeit no actuall surrender were by him made of the said old Lease and the neglect of the then Warden and Scholars of the said Colledge to take in the said old Lease is no hinderance at all to the operation of the said surrender in Law Then doth Richard Powell in the yeare 1638. for 200. li. to him paid by Bateman affigne this renewed Lease unto Bateman this is a good assignment of a good Lease then in being unto Bateman After this Richard Powell having still in his hands the said old Lease not actually surrendred but yet determined by such surrender in Law ut supra doth in the yeare 1639. for 340 li. paid by George Herne amongst other things grant the said old Lease and the Lands thereby demised to the said George Herne who presently redemised the said Lands unto the said Richard Powell at 40. li. rent per annum and Powell still retained in his own hands the said old Lease The said Richard Powell afterwards in the yeare 1641. repaires to the Colledge and concealing from them his said assignment to Bateman and his said grant to Herne without the privity or concurrents of the said Bateman and Herne by their joyning with him in their making of an actuall surrender of their or either of their estates to the said Colledge upon his giving in of the said old Lease made in the yeare of our Lord 1626. obtaines a new Lease from the said Colledge to begin immediately which he afterwards mortgaged to Sir Edward Powell 1. The Lease renewed in 1634. to Richard Powell then being Tenant in possession and which he afterwards assigned to Bateman was the only good Lease in the Case 2. The grant to Herne of an old Lease then pretended to be in esse is not good in regard the Lease intended was determined by Powels acceptance of a new Lease in 1634. 3. The Colledge new Lease to Richard Powell in the yeare 1641. was void for that the Lease to Bateman was then in being for many yeares then to come and that Lease not then surrendred 4. Batemans Lease comming afterwards within three yeares of expiration the Colledge had then power to let a Lease to whom they pleased And they afterwards making this Lease to George Herne this is a good execution of their power to them given by the Statute and albeit a dammage of the Plaintiffes expectation to renew yet no injury at all to the Plaintiffe for the reasons before delivered And so no cause of Action to the Plaintiffe As to the objection that Richard Powell upon such his renewing in 1641.