Selected quad for the lemma: land_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
land_n	brother_n	die_v	elder_a	1,509	5	9.7904	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A64839	The reports of Sir Peyton Ventris Kt., late one of the justices of the Common-pleas in two parts : the first part containing select cases adjudged in the Kings-Bench, in the reign of K. Charles II, with three learned arguments, one in the Kings-Bench, by Sir Francis North, when Attorney General, and two in the Exchequer by Sir Matthew Hale, when Lord Chief Baron : with two tables, one of the cases, and the other of the principal matters : the second part containing choice cases adjudged in the Common-pleas, in the reigns of K. Charles II and K. James II and in the three first years of the reign of His now Majesty K. William and the late Q. Mary, while he was a judge in the said court, with the pleadings to the same : also several cases and pleadings thereupon in the Exchequer-Chamber upon writs of error from the Kings-Bench : together with many remarkable and curious cases in the Court of Chancery : whereto are added three exact tables, one of the cases, the other of the principal matters, and the third of the pleadings : with the allowance and approbation of the Lord Keeper an all the judges.	Ventris, Peyton, Sir, 1645-1691.; Guilford, Francis North, Baron, 1637-1685.; Hale, Matthew, Sir, 1609-1676.; England and Wales. Court of King's Bench.; England and Wales. Court of Common Pleas.	1696 (1696)	Wing V235; ESTC R7440	737,128	910

George because being descended from an Alien the Law takes no notice of them as to this purpose otherwise 't is if the said Nicholas had been a Denizen born and Attainted because in such a case though he could not take himself by Discent he could obstruct the Discent to the younger Brother so the Land would Escheat Thirdly That the Case of George the Son naturalized and the Case of John his Son as in reterence to John the Earl and the Discent from him will be all one if George had survived him John the Earl might have inherited so will John his Son who jure Representationis is the same with his Father Et è Converso These things being unquestionably to be admitted before I come to the Argument of the Case I shall premise certain General Observations First Touching Discents Secondly Touching the Capacities of Incapacities of an Alien Thirdly Touching Naturalizations Touching Discents I shall consider First The Rule whereby they are to be Governed Secondly The various kinds of Discents or hereditary Successions Concerning the Rule of Discents we must not govern our selves therein by the General Notions of Law or Proximity of Nature but by the Principal Laws of the Country where the Question ariseth for the various Countries have variously disposed the manner of Discents even in the same Law or Degree of Proximity For Instance The Father is certainly as near of Kin to the Son as the Son is to the Father and is nearer in Proximity than a Brother and therefore shall be preferred as next of Kin in an Administration 3 Rep. Ratcliffs Case Yet touching the Succession of the Father to the purchase of his Son the Laws of several Countries variously provide First According to the Jews for want of Issue of the Son the Father succeeds excluding the Brother and that hath been the Vse and Construction of the Jewish Doctors upon Number 27. Selden de Successionibus Hebr. Cap. 12. But the Mother was wholly excluded Secondly According to the Greeks the Provision for the Succession of the Father is left doubtful Petit Leges 1 6. fol. 6. According to the Romans or Civil Law by the Construction of the Law of the Twelve Tables the Father succeeds in the purchase of the Son for want of Issue of the Son under the Title of Proximus Agnatus and accordingly was their Vsage tho' my Lord Coke supposed the contrary Co. Lit. 5. But to settle all the Institutes of Justinian Lib. 3. Tit. 3. in an Authentick Collection 8. Tit. de Haered ' ab intestato venientibus the Son dying without Issue his Brothers and Sisters Father and Mother do succeed him in a kind of Coparcenary as well to Lands as Goods According to the Customs of Normandy which in some things have a Cognition with the Laws of England the Son dying without Issue his Brothers are preferred before the Father but the Father is preferred before the Vncles Terrien lib. 6. c. 6. la Customier de Normandie cap. Descheants 5. According to the Laws of England the Son dying without Issue or Brother or Sister the Father cannot succeed but it descends to the Vncle. And it is a Maxim of the English Law An Inheritance cannot Lineally ascend Consequently the Question being in this Case touching a Discent of Lands in England it must be Ruled and Disputed according to the Grounds and Reasons of the Laws of England Secondly Touching the Second the Division of Discents are of two kinds First Lineal as from the Father or Grandfather to the Son or Grandson Secondly Collateral or Transversal as from Brother to Brother Vncle to Nephew or è converso And both these are again of two sorts First Immediate as in Lineals from Father to Son Secondly Mediate as in Lineals from Grandfather to Grandson the Father dying in the Life of the Grandfather when the Father is the medium differens of the Discent Thirdly In Collaterals from the Vncle to the Nephew or from the Nephew to the Vncle where the Father is likewise the medium differens And I call this a Mediate Discent tho' as to many purposes it be Immediate for the Father dying in the Life of the Grandfather the Son succeeds in point of Discent of the Laws immediately to the Grandfather and in a Writ of Entry shall be supposed in the Per to the Grandfather and not in the Per and Cui But I call it a Mediate Discent because the Father is the medium through or by whom the Son derives his Title to the Grandfather Therefore if any man thinks the term of Mediate Discent not properly used he may if he please use the words of Mediate or Immediate Ancestors Words are imposed to signifie Things and therefore the Terms being explained what I mean by them I shall retain the Terms of Mediate or Immediate Discents This distinction of Discents or Relations between Ancestor and Heir and Hereditary Succession will be of use throughout this whole Debate In Immediate Discents there can be no Impediment but what arises in the parties themselves For Instance The Father seised of Lands the Impediment that hinders the Discent must be either in the Father or the Son as if the Father or the Son be Attaint or an Alien In Immediate Discents a Disability of being an Alien or Attaint in him that I call a medius Ancestor will disable a person to take by Discent tho' he himself hath no such Disability For Instance In Lineal Discents If the Father be Attaint or an Alien and hath Issue a Denizen born and dies in the life of the Grandfather the Grandfather dies seised the Son shall not take but the Land shall Escheat In Collateral Discents A. and B. Brothers A. is an Alien or Attainted and hath Issue C. a Denizen born B. purchaseth Lands and dies without Issue C. shall not inherit for A. which was the Medius Ancestor or medium differens of this Discent was incapable Dyer 274. Gray's Case And this is apparent in this very Case for by this means Patrick tho' a Denizen and the Son of an Elder Brother is disabled to inherit the Earl A. and B. Brothers A. is an Alien or person Attainted and hath Issue C. and dies and C. purchaseth Lands and dies without Issue B. his Vncle shall not inherit for the Reason before-going for A. is a Medius which was disabled This is Courtney's Case And if in our Case Patrick the Son of Nicholas altho' a Denizen born had purchased Lands and died without Issue John his Vncle should not have Inherited him by reason of the Disability of Nicholas and yet Nicholas himself had he not been an Alien could not immediately have Inherited to his Son but yet he is a Block in the way to John See the Reason 17 E. 4. cap. 1. But this must be intended of such as are absolute Impediments as Attainder or Alien not Temporary suspensions As in the Lord Delaware's Case in 10 Co. But in any Discents the Impediment of

Heir in England or to have one My third and last Reason is indeed more general tho' not so conclusive as the two former were upon the particular Reason of the Case tho' not altogether to be neglected viz. The Law of England which is the only ground and must be the only measure of the incapacity of an Alien and of those consequential results that arise from it hath been always very gentle in the construction of the disability and rather contracting than extending it so severely For Instance The Statute de natis ultra Mare 25 E. 3. declares that the Issue born beyond Sea of an English Man upon an English Woman shall be a Denizen yet the construction hath been tho' an English Merchant marries a Foreigner and hath Issue by her beyond the Sea that Issue is a natural born Subject In 16 Cro. Car. in the Dutchy Bacons Case per omnes Justic ' Angl ' And accordingly it hath been more than once Resolved in my Remembrance Pround's Case of Rent The Case of the Postnati commonly called Calvin's Case the Report is grounded upon this gentle Interpretation of the Law tho' there were very witty Reasons urged to the contrary and surely if ever there were reason for a gentle Construction even in the Case in question it concerns us to be guided by such an Interpretation since the Vnion of the two Kingdoms by which many perthance very Considerable and Noble Families of a Scottish Extract may be concerned in the consequence of this Question both in England and Ireland that enjoy their Inheritances in peace I spare to mention particulars So far therefore as the parallel Cases of Attainder warrant this extent of this Ability I shall not dispute but further than that I dare not extend Now as touching the Authorities that favour my Opinion I shall not mention them because they have been fully Repeated and the later Authorities in this very Case are not in my Iudgment to be neglected Touching the Case of Godfrey and Dixon it is true it doth differ from the Case in question and in that the Father was made a Denizen and then had Issue a younger Son who inherited the elder Son an Alien born but Naturalized after the death of his Father yet there is to be observed in that Case either the Naturalization of the elder Son relates to his Birth or relates only to the Time of his Naturalization whether it did relate or not depends upon the words of the Act of Naturalization which I have not seen If it did relate the Cause in effect will be no more but an Alien hath Issue a Natural born Son for so he is as I have Argued by his Naturalization and then is made a Denizen and hath Issue and dies the elder Son purchaseth Lands and dies without Issue the younger Son shall inherit the elder should not have inherited his Father by reason of the Incapacity of the Father But it doth not relate further than the Time of his Naturalization which was after the time of the Death of his Father and consequently he could not divest the Heirship of his younger Brother yet if he purchaseth and dies without Issue his younger Brother shall inherit him tho' there was never Inheritable Blood between the elder Son and his Father so much as in fiction or relation Vpon the whole Case I conclude First That there be two Brochers Natural born in England the Sons of an Alien the one shall inherit the other Secondly That the Naturalization puts them in the same Condition as if born here tho' it does not more Thirdly That John the Son of George stands in the same Condition of inheriting his Vncle the Earl as George should have done had he survived the Earl Fourthly But if the Disability of Robert the Father had disabled the Brothers to have inherited one the other the Naturalization of the Earl or George had not removed that Disability Fifthly But no such Disability of the Father doth disable the Brother George to inherit the Earl it neither doth Consequentially disable John the Son of George to inherit the Earl Consequently as to the Point referred to our Iudgment John the Son of George is Inheritable to the Land of John his Vncle. The End of the First Volume A TABLE OF THE Principal Points Argued and Resolved in the First PART OF THESE REPORTS A. Abatement See Pleadings IN the Ecclesiastical Court a Suit does not abate by the Death of either Party Pag. 134 A Baronet is Sued by the Addition of Knight and Baronet the Action shall abate 154 In all Actions where one Plaintiff of several Dyes the Writ shall abate save in an Action brought by an Executor 235 Acceptance Where Acceptance of Rent from the Assignee shall discharge the Lessee 99 Action See Bail Whether an Action of Debt qui tam upon the Stat. 5 El. c. 4. lies in B. R. 8 Action brought de uxore abducta and concludes contra forman Statuti where there is no Statute in the case yet good 104 Action for a Nusance in stopping of the Lights of his House p. 139 237 248 Action upon the Stat. 13 Car. 2. by one Bookseller against another for Printing his Coppy p. 253 Where the Matter consists of two parts in several Counties the Plaintiff may bring his Action in which he pleases p. 344 Where several Causes may be joyned in one Action and where not 365 366 Action upon the Case See Jurisdiction Way In the Nature of Conspiracy a-against three for Arresting without Cause and only one found Guilty 12 Such an Action lies against one p. 19 Lies for a Justice of Peace against one who Indicts him for Matters in the Execution of his Office p. 23 25 For taking his Wife from him brought against the Womans Father p. 37 Lies not against a Justice of Peace for causing one to be Indicted who was after accquitted 47 Where it lies for Suing one in the Ecclesiastical Court and where not 86 For erecting a Market 7 miles off 98 Upon the Custom of Merchants for a Bill of Exchange accepted 152 For not Grinding at his Mill 167 Where it lies against a Master of a Ship for Goods lost out of the same 138 190 191 Against the Mayor of L. for not Granting a Poll upon a doubtful Election 206 For not repairing a Fence 264 Against a Taylor for Spoiling his Coat in making 268 For Riding over the Plaintiff with an unruly Horse 295 Where Action lies for Defaming the Wife whereby the Husband loses his Customers 348 Action upon the Case For Slander You are a Forger of Bonds a Publisher of Forgery and Sue upon forged Bonds These last Words not Actionable 3 She was with Child by J. S. whereof she miscarried 4 Thou hast received stoln Goods and knew they were stolen J. S. Stole them and thou wert Partner with her 18 Of a Midwife She is an Ignorant Woman and of small Practice and very unfortunate in her Way there

But since H. 8. time it had béen for the most part administred by the Dean and Chapter and the Verdict was here for the Dean and Chapter King versus Melling IN an Ejectment upon a Special Verdict the case was this R. Melling seized in Fee having Issue four Sons William Robert Bernard and John devised the Land in question in this manner I give my Land to my Son Bernard for his natural Life and after his decease I give the same to the Issue of his Body lawfully begotten on a second Wife and for want of such Issue to John Melling and his Heirs for ever Provided that Bernard may make a Joynture of all the Premisses to such second Wife which she may enjoy during her Life R.M. dies Bernard in the life of his first Wife suffered a Recovery to the use of himself in Fee and after her decease Marries a second Wife and then by Indenture covenants to stand seized to the use of himself for Life and after to the use of his Wife for her Life for her Joynture and dies J.M. Enters and makes a Lease to the Plaintiff And this Term after Arguments at the Bar the Court gave their Opinions Rainsford for the Plaintiff First I hold in this Case that B. M. takes but an Estate for Life with a Contingent Remainder to the Issue by his second Wife for the Devise is by express words for Life as in Archers Case 1 Co. a Devise to R. A. for Life and after to the next Heir Male of R. and the Heirs Males of that Heir Male Resolved to create but an Estate for Life to R. A. I rely mainly upon Wilds Case 6 Co. which was brought before all the Judges of England where the Devise was to a Man and his Wife and after their decease to the Children and resolved to be but an Estate for Life 't is true there were Children at the time of the Devise but in the end of the Case 't is said that in such Case if there were no Children the Children born after might take by remainder and the first Estate to be but for Life Clerk v. Day 1 Cro. 313. the Devise was to Rose his Daughter for Life and that if she married after his Death and had Heir of her Body then that the Heir after his Daughter's Death should have the Land and to the Heirs of their Body begotten and if his Daughter died without Issue then to a Stranger It was held by Gawdy and Fenner that Rose had but an Estate for Life in this Case 1 Rolls 837. Devise to his eldest Son for Life and after his decease to the Sons of his Body lawfully begotten the Son resolved to have but an Estate for Life The Second point Whether the power to make a Joynture be destroyed by the Common Recovery these powers to make Estates are of two sorts either Collateral as when Executors have power by a Will to sell Land and such a power cannot be destroyed as appears in Diggs's Case 1 Co. or powers appendant to Estates as to make Leases which shall continue after the Estates to which the power is annexed determins and the power in the Case at Bar to make a Joynture are of this second sort and are destroyed by the alteration of the Estate to which it is annexed in privity as 1 Co. Albany's Case is so that the Common Recovery being a Forfeiture of the Estate for Life by consequence 't is an extinguishment of the power Thirdly But admitting the power continues whether it be well executed and I hold that it is not for being seized in Fee at the time of the Covenant to stand seized to the use of his Wife for her Joynture and this without any reference to his power the use shall arise out of his Interest and not be executed by vertue of his power according to the resolution in Sir Ed. Cleeres Case 6 Co. Twisden of the same Opinion As to the first Point it must be agreed that these words Issue of the Body ex vi termini make not an Entail if they were in a Conveyance by Act executed no more than Children as the words were in Wilds Case 'T is true in a VVill a Devise of Land to a Man and his Issue creates an Entail if the Devisee had no Issue at that time for otherwise those words would be void for in regard they are limited to take presently the Issue born after cannot take as by Remainder there being none to take in praesenti they must be intended to be words of Limitation as a Devise to a Man and his Heirs Males makes an Entail or otherwise the word Males must be rejected then seeing the words in themselves are not proper to make an Entail the next thing to be considered is the intention which is to be known by the expressions in the VVill and not any averment dehors the words are J will give my Land to my Son for Life and after his decease I will give the same to the Issue c. so that the Land is given to him expresly for Life Devise of Land in perpetuum makes Fee but if Land be given by Deèd in perpetuum there an Estate only for Life will pass 15 H. 7. A Devise to one paying 10 l this is a Fee 6 Co. Coliers Case But a Devise to one for Life paying 10 l makes but an Estate for Life the Case of Furse and VVinter was Mich. or Trin. 13 Regis Caroli Rot. 1339. A Devise to his two Daughters equally to be divided between them and to the Survivor of them and to the Heirs of the Body of the Survivor This was so expresly to the Surviror that it was resolved to be a Joynt Estate and not in Common The words here are after the decease of Bernard I give the same to the Issue of the Body c. implying that the Issue should take by Purchase as a Gift and not by Descent Again The power given to Bernard to make a Joynture shews that he could not do it by Virtue of his Estate and therefore needed a power to be annexed And tho' such powers are usually affixed to Estates Tail yet when the construction is doubtful what Estate shall pass the giving such a power is an argument that 't is such an Estate that cannot make a Joynture or the like by any other means The words go further and for want of such Issue then to J.M. 'T is true if Land be devised to a Man and if he dies without Issue then to remain over the Devisee shall have an Entail Owen 29. But it shall not be so in this Case because that Clause is crowded in with other Clauses directly to the contrary I rely mainly upon VVilds Case 6 Co. and the Case quoted out of Bendlowes in the end of that Case A Devise to Baron and Feme and to the Men Children of their Bodies begotten because it did not appear that there were any more Children at

word Children My second Reason is from the manner of the Limitation which is to his Issue and of his Body lawfully begotten upon the second Wife Phrases agreeable to an Estate Tail and the meaning of a Testator is to be spelled out by little Hints It is admitted in Wild's Case in the 6 Co. 17. that if the Devise had been to the Children of their Bodies it would have been an Entail Thirdly It appears by the Devise that the Testator knew there could be no Children at that time and shall not be supposed to intend a contingent Remainder Fourthly It appears that the Testator did not intend to prefer the Children of the first Wife of Bernard but did the Children of the second and therefore cannot be thought to mean that John the younger Brother of Bernard should take before failure of the Issue which Bernard should have by his second Wife And to this purpose is Spalding's Case 3 Cro. 185. A Devise to his eldest Son and the Heirs of his Body after the death of his Wife and if he died living the Wife then to his Son N. And devised other Lands to another Son and the Heirs of his Body and if he died without Issue then to remain c. The first Son died living the Wife It was strongly urged that his Estate should cease for being said If he died living the Wife this was a Corrective of what went before But 't was Ruled by all the Court that it was an absolute Estate Tail in the first Son as if the words had been If he died without Issue living the Wife for he could not be thought to intend to prefer a younger Son before the Issue of his eldest Fifthly The words are further and for want of such Issue then to John which words in a Will do often make an Estate Tail by Implication As 4 Jac. Robinson's Case A Devise to A. for Life and if he died without Issue then to remain A. took an Entail So Burley's Case 43 Eliz. A Devise to A. for Life Remainder to the next Heir Male and for default of such Heir Male then to remain Adjudged an Estate Tail 'T is true Dyer 171. is where Lands were Devised to a man and the Heirs Males of his Body and if he died without Issue c. these last words did not make a Tail General to the Devisee For an Implication of an Estate of Inheritance shall never ride over an express limitation of an Inheritance before being 't is said here for want of such Issue the Land should remain 't is plainly meant that it should not before the Issue failed and then the Issue must have it so long for none else can and so 't is an Estate Tail I come now to Authorities 6 Eliz. Anderson num 86. Moor pl. 397. A Devise to his Son for Life and after his decease to the Men Children of his Body said to be an Estate Tail and so cited by Coke in that Book and so contrary to his Report of it in Wild's Case Bendloes num 124. But that Case is not so strong as this for Children is not so operative a word as Issue Rolls 839. A Devise to his eldest Son for Life non aliter for so were the words tho' not printed in the Book and after his decease to the Sons of his Body it was but an Estate for Life by reason of the words Non aliter Hill 13 Car. 2. Rot. 121. Wedgward's Case A Devise to his Son Thomas for Life and after his decease if he died without Issue living at his death then to the Daughter c. it was held to be an Estate for Life But were it an Estate Tail or no it was not necessary to be Resolved the Case depending upon the destruction or continuance of a Contingent Remainder which would have been gone had the Devise made an Estate Tail again there being an express Devise for Life they would not raise a larger Estate by Implication Again Wild's Case where Lands were Devised to A. for Life Remainder to B. and the Heirs of his Body Remainder to Wild and his Wife and after their decease to their Children And the Court of Kings-Bench were at first divided Indeed it was afterwards adjudged an Estate for Life to Wild and his Wife First Because having limited a Remainder in Tail to B. by express and the usual words if he had meant the same Estate in the second Remainder 't is like he would have used the same words Secondly It was not after their decease to the Children of their Bodies for then there would be an Eye of an Estate Tail Thirdly The main Reason was because there were Children at the time of the Devise and that was the only Reason the Resolution went upon in the Exchequer Chamber And tho' it be said in the latter end of the Case That if there were no Children at that time every Child born after might take by Remainder 't is not said positively that they should take And it seems to be in opposition to their taking presently but however that be it comes not to this Case For tho' the word Children may be made nomen collectivum the word Issue is nomen collectivum of it self Hill 42. and 43 Eliz. Bifield's Case A Devise to A. and if he dies not having a Son then to remain to the Heirs of the Testator Son was there taken to be used as nomen collectivum and held an Entail I come now to answer Objections First 'T is objected that in this Case the Limitation is expresly for Life and in that respect stronger than Wild's Case And this is the great difficulty But I Answer That tho' these words do weigh the Intention that way yet they are ballanced by an apparent Intention that weighs as much on the other side which is That as long as Bernard should have Children that the Land should never go over to John for there was as much reason to provide for the Issue of the Issue as the first Issue Again A Tenant in Tail has to many purposes but an Estate for Life Again 'T is possible that he did intend him but an Estate for Life and 't is by consequence and operation of Law only that it becomes an Estate Tail 1651. Hansy and Lowther The Case was A Copyholder surrendred to the use of his Will and Devised to his first Son for Life and after his decease to the Heir Male of his Body c. This was Ruled to be an Estate Tail and this differs from Archer's Case in the 1st of Co. for that the Devise there was for Life and after to the Heir Male and the Heirs of the Body of that Heir Male There the words of Limitation being grafted upon the word Heir it shews that the word Heir was used as Designatio personae and not for Limitation of the Estate So is the Case of Clerk and Day 1 Cro. 313. Another Objection was That there being a Power appointed

looks upon as the Medium that derives the one Discent from the other then the Attainder of the Father would hinder the Discent between the Brothers But the Attainder of the Father doth not hinder the Discent between the Brothers Therefore the Father is not such a Medium or Nexus as is look'd upon by Law as the means deriving such Discent between the two Brothers Both the former Propositions and indeed the Illustration and Enforcement of the whole reason will be evidenced by the comparison of three Cases the two former of the Cases evincing the truth of the first Proposition and the later proving the second Proposition The First is Gravers's Case 10 Eliz. Dyer 274. The younger Brother hath Issue and is attaint of Treason and dies the elder Brother having a Title to a Petition of Right dies without Issue without a Restitution the other Brothers Son hath lost that Title for though that Title were in an Ancestor that was not attainted yet his Father that is the Medium whereby he must convey that Title was Attainted and so the Discent is obstructed On the other side the Case of Courtney in Cro. Car. 241. Henry Courtney had Issue Edward and is attaint of Treason and dies Edward purchaseth Lands and dies without Issue the Sisters and Sisters Children of Henry are disabled to inherit Edward yet neither Edward nor his Aunts were attainted nor their Blood corrupted as is before manifested but only Henry tho' the Land could not discend immediately from Edward yet because he who nevertheless was the Medium whereby the Aunts must derive their Pedigree and Consanguinity to Edward was attainted the Discent was obstructed till a restitution in Blood But suppose that the Grandfather of Edward was attainted and not Henry this could not have hindred the Discent from Edward to his Aunts because the Attainder had been paramount that Consanguinity which was between Henry and his Sisters as Brothers and Sisters and that is proved by the third Case In 40 41 Eliz. in the Exchequer Hobbies Case William Hobby had Issue Philip and Mary and is attainted of Treason and dies Philip purchaseth Lands and dies without Issue Ruled that notwithstanding the Attainder Mary shall inherit because the Discent between Philip and Mary was immediate and the Law regards not the disability of the Father and in that Case all the Reasons that have been objected against the Discent in the Case at Bar were objected If it be objected that in that Case the Mother was not attainted which might preserve the Legal Blood between Philip and Mary I Answer That that would not serve admitting the disability of the Parents were not at all considerable for if it disable the Blood of the Father which is derived to the Son it would infallibly destroy the Discent to Mary the Sister for she could not inherit her Brother in the capacity of Heir to the part of the Mother if by the Attainder she had been disabled to take as Heir by the Fathers Blood 49 E. 3. 12. If the Heir on the part of the Father be attainted the Land shall escheat and shall never discend to the Heir of the Mother because notwithstanding the Attainder the Law looks upon it as in esse but otherwise it is in case of an Alien as hath been before shewn for if the Son purchase Land and have no Kindred on the part of his Father but an Alien it shall discend to the Heir of the part of the Mother And altho' the Blood both of the Father and the Mother were in Mary yet if she were disabled in the Blood of her Father by his Attainder she could never intitle her self by the Blood of her Mother I have done with this Reason there remain two Principal Objections to be answered Object 1. The Father in the Case at Bar is the Fountain from whence the Blood of John and George is derived and their Consanguinity ariseth not from one to another but from their Father which is the common vinculum to them both and therefore this disability in the Parents destroys the Civil Relation of Hereditary Blood between the two Brothers I Answer First The very same Objection might be and indeed was made in Hobbies Case but prevailed not Secondly But further no man will say but that the Blood of the Father and Mother are necessary to derive Consanguinity in the Son for the Blood of the Father without the Mother is impossible to be derived to the Children and yet no man will deny that if the one or the other were Denizen born their Children should inherit one the other Thirdly But the truth is the Father and the Mother are the Blood Natural to both the Sons but it is the Law into which by their Birth or Naturalization they are translated that is the Fountain of the Civil or Hereditary Blood the Parents are the common Vinculum the Fonntain of their Blood that aliquod tertium in quo conveniunt in regno naturali but it is the Law of the Land into which by their birth or naturalization they are transplanted the Commune Vinculum that aliquod tertium in quo conveniunt in Regno Civili Object 2. But all their blood that they have is derived from their Parents and they can take no other blood but what they have from them and if that blood which the Parents transmit be stained and void of Hereditary Quality no hereditary blood can intervene between them I Answer It is true that their natural blood is derived from their Parents and as it is that that makes them Brothers Sons so it is that that makes them their blood but yet the civil qualification of their blood which makes them inheritable one to the other is from another Fountain viz. the Law of the Land and this Law finding them Legitimate untrinque conjunctos sanguine parentali naturali and so natural Brothers and finding them transplanted into the civil rights of this Kingdom by their birth here or Naturalization which is all one doth superinduce and close the natural Consanguinity with a civil hereditary Quality whereby they may inherit one the other For Instance A. Grandfather and B. his Wife both Aliens have Issue C. a Son born here who hath Issue D. a Son also born here No body can deny that C. hath all his natural blood from A. and B. and no where else nor is that blood that he hath so from them an inheritable blood yet is it unquestionable that D. shall inherit C. and D. hath no natural blood but what he hath from C. nor C. no natural blood but what he hath from A. and B. But true it is the Law doth superinduce that civil hereditary Quality upon the blood of C. by his birth in England tho' as he took it from his Father and Mother it was void of that Quality the Law of Nature made him indeed Son but it was the Law of England that gave him a capacity to be an

the Estate had fully declared his Intention There is a difference where a man has power to make Leases c. which shall charge and incumber a third persons Estate such Powers are to have a rigid Construction but where the Power is to dispose of a mans own Estate it is to have all the favour imaginable It was offered by the Counsel That where Tenant in Tail did bargain and sell his Estate that seeing he had power over it notwithstanding there were no Fine and Recovery a Court of Equity should Decree against the Heir But my Lord Chancellor said that he would not supersede Fines and Recoveries but where a man was only Tenant in Tail in Equity there this Court should Decree such disposition good for a Trust and Equitable Interest is a Creature of their own and therefore disposable by their Rule Otherwise where the Entail was of an Estate in the Land Nota In the Case supra that the Court would not Decree the Infants to be foreclosed till they come of Age tho' sometimes 't is so done because this Mortgage depended upon a disputable Title and so no Money could be expected upon Assignment of it over Termino Paschae Anno 33 Car. II. In Cancellaria Sir Thomas Littleton's Case IN this Case my Lord Chancellor Declared 1. That it was a constant Rule That the Money to be paid upon Mortgages in Fee whether forfeit or not before the death of the Mortgagee that it should go to the Executor 2. If a man had Lands in Fee and other Lands mortgaged to him in Fee by a Devise of all his Lands the Mortgage would pass 3. If a man had but the Trust of a Mortgage of Lands in D. and had other Lands in D. by a Devise of all his Lands in D. the Trust would pass But here a Will devised Lands to J. S. in D. S. and T. and all his Lands elsewhere when he had a Mortgage of Lands that did not lye in D. S. or T. which were of more value than the Lands in D. S. and T. The Decree was that the Mortgage should not pass for he could not be thought to mean to comprehend Lands of so much value under the word elsewhere which is like an c. that comes in currente calamo and besides that there were some other Circumstances in the Will that did seem as if he intended not to pass the Mortgage Lands Anonymus A Bill was Exhibited setting forth That the Defendant in a Replevin had avowed for a Rent-charge and Issue was taken thereupon upon the Seisin of the Grantor and it was found for the Defendant Which Verdict the Plaintiff complained of alledging that the Rent pretended to be granted had not been paid in 50 years and other Circumstances to render the Grant suspicious c. The Lord Chancellor Decreed That there should be a New Trial the Complainant paying the Costs of the former Note This could not have been tryed again at Law because the Verdict in Replevin is conclusive Cage versus Russel A Feme Covert having Power by her Will to Devise certain Lands devised them to her Executors to pay 500 l out of them to her Son when he should attain the Age of One and twenty years provided that if the Father of the Son did not give a sufficient Release to the Executors of the Goods and Chattels remaining in such an House then the Devise of the 500 l should be void and to go to the Executors After her Decease a Release was tendred to the Father who refused it and then the Son exhibits a Bill against the Father and the Executors for the 500 l and to compell the Father to Release The Executors in their Answer insisted upon the Refusal as a Forfeiture of the 500 l And the Father said That tho' he had for some Reasons before refused he was now ready to Release The Lord Chancellor Decreed the Payment of the 500 l and said that it was the standing Rule of the Court That a Forfeiture should not bind where a thing may be done afterwards or any Compensation made for it As where the Condition was to pay Money or the like But in the Case of Fry and Porter in the 22th of Car. 2 which see at large in the Modern Reports where a Devise was of an House upon Condition that the Devisee should Marry with the Consent of three persons and she married without Consent it was an immediate Forfeiture for Marriage without Consent was a thing of that nature that no after Satisfaction could be made for it But if where there is a Devise over to a third Person after a Forfeiture by the first a Forfeiture in such a Case would be generally binding but here 't is said that it shall go the Executors c. which was not to be considered because it is no more than what the Law implied Termino Sancti Michaelis Anno 33 Car. II. In Cancellaria Anonymus ONe Deviseth 250 l to his Son and makes his Wife Executrix who marries another Husband In a Bill brought against them for the Legacy by the Son the Defendants would have discounted Maintenance and Education Which was not permitted by the Court so as to a diminish the principal Sum for it was said that the Mother ought to maintain the Child But a Sum of Money paid for the binding of him out an Apprentice was allowed to be discounted Note It is the Course here that where a man dies in Debt and under several Incumbrances viz. Judgments Statutes Mortgages c. and the Heir at Law buys in any of them that are of the first Date if those which have the latter Securities prefer their Bill the Incumbrances brought in shall not stand in their way for more than the Heir really paid for them Goylmer versus Paddiston THe Case was thus Thomas Goylmer in 1653. being seised of certain Lands in Fee of the value of 14 l per annum and there being a Marriage in Treaty between the Plaintiff the Brother of Thomas and Anne Wells the said Thomas did make a Writing sealed and delivered by him which was to this purpose Viz. That if the Marriage takes effect between my Brother and Ann Wells she being worth Eightscore Pounds I do promise that if I dye without Issue to give my Lands in c. to my Brother and his Heirs or to leave him 80 l in Money And for the true performance of this I bind my self my Heirs Executors and Administrators After which the Brother the now Plaintiff and the said Anne Wells did intermarry and she was worth Eightsocore pounds But Thomas Goylmer did afterwards marry and having no Issue he did settle the Lands upon his Wife for Life the Remainder to his own right Heirs this way a Joynture setled before Marriage and did afterwards devise the Land to her in Fee and died without Issue His Wife afterwards devised it to the Defendant's Wife in Fee and now the Plaintiff exhibited

should be informed what their course is and has been and therefore let us hear the Civilians as to this point Post The King and Marlow THe Defendant being a Printer was indicted for his second Offence for Printing of a Seditious Book contrary to the Act of 14 Car. 2. cap. 33. and being found Guilty at the Sessions of the Old Baily the Iudgment was given That he should be for ever disabled to exercise the Art or Mistery of Printing and pay 20 l Fine and to stand in the Pillory And a Writ of Error was brought and Errors were assigned in the Judgment as varying from the words of the Act. For First The Act is That he should be disabled to exercise the Art and Mistery of Printing or Founding of Letters And the Judgment is only to disable him from Printing Secondly The Act is That he shall receive such further punishment by Fine Imprisonment or other Corporal Punishment And the Judgment is both for a Fine and Corporal Punishment when it ought not to be for both Curia The first is as it should be for Printing and Founding of Letters are two distinct Trades and the words are to be taken respectively to such Trade as the Defendant is of Again 't is a Rule that a Man shall not Assign an Error in that which is for his advantage But the second was held an Error for that the Act did not intend a Fine and Corporal Punishment both and therefore the Judgment was reversed Termino Sancti Michaelis Anno 29 Car. II. In Banco Regis Davis versus Price IN Error upon a Judgment in the Common Bench in an Action of Trover where Iudgment was given by default The Error was assigned in the Declaration which was de decem Juvencis Anglice Bullocks and Heifers and not said how many of one and of the other But it was answered that the Latin word being proper and of known signification the Anglice was void according to Osborns Case 10 Co. But the Court reversed the Judgment and cited the Case before in this Court Trover de viginti ovibus matricibus agnis And it was resolved to be naught for not ascertaining the number of each But Twisden said there was a Trover brought de Viginti averiis ivz. Bobus agnis c. and Viginti was applied to each Species and held well It was offered in this case to distinguish it from the case de Ovibus matricibus agnis that there the Latin was of two sorts Sed non allocatur for the words here being Equivocal it was all one Dutton versus Pool AN Assumpsit the Plaintiff declared That his Wives Father being seized of certain Lands now descended to the Defendant and about to cut a Thousand pounds worth of Timber off from the said Lands to raise a Portion for his said Daughter the Defendant promised to the Father in Consideration that he would forbear to fell the Timber that he would pay the said Daughter 1000 l After Verdict upon Non Assumpsit for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that the Father ought to have brought this Action and not the Husband and Wife and there was a case shewn to be adjudged in the Common Bench Hillary 23 and 24 Car. 2. Rot. 1538. between Pine and Norris where the Son promised the Father that in Consideration that he would Surrender a Copyhold to him that he would pay a certain Sum to his Sister for which she brought the Action and then held that it would lie for none but the Father for where the Party to whom the Promise is to be performed is not concerned in the meritorious cause of it he cannot bring the Action But if a Promise were to a Man that if his Daughter should Marry his Son he would give her 1000 l there because the Daughter does the Act which is the Consideration she may bring the Action On the contrary the Case was cited 1 Rolls 32. Starkey and Miln where in Consideration of certain Goods sold the Promise was to pay part of the Money to another there that other might bring the Action And it differs from the case where Money is delivered to A. to pay over to B. B. may bring Debt Yelv. 24. If the Father had in the Case at Bar cut the Trees And the Son had said Let me have the Trees and I will pay the Daughter so much that had been the same with the Case before cited 1 Roll. and it doth not seem to differ as it is 1 Cro. 163. Rookwook Case where the Father being about to charge the Land with a Rent of 4 l per Annum to his Younger Sons the Eldest promised that if he would forbear to charge the Land he would pay the 4 l per Annum and the Sons upon this brought the Assumpsit and recovered Sed vide librum that Promise is said expresly to be made to the Sons who were present Vid. 1 Cro. 619.652 Levett and Haws Case where the Promise was made to a Man in Consideration that he had agreed that his Son should Mary his Daughter and to settle such a Joynture upon her that he would give the Son 200 l with her and for this the Father brought the Action and held well brought tho' the Court seemed to incline that the Son might also have brought it And the Court here inclined for the Plaintiffs Sed Adjornatur Post Saunders versus Williams IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff Declared that he was seised in Fee of one Acre and possessed for a certain number of years in another Acre and had a Common in Black-acre for Beasts levant and couchant thereupon and that the Defendant put his Beasts in the place and disturbed him The Defendant pleaded a Title of Common to himself also there Vpon which Issue was joyned and found for the Plaintiff and it was now moved in Arrest of Judgment that the Plaintiff had made no Title to the Common by Prescription or otherwise Sed non allocatur The Defendant being a Wrong-doer And the same Matter was Adjudged in the Court between St. John and Moody St. Mich. 27 Car. 2. quod vide ante and in the 2 Cro. 43.122 3 Cro. 500. Robinson versus Woolly THe Case was this Term Argued again And Holt Argued That the Induction tho' executed by the Archdeacon after the New Bishop was Consecrated was sufficient The Bishop is only to Admit and Institute and to send a Mandate to the Archdeacon to Induct who is to do it de communi Jure and therefore if the Bishop hath Admitted and Instituted and made a Mandate for Induction 't is a sufficient Excuse for him in a Quare impedit 11 H. 4. 9. for the Bishop is meerly a Spiritual Officer A Prebendary is to be Inducted by the Dean and Chapter Pl. Com. 529. But 't is Objected That the Archdeacon does not Induct ex Officio ●ut a Mandate from the Bishop is requisite scilicet First The

because the Intent of the parties appears that it should be so There 's no great difference between the Construction of a Deed of Uses and a Will 13 H. 7. The Wife takes an Estate for Life by Implication where the Land is devised to the eldest Son after her decease Manning and Andrew's Case in 1 Leon. 259. The Reason of these Cases is the fulfilling of the Intention of the Parties and here this Limitation cannot be made good by way of a Future Use nor by any other way but only by creating of an Estate for Life in Michael the Father by Implication and this is according to the nature of a Covenant to stand seiz'd For the Use is not to pass out of the Covenantor till the proper time for the subsequent Estate to commence As to my Lord Paget's Case 't was his Intention to have the Use during his Life And my Lord Coke was certainly very well satisfied with the Resolution in Fenwick and Mitford's Case when he wrote his Institutes for he Argued before to the contrary as appears by the Report of that Case in Moor. Rainsford Justice to the same Intent If no Use rises immediately to Ralph yet if a Use rises by the Deed so that he has the Land any way be it by discent from his Father 't is within the Conclusion of the Verdict By the scope of the Conveyance it appears that it was intended that Robert should never have his Land till Twelve hundred Pound was paid for the provision of younger Children so that if Robert should have it it would be against the Intention of Michael There are two Reasons and Grounds in Law by which we may make this Deed agree with the Intention of the Parties First Because it is in the Case of an Estate Tail ubi voluntas donatoris observari debet Secondly It is in a Conveyance setled by way of Use and in Cases of Uses the Intention of the parties ought to be pursued And this is in Case of a Use that rises by Covenant to stand seiz'd which makes the Case the stronger And I conceive this is not a void Limitation but such an one as gives an Estate to Ralph In speaking to which I shall observe what my Lord Coke in the 1 Inst 23. says viz. That so much of the Use as the Owner of the Land does not dispose of remains in him c. and so in Cownden and Clark's Case in Hob. 30. And this is the Reason of Bingham's Case 1 Co. 91. Now here when Michael Covenanted to stand seiz'd to the Vse of his Heirs Male on the Body of his second Wife begotten I conceive he shall retain the Land as parcel of his ancient Vse during his Life for non est Haeres viventis according to Archer's Case 1 Co. And that Michael shall retain an Estate for Life is prov'd by my Lord Paget's Case 1 Co. 154. Dyer 310. N. 79. 1 Co. Chudleigh's Case 129. 2 Rolls 788. 21 H. 7. 18. From my Lord Paget's Case upon which I shall rely and the other Cases it appears that were there 's a Limitation to one after the death of another the Covenantor shall retain the Land during the Life of the other and here in our Case this Estate not taking effect till after the Death of Michael he shall retain the Estate and shall be Tenant for Life of the old Vse Now the Question is Whether Ralph shall take by Discent or Purchase And I conceive this Estate for Life with the Remainder in Tail makes but one Estate Tail in Michael and that he becomes Tenant in Tail and so Ralph shall take as Heir in Tail I shall not trouble my self whether Ralph may take here as a Purchaser because in Cownden and Clark's Case in Hob. it is Resolved that he cannot take as Heir Male of the Body by Purchase because all the words are not verified in him for he is not Heir I shall rely upon the First Point That here is an Estate Tail executed in Michael For when an Estate for Life is in the Auncestor by way of Retainer and an Estate is afterwards limited to his Heirs this is within the Rule put in Shelley's Case in 1 Co. where the Auncestor takes an Estate of Freehold and by the same Conveyance an Estate is limited to his Heirs Mediately or Immediately they are Words of Limitation and not of Purchase because the Heir is part of his Father Our Case is stronger that Fenwick and Mitfords Case It s true the same Reason for that Case is not given by Anderson and More which is given by my Lord Coke More 437. There the Reason is because the Limitation to the right Heirs is merely void here Michael hath an Estate in Tail of the ancient Use therefore 't is not necessary for the Law to create an Estate for Life Obj. That this cannot be an Estate Tail executed in Michael because the Estate for Life is not by the same Limitation but by Construction of Law But my Lord Coke says in Fenwick and Mitfords Case 1 Inst 22. b. that there is no difference where the Estate is created by Law and where by the Deed. 1 Anderson 259. and the Law retaining an Estate in Michael for Life our Case is the same as if the Estate had been limited to him with the Remainder to his Heirs Male begotten on his second Wife which would be an Estate Tail executed in Michael and would have discended to Ralph Twisden Justice for the Plaintiff I hold there 's no Use raised to Ralph by this Deed. We are here in the construction of a Deed and not of a Will It may be an Estate should be raised in such a case by a Will altho' my Lord Hobart is of a contrary Opinion I agree the Case of Hodgkinson and Wood Cro. Car. 23. but it cannot be argued from thence that it shall be so in a Deed for a Devise is not to take effect till after the Death of the Devisor and then 't is apparent that he is Heir Male of his Body It hath been agreed that Heirs Male of the Body are words of purchase It is plain that Ralph cannot take as Special Heir unless by Purchase and that he cannot do because he who shall take by virtue of such a Limitation ought to be Heir as well as Issue Male and Ralph here cannot take by vertue of the Statute de Donis Conditionalibis because none can take as Special Heir but where his Ancestor took before and therefore this Limitation is utterly void To make this Limitation good divers ways have been urged First That this Deed has an operation by way of returning of the Use and it has been compared to my Lord Pagets Case which differs from it here cannot be any part of the old Use in Michael for if he hath an Estate for Life it ought to be a new Use It cannot be a returning Use for the Limitation to the Heirs Male of the Body

for if a Man Covenants to stand seized to a Contingent Use and afterwards is attainted of Treason before the Contingency happen the Contingency shall never rise for the King has the Estate discharged and the Use is to rise out of the Estate of the Covenantor so is Moor Sir Tho Palmers Case 815 In Moors Rep. of my Lord Pagets Case 194. It s said that W. Paget had an Amoveas manus for the Estate of the Queen leased by the Death of my Lord Paget In Sir Francis Englefeilds Case Popham 18. n. 7. It s resolved that no Use rises because t is that it shall Discend Remain or Come which is uncertain but if he had Covenanted that after his Death he and his Heirs would have stood seized to the Use of John an Use would have resulted to Sir Francis Second Point I conceive if it be impossible for Ralph to take by Discent this would be a Contingent Use in him by Purchase The great Objection against this is that the Limitation is to an Heir and an Heir which ought to take by Purchase ought not to be only Heir of the Body c. but Heir general Of this I am not well satisfied I conceive the Remainder being limited to the Heirs of the Body of Jane begotten by Michael such a Limitation will make a special Heir to serve the turn and t is not to be resembled to Shelley's Case My Reasons are First Because at the Common Law before the Statute de Donis notice was taken that this was a special Heir and therefore 't is no wrong done to make him here a qualified Heir In the Statute de Donis 't is said When Lands are given to Man and his Wife and the Heirs of their two Bodies begotten Secondly Vpon the special penning of the Deed it is apparent that Michael took notice that he had an Heir at Common Law therefore it can't be intended that he meant here such an Heir that should be Heir general to him this would be Contradictio in Adjecto Litt. Sect. 352. puts this Case If a Feoffment be made upon Condition that the Feoffee shall give the Land to the Feoffor and his Wife and the Heirs of their two Bodies begotten In this Case if the Husband dye living his Wife before the Estate Tail is granted to them the Feoffee ought to make the Estate as near the Condition and as near the intent of the Condition as may be viz. To let the Land to the Wife for her Life without impeachment of Wast the Remainder to the Heirs of the Body of the Husband on her begotten If the Husband and Wife dye before the Gift made then the Feoffee ought to make it to the Issue and to the Heirs of the Body of his Father and Mother begotten Suppose that this had been to a second Wife and there had been Issue by a former the Book of 12 H. 4. 3. says that there it shall be in another manner but Litt. says it shall be as near vid. Litt. Sect. 22. Morevils Case Fitzh Tail 23. 2 Ed. 3. 1. 4. Ed. 3. 50. by all these Cases it appears that no regard is had whether the Son be Heir of the Husband if he be Heir of their two Bodies Therefore it seems that by this Limitation Ralph shall take by way of Contingent Remainder For Heirs of the Body of the second Wife is a good name of Purchase I have not read any Case against this Hill 16. or 26 Eliz. there was this Case A Man taking notice in his Will that his Brother who was dead had a Son and that he himself had three Daughters who were his right and immediate Heirs he gave them 2000 l and gave his Land to the Son of his Brother by the name of his Heir Male. Provided If his Daughters troubled his Heir then the Devise of the 2000 l to them should be void And it was resolved that the Devisor taking notice that others were his Heirs the Limitation to his Brothers Son by the name of Heir Male was a good name of Purchase and this agrees with Cownden and Clarks Case in Hob. Wild Justice said he was of the same Opinion with Hale in this last Point And Iudgment was given for the Defendant Three Learned ARGUMENTS One in the Court of Kings-Bench BY Sir FRANCIS NORTH Attorny General And Two in the Court of Exchequer BY Sir MATTHEW HALE Chief Baron there The Argument of Sir Francis North. In Banco Regis Potter and Sir Henry North. IN a Replevin for taking of an Horse in a certain place called the Fenn at Milden-Hall in the County of Suffolk the Defendant makes Cognizance as Bayliff to Sir Henry North and saith That the place Where c. containeth Ten thousand Acres of Pasture in Milden-Hall whereof a certain place called Delfe is parcel and that it is Sir Henry North's Freehold and the Horse was Damage feasant there c. The Plaintiff Replies Confessing the Soyl to be the Freehold of Sir Henry Norths but says That time whereof c. the place Where hath been parcel of the Fenn and parcel of the Mannor of Milden-Hall of which Sir Henry North is seised in Fee and that the Plaintiff was at the time c. seised of an Ancient Messuage one of the Freeholds holden of the Mannor by Rents and Services and parcel of the said Mannor and that Time out of Mind there were divers ancient Freehold Messuages holden of the said Mannor by Rents and Services and divers Copyhold Messuages parcel of the said Mannor by Custom of the said Mannor demised and demisable by Copy of Court Rolls of the said Mannor And the several Tenants of the said Freehold Tenements being seised in their Demesn as of Fee and they whose Estate they have in the same Time out of mind have had together with the Customary Tenants of the said Customary Tenements the sole and several Feeding of 100 Acres of Pasture for all Beasts except Hogs Sheep and Northern Steers levant and couchant upon their several Freeholds every year at all times of the year as to their several Freeholds belonging And that within the said Mannor there is and Temps d'ont c. hath been such a Custom that the several Tenants of the Customary Messuages together with the Freeholders aforesaid have used and accustomed to have the sole and several Feeding of the said 100 Acres of Pasture for all their Beasts except Sheep Hogs and Northern Steers levant and couchant upon their several Copy-holds every year at all times in the year tanquam ad seperal ' Tenementa customar ' spectant ' pertinent ' and the Plaintiff being seised put in his Horse c. and so Iustifies Vpon this the Defendant demurs generally This Prescription is naught in substance and Judgment ought to be given for the Defendant upon these Four Exceptions First That several Freeholders cannot joyn or be joyned in a Prescription to claim an entire Interest in another mans Soyl as

Alien they might inherit their Mother and consequently they might inherit one the other It hath been endeavoured to be Answered that it is not possible the Mother could be an English Woman because the Sons are found to be Aliens But that will not be so altho' an English Man marry an Alien beyond the Seas and having there Issue the Issue will be Denizens as hath been often Resolved Yet it is without question that if an English Woman go beyond the Seas and marry an Alien and have Issue born beyond the Seas the Issue are Aliens for the Wife was sub potestate viri and yet the Issue born in England should inherit tho' the Husband be an Alien But the true Answer is That in this Case Robert the Husband being an Alien born out of the Allegiance of the Crown of England and marrying and having all his Issues born there She shall not be presumed an English Woman but shall be presumed a Native in Scotland where her Husband lived and had Issue unless the contrary had been expresly found Now touching the Point in question it is true that Sir Edw. Coke in his Littl. fo 8. is of another Opinion He says That if an Alien have two Sons born in England and one dye without Issue the other shall not inherit him But I take the Law to be the contrary First I will shew what Reasons do not move me Secondly What Reasons do convince and satisfie me It doth not move me thus to conclude because there is no defectus Parriae or Nationis or Ligeantiae of either of the Brothers for tho' there be no personal defect in either of the Extreams yet it may be possible that a consequential Impediment arising from another Ancestor may hinder the Discent and this is apparent in the Case in question for Patrick the Son of Nicholas the Elder Brother of John the Earl hath no Defectus Ligeantiae for he was naturalized yet the Land shall not Discend from John the Earl to Patrick by reason of the defect of Nicholas his Father neither doth it move me that George or John his Son do not claim the Land from Robert the Father but from John the Earl for if the Grandfather be seized the Father is an Alien The Son of Denizen born the Father dies in the Life of the Grandfather the Son shall not inherit by reason of the defect of the Father tho' he claim nothing from him but from the Grandfather But the Reasons that satisfie me are these three in order as they are propounded My first Reason is because the Discent from a Brother to a Brother tho' it be a Collateral Discent yet it is an Immediate Discent and consequently upon what hath been premised at first unless we can find a disability or impediment in them no impediment in another Ancestor will hinder the Discent between them Now to prove this Discent immediate I shall use these three ensuing Instances or Evidences First In point of Pleading one Brother shall derive himself as Heir to another without mentioning another Ancestor this hath been at large insisted on by others and therefore I shall pass it over Secondly According to the computation of Degrees according to the Laws of England Brother and Brother make one Degree and the Brother is distant from his Brother and Sister in the first degree of Consanguinity According to the Civil Law the Brother is in the second Degre from the Brother for they make one Degree from the Brother to the Father and from the Father a second Degree to the other Brother but yet they say in Collaterals Nullus est proximior Fratre ideoque in Collateralibus nullus est primus Gradus sed secundus Gradus obtinet vocem primi Inst lib. 3. Tit. B. de Gradibus Consaguinitatis According to the Cannon Law Frater Frater Soror Soror sunt in primo Gradu Decret ' gratian Laus 35. quest 5. ad sedem and therefore their Laws prohibiting Marriage in the fourth Degree take Brother and Sister to be the first Degree of the fourth The Laws of England in computation of the Degrees of Consanguinity agree with the Common Law and reckon the Brother and Brother to be the first Degree and this is apparent by Littl ' sect 20. and the Objection of Lord Coke thereupon and the Book of 31 E. 3. Hollands Case cited by Littleton And with this likewise agrees the Laws and Custome of Normandy which tho' in some things they differ from the Law of England as is before observed yet in this particular and divers other touching Discents they agree with it Vid. Glov Com. super Customeir de Normandy in Cap. de Escheat Et doir un ' Scavoir que tonque le Custome de paijs de Normandy pur compter les Degrees en Line Collateral solonque les Cannoists deux freres ont le primier Degree eont que en Degree My third Evidence that the Discent between Brothers is immediate this viz. the Discent between Brothers differs from all others Collateral Discents whatsoever for in other Discents Collateral the half Blood doth inherit but in a Discent between Brothers the half Blood doth impede the Discent which argues that the Discent is immediate The Vncle of the part of the Father hath no more of the Blood of the Mother than the Brother of the Second Venter The Brother by the second Venter hath the immediate Blood of the Father which the Vncle viz the Fathers Brother hath not but only as they meet in the Grandfather The Brother of the half Blood is nearer of Blood than the Vncle and therefore shall be preferred in the Administration And so it hath been resolved in 5 E. 6. in Browns Case and tho' the Book of 5 E. 6. B. Administration 47. mistakes the Law in preferring the Brother of the half Blood before the Mother yet it had been right in the case of a Competition between him and the Vncle. And yet the Vncle is preferred in the Discent before the Brother of the half Blood and the reason is because that is a mediate Discent mediante Patre but the Discent to the Brother must be immediate if at all and therefore the half Blood impedes it Again it is apparent that if in the Line between Brother and Brother the Law took notice of the Father as the Medium thereof the Brother by the second Venter should rather succeed the other Brother because he is Heir to his Father therefore in a Discent between Brothers the Law respects only the mediate relation of the Brothers as Brothers and not in respect of their Father tho' it is true the Bosom or Foundation of their Consanguinity is in the Father and Mother My second principal Reason is to prove that the disability of the Father doth not at all hinder the Discent between the Brothers immediate is this If the Father in case of a Discent between Brothers were such an Ancestor as the Law

ipse paratus est verificare Quam quidem materiam praedicta Priscilla non dedic ' nec ad eam aliqualit ' respondit set verificacon ' illam admittere omnino recusavit ut prius per ' Judic ' quod praed ' Priscilla ab accone sua praed ' versus eum habend ' praecludatur c. Et quia Justic ' hic se advisare volunt de super p̄missis praed ' priusquam Judic ' inde reddant dies dat' est partibus praed ' hic usque à die Sancti Michaelis in tres Septimanas de audiendo inde Judicio suo eo quod idem Justic ' hic nondum inde c. Priscilla Web Widow versus Moore THe Plaintiff Declared in an Action upon the Case upon Five several Promises one whereof was upon a Quantum meruit for finding Meat and Drink for the Defendant at his Request The Defendant pleaded in Bar an Outlawry of the Plaintiff in this manner viz. Quod quidam S.C. al' scilicet Termino Sanctae Trinitat ' anno regni nuper Regis Jacobi secundi tertio implacitavit p̄d ' Priscillam in Cur ' dicti nuper Regis de Banco hic de placito trangres praedict ' quae Priscilla pro eo quod non venit in praedict ' Cur ' de B. praed ' praefat ' S. C. inde responsur ' secundum legem consuetud ' hujus regni Angl ' in Exigendo posita fuit ad utlagand ' in Com' Wiltes ' ea ratione postea scilicet quinto decimo die Maij anno regni dicti nuper Regis quarto in Com' Wiltes ' praed ' debito juris modo ad Sectam praed ' S. C. waviata fuit adhuc waviata existit prout per recordum processum inde eadem Cur ' dicti nuper de Banco praed retornat ' modo residens plen ' liquet Quae quidem Utlagaria adhuc in suis robore effectu remanet minime reversat ' seu annihilat ' hoc parat ' est verificare per Recordum illud unde pet ' Judicium si action ' c. And to this Plea the Plaintiff Demurred 1. For the Outlawry could not be pleaded in Bar to an Assumpsit upon a Quantum meruit for there is no certainty of Debt appearing till the thing comes to be valued and so cannot be forfeited It was doubted Whether Debt upon a Simple Contract was forfeited till 4 Co. Slade's Case But it was Resolved by the Court in this Case that the Outlawry was a good Plea in Bar for the Consideration created a Debt tho' that Debt was not reduced to a certain Sum. Markham and Pitt in 3 Leon. 205. Outlawry pleaded in Bar to Trover where it lies all in Damages But this Action arose upon a property of Goods which would have been forfeited 3 Leon. 197. where the King had granted all Forfeitures that accrued to him by the Outlawry of J. S. and the Grantee brought an Action But an Exception was taken to the pleading of the Outlawry for it ought to have been set forth that the Plaintiff did not appear upon the Exigent and upon that waviata fuit debito juris modo is too general Fitzherb Account 91. Traverse 31. Stamford 148. And of this the Court doubted and appointed to search Presidents of the Pleading Et Adjornatur Kempe versus Cory al' Quod vide ante ultimo Termino THe Case was now moved again and as to the Matter in Law it was held clear that where A. is seised of a Third part in Common and B. of the other two parts in Common with A. and A. let his Third part reserving Rent and B. puts in his Cattle or a Stranger by his License that such Cattle are not Distrainable for the Rent But the Doubt was because the Avowry was in loco in quo ut in super praedict ' tertiam partem c. Whether the Plaintiff should not have traversed the Taking in tertia parte tantum Vide the Case of Newman and Moor in Hob. 80. 103. And note there that the Traverse was held unnecessary And the Court held clearly that it would have been impertinent to make a Traverse in this Case for the Matter in the Avowry was confessed and avoided CASES Adjudged upon Writs of ERROR IN THE Exchequer Chamber Termino Sancti Michaelis Anno 1 W. M. BY Pollexfen Chief Justice Powell Justices Rokeby Justices Ventris Justices Atkyns Chief Baron Nevill Barons Lechmore Barons Turton Barons Willows versus Lydcot VPon a Writ of Error upon a Iudgment in Ejectment in B.R. which was brought for a Messuage in St. Martins in the Fields Vpon the General Issue pleaded and a Special Verdict found the Point was to this effect William Shelton was seised in Fee of the said Messuage and of dvers other Messuages situate in the said Parish of St. Martin and other Parishes and made his Will in Writing and thereby Devised his Houses in the other Parishes to divers Charitable Vses and then devised to one Edward Harris and Mary his Wife the Messuage in question for their Lives and then in the following Clause the better to enable his Wsfe to pay his Legacies he devised all his Messuages Lands Tenements and Hereditaments whatsoever within the Kingdom of England not above disposed of to have and to hold to her and her Assigns for ever and made her Executrix And the Verdict was found That Edward Harris and Mary his Wife were dead and that the Testator left sufficient to his Wife to pay his Legacies without the Reversion of the said Messuages devised to Harris and his Wife That the Lessor of the Plaintiff was Heir at Law to the Testator and that the Defendants claimed from Anne Wife of the Testator c. si super totam materiam c. And Judgment was given in the Kings Bench for the Plaintiff And upon a Writ of Error brought in the Exchequer-Chamber it was this Term Argued before the Justices and Barons and by the Opinion of them all the Judgment was Reversed For they held that there were words in the Devise to the Testators Wife that would carry the Reversion of this House as an Hereditament undis●o●d of Vide the Case of Wh●eler and Walroon in Allen's Rep. 28. one having a Mannor and other Lands in Somerset-shire Devised the Mannor to A. for Six years and part of the other Lands to B. in Fee and then comes this Clause and the rest of my Lands in Somersetshire or elsewhere I give to my Brother and it was adjudged by the word Rest the Reversion of the Mannor passed as well as the Lands not Devised before A Case about 20 years ago was cited by the Counsel for the Defendant in the Writ of Error between Bowyer and Milbanke in a Borough where a Nuncupative Will would pass Lands by the Custom a man upon his Death-Bed being asked about his Will said I Give All to my Mother and repeated the