Selected quad for the lemma: land_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
land_n	body_n	heir_n	remainder_n	3,791	5	10.8619	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A34128	Reports or causes in Chancery collected by Sir George Cary, one of the masters of the Chancery in in [sic] anno 1601, out of the labours of Master William Lambert ; whereunto is annexed the Kings order and decree in Chancery for a rule to be observed by the chancellor in that court, exemplified and enrolled for a perpetuall record there, anno 1616 ; together with an alphabeticall table of all the cases.	England and Wales. Court of Chancery.; Carew, George, Sir, d. 1612.; Lambarde, William, 1536-1601.	1650 (1650)	Wing C555; ESTC R22868	89,306	152

bestowed the land upon the Earl of Devon for his service done in Ireland This Lease the Earl sought to avoid by the law Haule prayes to have the matter examined in Chancery and to have the suit stayed by Injunction which was denyed for that the Lease was granted by fraud and the Fee simple to the Earl in possession and not in reversion nota that the Lord Chancellor said that where lands are granted in reversion if the Grantee will avoid the lease for a rent paid but not at the day in that case he will releeve but not where the Lease is granted upon a false suggestion for that were to relieve fraud in the Chancery it was further objected that this grant was made to the Earl upon consideration of service done and the Lord Chancellor said that the service done to the Realme was as valuable as if the Earl had given 500 l. for the Land but the Earl offered to give the Leassee 1000 l. recompence in honour 23. Ian. 1. Iacobi In a Case moved by Mr. Chamberlaine where the Lord Chancellor had referred the matter to be tryed at the common Law touching remainders upon a Lease whether good in law or no and the Judges had given Judgement upon the case in another point in the Kings Bench so as the Lord Chancellor remained still uncertaine of that point called the Judges into the Exchequer Chamber 1. Iacobi For as much as the plaintant hath served processe upon the defendant to appear in this court return 15. Micha and exhibited no sufficient Bill against him and further for meere examination sued out a Writ of Attachment against the defendant before the returne of the subpoena it is ordered that the plaintant shall pay unto the defendant 10 s. costs and also that Hugh Tildesley who made the processe against the defendant without a sufficient Bill shall pay unto the defendant other 10 s. for his costs William Garneston plaintant Thomas Bradwell defendant Anno 5. Hen. 6. Philip and Mary fol. 11. For as much as a Commission to examine witnesses in perpetuam rei memoriam issued out of this Court and the witnesses examined by vertue thereof have remained in court by the space of a year It is ordered that publication shall be granted Richard Gravenor and Iohn Gravenor plaintants Bryan Brearton defendant An. 5. and 6. Phil. and M. fol. 12. Episcopu Cicestrens publication of witnesses in perpetuam rei memoriam An. 5. and 6. Phil. and Mar. fol. 30. Willington plaintant Agar defendant publication of witnesses remaining since 33. H. 8. fol. 42. Anno 5 and 6. Phil. and Mary An Injunction is granted against the defendants to deliver to the plaintant certaine Plate contained in their Petition or else to appeare and shew cause in crur. anim prox Anno 5. and 6. P. and M. fol. 13. David Geoffry and Iohn Geoffry plaintants and Thomas Davis defendant A decree is made for the plaintant as by the Record thereof signed with the Lord Chancellors hand plainly appeareth and the said Record is delivered to Iohn Millisent Attorney for the plaintant to be inrolled the Deane and Chapter of Lincolne plaintant Bevore and Alice defendants Anno 5. and 6. Phil. and Mary fol. 15. Glanffell plaintant Strickley defendant a decree is made for the defendant for dismission of the cause as by the Record thereof signed with the Lord Chancellors hand and the same put to the inrolment Anno 5. and 6. Phil. and Mary fol. 22. Iames Iervis hath made oath for the delivery of a subpoena to the defendant whereby he hath knowledge that witnesses are to be examined in perpetuall memory so that he may if he will examine the same witnesses in this court therefore the examinors in this court may proceed to the examination of the said witnesses accordingly Hatcham plaintiffe Winchcombe defendant 5. and 6. P. and M. fol. 19. Porter plaintant Baker defendant the examinor may proceed to examination of witnesses in perpetuall memory if the plaintant have served a Subpoena upon the defendant to give him notice to examine likewise An. 5. and 6. P. and M. fol. 32. Forasmuch as the plaint hath taken oath in this court that there are sundry witnesses contained in a Schedule exhibited in this court which he desireth to have examined ●n perpetuall memory so impotent and sick that they are not able to travell up to be examined in court without danger of their lives therefore a Commission is awarded to Sir Humfrey B●adburne Knight to examine the same witnesses in perpetuall memory Bagshawe plaintant defendant An 5. and 6. P. and M. fol. 22. Robins plaintant Foster defendant a Commission is granted to examine witnesses in the Countrey being impotent in perpetuall memory Anno 5. and 6. P. and M. fol. 26. The plaintant is adjudged to pay to the defendant costs three pound for that he was served to appear before the Lord Mayor of London to testifie in a matter depending before the said Lord Mayor between the plaintant and one Iohn Gresham and others without any precept directed from the Lord Mayor unto the said defendant to appeare Rowe and Alice plaintants Thomas Guybone defendant Anno 5. and 6. P. and M. fol. 24. Iohn Manlye hath taken oath the deposition of witnesses examined on the behalfe of the plaintant and remaining in this Court are to be given in evidence at a Court Baron holden at Potton in the County of Bedford on M●nday next therefore publication is granted William Manlye Clerke plaintant Thomas Simcote defendant Anno 5. and 6. Phil. and Mary fol. 24. An injunction is awarded against the defendant to stay his proceedings in the Sheriffes Court of London or elsewhere upon debt of 100 l. not to proceed to triall judgement or to execution if judgement be given Iohn Ayland plaintiffe Francis Bacon defendant Anno 5. and 6. P. and M. fol. 29. Forasmuch as the plaintant served processe upon the defendent by the name of Magaret Hastings and at that instant was marryed to William Brown and also for want of a Bill therefore the said William Brown and Margaret are adjudged to pay to the defendant 20 s. costs Margaret Hastings plaintant Nicholas Iugges defendant Anno 5. and 6. P. and M. fol. 30. Forasmuch as the Sheriffe of Den●igb hath returned a Languidus in prison therefore a Commission is awarded to Richard Griffeths and others to take the answer of the defendant Iohn ap Thomas plaintant Engharard Hoell widow defendant An. 5. and 6. P. and M. fol. 33. Forasmuch as the defendant was in possession of the lands at the time of the Bill exhibited and the plaintant hath sithence entered therefore an injunction is granted to the defendant against the plaintiffe to avoid the possession William Hawkes and Ie●nit his wife plaintants Iohn Champion and others defendants An. 5. and 6. P. and M. fol. 35. It

sollicitor of one of the parties was served with Subpoena to testifie in the cause in controversie and the Court discharged him by reason he was solliciter in the cause An. 20. Eliz. The plaintants Bill was for that he being a Coppyholder Leased to the defendant for years and the defendant hath digged gravell and sold the same away whereby the Coppyhold is prejudiced the defendant justified for that the Copyholders are not punishable in waste which cause this Court alloweth not of for though the Copyholders of the mannor are not punishable yet the Leasses of Copyholders of the Mannor are punishable therefore a Supoena is awarded to shew cause why an Injunction shall not be granted for staying his digging of gravell and felling Woods upon the Copyhold Lands Dalton plaintant Gill and Pindor defendants Anno 19. Eliz. Whereas the plaintant exhibited his Bill against the defendant for wilfull perjury the defendant hath demurred which this Court alloweth not of It is ordered a Subpoena be awarded to the defendant to answer Thomas Woodcock plaintant Giles Woodcock defendant An. 19. Eliz. Whereas there was an award in writing exhibited into this Court made between the said parties by Sir Christopher Wray Knight Lord chiefe Justice of England whereunto the Lord chiefe Justice hand as well as the parties are subscribed it was requested by the plaintants the same might be decreed by this Court which this Court refused to grant untill the defendants were made privy therefore processe is awarded Wakefield Vxor Aliis plaintants Hawson Vxor Aliis defendants An. 19. Eliz. The suit was to stay suit in the spirituall Court for a Legacy of 40 l. Ioan Banvill widdow plaintant Guy Banvill defendant Anno 19. Eliz. The suite was for common of pasture and Turbary the defendant demurred for that the plaintant may have remedy at the common law but ordered to answer Lawrence and Moregate Aliis plaintants Windham defendant An. 19. Eliz. Robert Goodwine made oath that at such time as he came to the house of the defendant to serve a Subpoena upon him according to an order of the 10. of May last one of his servants came forth and told him he was within who thereupon delivered the Writ to be delivered to the defendant his Master Goodwine plaintant Sullyard defendant An. 19. Eliz. The defendant made oath that he was served with a Subpoena by the plaintant in the name of one William Web utterly unknown to the defendant and now upon his appearance no Bill in Court against the defendant in the name of the said William Web or of the plaintant therefore 30 s. cost is awarded against the plaintants An. 19. Eliz. Forasmuch as the said Abel one of the defendants appeared and answered the last Terme and his wife did not therefore an Attachment was awarded against them both Monox plaintant Abel and his wife defendants Anno 19. Eliz. Whereas there was this present day exhibited into this Court a certificate under the Seale of the university of Oxford on the defendants behalfe testifying and declaring that the Chancellors of the said university and their successors from the time whereof the memory of man is not to the contrary as well by graunt and consideration of her Majesty as of her Majesties noble progenitors sometimes Kings of this Realme have had the cognizance and finall determination of all manner of Pleas strifes quarrels and controversies whatsoever Felony Maine and Franketenant onely excepted rising and growing as well within the precinct of the said City of Oxford as without within the Realme of England whereas one of the parties within the said suit action or plea is a Master or Schollor or common Minister of the same university or such a person as the Chancellor Vicechancellor Lieutenant or Commissary will certifie ought to enjoy the priviledge of the same university and that the same persons upon the shewing forth of the said certificate in any Court where they are impleaded ought to be discharged out of the same Court forasmuch as it appeareth by the said certificate that the said defendant who is brought up by a Subpoena to answer a Bill exhibited by the plaintant into this Court is a Batchelor of Law in the same university and for that also it appeareth by the plaintants said Bill of complaint that the matter therein contained is onely for certaine promises supposed to be made by the defendant to the plaintant touching certaine Goods Chattels and money therein mentioned and not Franktenement or any matter before excepted It is therefore ordered that the said defendant be of and from the said Bill of complant and matters therein contained from henceforth clearly and absolutely dismissed and the plaintant referred to take his remedy for the same before the Chancellor Vicechancellor Lieutenant or Commissary of the said University of Oxford according to the Tenor of the said Certificate Temple plaintant Foster Doctor of the Civill Law defen. Anno 19. Eliz. Thomas plaintant Mounson defendant produceth a Certificate of the University claiming jurisdiction of the same University therefore the cause is from hence dismissed to be tryed and determined there An. 19. Eliz. The plaintant in the end of Easter Terme by Master Griffeth his Attorney required the defendant to proceed to Commission for examining of witnesses and the defendant was ready to joyne sithence which time the plaintant contrary to the order of this Court as they alleage hath produced one of the Masters of this Court and one of the examinors to travell to the plaintants house in Wiltshire 60 miles distant from London there hath examined witnesses it is ordered that publication be stayed untill the matter be examined after publication is granted Darrall plaintant and Stukey defendant An. 19. Eliz. The plaint Father did purchase in Fee-Farm to him and his heirs the Mannor of Long Eason in the County of De●y of one Kymwelmarch rendring 8 l. rent with a condition of reentry for non payment of the rent deviseth the Land to another for life A ducens tecum for the evidences An. 19. Eliz. Forasmuch as the defendant hath appeared in this court upon an Attachment of priviledge and attended from day to day according to his Bond made in that behalfe and hath also pleaded an issue to the plaintants Declaration therefore the defendant is licensed to depart Dugdell plaint Orrell defend An. 20. Eliz. The defend by his Answer confesseth he was joynt purchasor in trust with the plaintants Father to them two and to the heires of the plaintants Father of the Lands in question and that he never received any profits thereof and that he meant at the plaintants full age to convey the Lands to the plaintant and his heires according to the trust it is ordered and decreed the defendant shall forthwith upon notice to him given convey his Estate in the Lands to the plaintant and the Heires

of his body begotten with such remainder over as in the last Will and Testament of the plaintants Father is expressed at the costs of the plaintant Young plaintant Leigh defendant Anno 20. Eliz. Bittenson one of the defendants demurred for that he was a Clerke of the Exchequer and ought to be priviledged there and the said Mary demurred without shewing any cause forasmuch as it was openly affirmed by the common voyce of the officers of the same that the said Bittenson may be impleaded in this Court notwithstanding any priviledge in the Exchequer and for that likewise if there were any such cause of priviledge yet he could not have the same in this suite by reason another party who ought not to have any such priviledge is joyned with him therefore a Subpoena is awarded against the defendants to answer East and Scudamore plaintant Bittenson and Mary Valence defendants An. 20. Eliz. It is ordered that in a Bill of perjury put in against the defendant he having put in his answer should not depart untill he be examined upon interrogatories according to the generall order and course in that behalfe accustomed for it was affirmed by the Officers of this Court that by the order and custome of this Court he ought to be examined upon interrogatories Philips plaintant Benson defendant Anno 20. Eliz. The defendant made oath the plaintant came to him on Easter day last in Barrington Church and commanded him in the Queenes name to appeare in Chancery the 17 day after which said defendant demanded the processe and the plaintant answered him he was to serve another and therefore would not leave him any note for his appearance and yet upon his appeance no Bill found in Court therefore the plaintant is adjudged to pay him 20 s. costs Syers plaintant Cotts defendant Anno 20. Eliz. Robert Hodgeson made oath that he left a Subpoena to make a better answer upon the doore of the lodging of the said defendant being at the signe of the Maidenhead without Temple bar whereas both by the report of divers of the neighbours thereabouts as by the recourse of her servants to and fro at the same time by all presumptions she the said defendant was then in the said house and yet she hath not made a better answer therefore an attachment is awarded against the defendant Croker plaintant Hampden defendant An. 20. Eliz. The said defendant hath this present Terme appeared upon a Subpoena at the plaintants suit 15 Pascha and no Bill in Court and for that the defendant hath lost the said Subpoena he cannot demand his charges for want of the said Bill it is ordered no processe of contempt issue out of this court against the defendant upon the said Subpoena Blanch Parvy plaintant Morgan defendant Anno 20. Eliz. The defendant made oath that one of the plaintants servants shewed him a Subpoena tres Pasch. return but would not deliver him the Writ or Labell and now upon the defendants appearance there is no Bill against him in court therefore costs Gray plaintant Gurney defend An. 20. Eliz. The defend by his answer disclaimed of the Clarkship of the Peace in question and confessed thereby that he delivered all the Records and Titlelings of Sessions which he had to Master Treutham Custos Rotulor in the County of Stafford and yet the plaintant hath replyed to the same to examine the manner of assault and other matters touching the death of one Ashbrook and goeth about to examine witnesses thereupon it is ordered that if cause be not shewed to the contrary that no witnesses shall be examined touching the manner of assault or death of Ashbrook or circumstances thereof Archbald plaintant Borrold defendant An. 20. Eliz. The defendant in a scir. fac upon a recognizance to pay 100 l. at Martine in the County of Surrey pleaded payment at Bristow where the Justice of Assize without speciall Commission commeth not to the intent onely to delay the party therefore it is ordered the defendant shall by Friday next either be sworne to his said Plea or else put in such a sufficient issuable Plea as he will stand unto at his perill Lovell plaintant Hopkins defendant An. 20. Eliz. The defendant demurred upon a Bill of Revivor exhibited by the plaintiffes against her for that she was a woman Covert during the time the first suit depended but ordered to answer for that she was party to the suit with the said Twynneho● her husband Ruthel uxor ejus plaintants Dom. Elizabeth Litton late wife to Edward Twinnehoe defendant Anno 20. Eliz. The plaintant and her husband exhibited their Bill against the defendant the husband dyeth the wife now plaintant exhibiteth a Bill of Revivor and goodw Alice Parrot widdow plaintant Randall and Cowarden defendants An. 20. Eliz. It is ordered that from henceforth no entry be made by any the Attorneyes into the Registers Book of this Court of any appearance of or upon any Attachment or Commission of rebellion but that the party so appearing shall first enter into sufficient Bond by Obligation to this Court to be taken by the Register of this Court with condition to attend from day to day and not to depart before he be specially licensed by this Court Pascha 20. Eliz. The defendant refuseth to answer the receit of rent and demurred for that the plaintant may have remedy by Law for the same therefore ordered a Subpoena be awarded to make direct answer Dixe Cantrell plaintants Lintoft defendant Anno 20. Eliz. Whereas information was made to this court on the behalfe of George Stidenham Esq. now Sheriffe of the County of Somersetshire That whereas a Capias upon a Recogn●zance of 133 l. 6 s. 8 d. issued out of this Court in Hilary Terme last to the Sheriffe against the said defendant the said Sheriffe had a Capias also for a debt due to her Majesty to him directed out of the Court of Exchequer both which Capiasses the Sheriffe returned into the said severall Courts the last Terme a cepi corpus languid●● in prisona whereupon a duces tecum issued out of the said Court of Exchequer to the said Sheriffe for bringing in of the body of the defendant into the said Court of Exchequer whereupon the said Sheriffe hath brought up the said defendant and made request this present day to this court that some order might be taken by this court that the defendant may remaine in execution for the debt of the said plaintant after he hath answered his said debt to her Majesty so that the said Sheriffe may not hereafter be charged by the returne made by the Capias upon the said Recognizance in this court it is therefore ordered by the advice of the right honourable the Lord Treasurer and the Lord chiefe Justice of England being present in court that a Habeas corpus be awarded to the Warden of the Fleet to bring

defendant was served with a Subpoena at his suit got an attachment against the defendant whereupon he was apprehended and returned languidus It is ordered that the attachment be discharged by supersedeas the defendant paying 20 s. 6 d. to the Warden of the Fleet and the ordinary charges to the plaintant Brearton plaintant Ap Roberts defendant Anno 22. Eliz. It is informed that Coleston one of the defendants examined his own wife as a witnesse It is thereofore ordered the plaintant may take a Subpoena against her on his behalfe and if Colston will not suffer her to be examined on the plaintants party then her examination on the said Colstons party is suppressed Bent plaintant Allot and Colston defendants Anno 22. Eliz. Upon the hearing of the cause it appeared that the suit was to be releived of a promise made by the defendant to the plaintant to surrender a lease upon payment of 100 Markes by the plaintant unto him and for that the matter is meet for the common Law therefore dismissed Grevill plaintant Bowker defendant Anno 22. Eliz. The Court was informed by one Palmer that the three defendants are his servants and were served with Subpoena to be examined before the Town Clark of London who refused to be there examined because the matter is not depending in London but in her Majesties Bench and yet Attachment is gotten against them which kind of examination of witnesses this Court taketh to be unorderly and therefore ordered the Attachment be discharged Price plaintant Tench Holland and Packhouse defendants An. 22. Eliz. The Earle of Huntingdon Presedent of the North signified by his Letters to the Lord Chancellor that the lands for which the Bill is exhibited were ordered for the defendant by the Counsell of the North parts where the parties dwell and land lyeth and the now plaintant upon serving his Subpoena was ordered by the councell there to surcease his suit in this Court and stand to the order of the said counsell and yet the plaintant hath procured an Attachment against the defendant therefore ordered the Attachment be discharged and the matter dismissed Harrison plaintant Harrison defendant An. 22. Eliz. The defendant demurred because he is the Lord Treasurers man and therefore ought to be priviledged in her Majesties court of Exchequer which cause of demurrer the Court allowed not for that the defend can have no priviledge unlesse it were in such a case as the plaint might have remedy in the Court of Exchequer Lewin plaintant Fawdesley defendant An. 22. Eliz. The defendant made oath the plaintant shewed him a Subpoena holding it in his own hand and said it was against him but would not let him have it or see it so that he might read it neither would he deliver him any note of his appearance nor tell him the same but took witnesse that he had served the Subpoena and about an hour after came again to the defendant saying you were desirous to see the Subpoena here it is and thereupon shewed the labell to the defendant but in such sort as he could not see the returne whereupon the defendant appearing found no Bill therefore Attachment against the plaintant for misdemeanor Mead plaintant Crosse defend An. 22. Eliz. The plaint is Grandfather on the Mothers side to whom the Lands cannot come by the death of the infant exhibiteth a Bill against the Grandfather on the part of the fathers side to have the education and bringing up of one Richard Edge an infant who is seized of an Estate Taile of Lands the remainder to the defendant and to have the disposing of the profits of the Lands But ordered with the defendant for that it appeared there were divers remainders between the defendants and the infants estate Sweetman plaintant Edge defendant An 20. Eliz. Francis plaintant Sacheverill defendant The defendant is adjudged to pay to Iohn Hide 20 s. costs he appearing upon a Subpoena to testifie on his behalfe An. 22. Eliz. The plaintant purchased Lands of the defend An. 2. Eliz And had a Recognizance then acknowledged unto him for performing Covenants of the bargaine and sale and put one in trust to get both the indenture and ●ecognizance inrolled and paid him for the same and now being evicted out of the possession of the lands came to take out a scir. fac upon the Recognizance but finds it not inrolled and therefore desireth the same might now be inrolled It is ordered that a Subpoena be awarded against the defendant to shew cause why it should not and M. Solliciter who is present at the motion is to give notice to some of his Clients who have purchased as he alleadged parcell of the lands to shew cause why it shall not be inrolled Siddenham plaintant Harrison defendant An. 22. Eli. The defendants informe that the Bill is exhibited for certaine Lands parcell of the Dutchy of Lancaster and therefore ordered that for so much it shall be dismissed Price plaintant Lloyd Owen and Read defendants Anno 22. Eliz. The matter upon hearing appeared to be for a promise wherewith the defendant chargeth the plaintant and 12 d. in money accepted upon the said promise whereupon some trials or non suits have passed it is orded that for the ending of the said matter of promise that the matter be referred to the Common Law to be tryed Sutton plaintant Erington defendant An. 22. Eliz. The defendant informed he was called upon by Subpoena dated the 8. of February and by answer saith the said Iane Piers was married the 8. of February and so at that time purchasing the Writ a woman Covert therefore the defendant is dismissed with 13 s. 4 d. costs Iane Peirs plaintant Iohn Cawse defendant Anno 22. Eliz. The defendant was in possession at the time of the Bill exhibited the plaintant entered upon him the defendant desired that either he might have an Injunction for his possession or else that the cause might be dismissed which the Court thought reasonable it is ordered the plaintant shall shew cause why it should not be granted Hill plaintant Portman defendant Anno 22. Eliz. The plaintant Thomas Hilliar exhibited his Bill against the said William Kendall that the said Thomas Hilliar was seized in Fee of two Messuages 70. Acres of Pasture Furzes and Heath in Lanlivery parcell of the Queenes Majesties Dutchy of Cornewall and thereupon a prohibition against the said Will Kendall libelling in the Spirituall Court for Tithes as Farmer to the said Batten Vicar there pretending that right of Tythes for lands holden of her Majesty as of her Dutchy of Cornewall ought to be determined in this Court and also that the said Iohn Hilliar had exhibited the like Bill and procured a prohibition out of this Court against the said Batten It is ordered a Subpoena be awarded against the plaintant to shew cause why a consultation should not be granted Hilliar and Hilliar