Selected quad for the lemma: land_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
land_n	elder_a	son_n	tail_n	1,652	5	10.7045	5	false

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

aide in Chancery If a man grant a rent charge out of all his Lands and afterwards selleth his Lands by parcels to divers persons and the grantee of the rent will from time to time levy the whole rent upon one of the purchasors onely he shall be eased in Chancery by a contribution from the rest of the purchase●s and the grantee shall be restrained by order to charge the same upon him onely A man recovered at the common Law a debt in one County where the obligation was made in another county against the Stat. 6. R. 2. c. 2. The Defendant sued and suggested in Chancery that by this meanes he was put from divers Pleas of which he might have taken advantage if the obligation had been sued in the very County and he had ayde there for the Chancellor said that he sued to hide the truth and against conscience also which cannot be so well found in any place as in the very County where a thing is done 9. E. 4.2 and 9. E. 4.15 A man shall not be prejudiced by formality or mispleading c. Touching Copy-holders Mr. Fitz-Harbert in his Natur. Brevium fol. 12. noteth well that forasmuch as hee cannot have any writ of false Judgement nor other remedy at common Law against his Lord therefore he shall have aide in Chancery and therefore if the Lord will put out his Copyholder that payeth his customes and services or will not admit him to whose use a surrender is made or will not hold his Court for the benefit of his Copyholder or will exact fines Arbitrary where they be customary and certaine the Copyholder shall have a Subpoe to restraine or compell him as the Case shall require Dyer 264. and 124 Fitz. Subpoena 21 First this Court forbeareth directly to examine any Judgement given at the common Law to which end the Statutes 27. E. 3. cap. 12.39 E. 3. cap. 14.4 H. 4. cap. 23. and 16. R. 2. cap. 5. were made and it seemeth that the common Law used some power to restraine such examinations of Judgements before all these Statutes for 13. E. 3. upon a recovery had upon a Quare impedit the Defendant sued for help in the Chancery and they sent a prohibition and upon that an Attachment against him Fitz-Harbert prohibition 21 the like hath been done upon suits in the courts of requests But yet 9. E. 4.65 one recovered debt upon an obligation in one county whereas the obligation was made in an other county and he complained in Chancery because he had lost some advantages which he might have taken if the triall had been in the other county which thing in effect was made a Law by the Statute 6. R. 2. c. 2. And in the Case of Paramore Ann. 3. 13. Eliz. A fine supposed to be levyed by an Infant was examined in Chancery after it had been allowed by examination of the Justices of the com Pleas but whether these and such other may seeme rather to examine the manner then the very matter and substance of the thing adjudged it is worthy of consideration Sir Will. Cordall Mr. of the Rols denyed to compell one to atturn here that was at liberty by the common Law in the Case of Sir Iohn Windham Chancellor Bromeley likewise denyed such compulsion generally but where the party quarrelled with the particular Tenants Estate or entreth iuto some part of the Lands in demise or hath covenanted for recompence for non atturnment there he utterly denyeth to inforce the atturnment Pasch. 21. Eliz. in Case of Philips and Doctor Sandford Such assurances as be used for the common repose of mens Estates the Chancery will not draw in question for a fine with Proclamation ought after the five yeares to be a bar in conscience as it is in Law so shall it be of a common recovery for docking the intaile Doctor and Student 33.155 So likewise it seemeth that the continued possession of the Bastard eisne shall prevaile in conscience against the right of the Mulier ●●sne And albeit a feme covert may be thought to joyne with her Husband for fear in a fine of her l●nds yet after the five yeares it shall not be recalled for the generall inconveniences that may ensue to that highest assurance Doctor and Student 154. And if remedy in Chancery should be extended to a Collaterall Warrantye the same Saint Germaine saith that then all writings shall be examined If the extender undervalue the Lands as there is no remedy at the common Law 15. H. 7. Dupleges Case because the Debtor may help himselfe by payment of the debt so in conscience there ought to be no reliefe unlesse it were done by Covin. Idem Upon Nudum Pactū there ought to be no more help in Chancery then there is at the common Law neither against him that hath waged his Law in debt though peradventure falsely Idem Where a man made Title to a rent seck of which there was no seizin nor for which he had any action at the common law and prayed help here it was denyed upon conference had by the Lord Keeper with the Judges Michal 1596. A Copyholder dyeth leaving two daughters by divers Venters both which do enter and take the profits without doing fealties or paying fine and without any admittance by the Court and the eldest dyeth without issue This onely possession sufficeth to order the Copyhold to the collaterall heir of the eldest and not ●or the sister of the half bloud 12. Eliz. Dyer 291. A Copyholder in Fee hath issue a daughter and a son by two venters the Lord committeth the custody of the Land and of the son to the Mother who taketh the profits and the son dyeth before any admittance this Copyhold was ordered also for the Heire Collaterall against the Sister of the halfe bloud because the Mothers possession serveth for the son Anno 12. Eliz. Ibid. The Lord devised a Copyhold to C. for life and after passed the Freehold of the soyle thereof by livery of seizin thereof to B. for life reserving a rent and then by fine levyed doth grant the said Land to the said C. come ceo que il ad de son done c. And C. accepteth the said rent of B. and thereupon it was questioned whether or no the Copyhold of C. were gone in conscience 28. H. 8. Dyer 30. A Copyholder within age is admitted and the Lord committeth the custody to the Mother of the Infant whose under-Tenant cutteth down Timber Trees which being presented the Lord seizeth the Land for the forfeiture during still the nonage and keepeth it till he dyeth and it descendeth to his Heire who and his Father had kept it 40 yeares and for that the Copyholder moved suite in the Chancery 29. yeares since which was now revived and the forfeiture was taken during his minority he was restored to his possession

Egerton will give him on this Bill no reliefe but ordered that he should exhibit his Bill against the rest of the Tenants and Grantee both the one to shew cause why they should not contribute the other why he should not accept of the rent equally otherwise it was no reason to take away the benefit of distresse from the Grantee which the Law gave him 7. Iunii Iacobi 1603. A. In forma pauperis had a decree against C. for the Mannor of B. that the contents of the Mannor were doubtfull C. shewing Antient Deeds that proved divers parcels of the Lands claimed by force of the decree by A. to be of another Mannor which notwithstanding the Lord Chancellor Egerton ordered that it should be put to a Jury and they to find as the contents of the Manor had gone by usuall reputation 60. years last and not to have it paired and defalked by such Ancient Deeds A. Married a Feme Executrix subject to a devastavit if A. have nor sufficient to satisfie himself shall be imprisoned for the debt A. Plaintant in Chancery for a Lease upon a Bill that affirmed the Lease to end at our Lady day An. 1604. had the same decreed for him many yeers after comming to the Lease it selfe he finds that it is not to end till our Lady An. 1605. And then moves in Chancery that he may not be forced to leave the land till that time as the decree appointed him qui constitutus est cancel●arius 24. Iulii ad Coronam Regis for the first he must performe the decree and then exhibit a new Bill upon the speciall matter otherwise it were perilous to blow away decrees upon motions Hil. 1. Iacobi Gosset com Crowther fol. 122. Henry Earl of Darby conveyed certaine lands in trust to Doughty his servant for payment of his debts upon mediation of an end of controversies between the daughters of Fardinand eldest son of Henry and Will his younger son now Earl Articles were set down that Will should discharge all his fathers debts whereupon Doughty conveyed the Leases to Will the creditors sue Doughty in Chancery and ordered to pursue their remedy against Earl William Hill 1. Iacobi Hearle plaintant in Chancery against Bot●lers mo●ther and son whose husband had bought tayled lands of Hearles brother to which the plaintant was inheritable and some of the money due upon a bond unpaid and the bond lost And the opinion of the Lord Chancellor was to charge the son the mother in regard of the land in their possession with the payment thereof Hil. 1 Iac. Nota in le case Mynn and Cobb the trust was not so fully proved as the Lord Chancellor would make a full decree thereupon so as it should be a presedent for other causes and yet so farre forth proved as it satisfied him as a private man and therefore in this case he thought fit to write his letters to the defendant to conforme himselfe to reason and affirmed that if he should find the defendant obstinate then would he rule this cause specially against the defendant sans la tires consequence Hill 1. Iacobi Nota in the case of Manwood that there behoveth not a full surrender to be expressed in the Copy but the devise is chiefely to be regarded if the surrender be perfect in the Roll of the Lord though there be no mention at all of a surrender good enough Hill 1. Iacobi Inter Swain and Rogers the case was in effect an Assize of Nusans for Rogers disturning the trenches and plucking up of stakes of Swaynes Mill Leet and making a banck or dam beneath that made the water reflow so as the wheeles could not goe and exception taken that the Court should not hold Plea thereof sed contrarium adjudicatur many causes of the same manner ended here and this specially for Rogers a great man in the country Swayne a professor of the Law who sought hereby to avoyd multiplicity of suits per Warburton Justice but upon a second hearing at the Rolls referred to a Commission of Sewers Hill 1. Iacobi Nota per Egerton Chancellor where Tenant for life the remainder for life though there lye no action of waste in Chancery yet he shall be prohibited to do waste by the Chancellor for wrong to the inhabitants and hurt to the common-wealth Hill 1. Iacobi Bloomer having married the widdow of Nanfan who had forfeited a Recognizance to the Archbishop of Canterbury for not paying of her daughters Portion intreated the Bishop of Canterbury to take a new Recognizance and discharge the former Bloomer after finding that his wives lands was intailed used meanes to have her by Fine or recovery to put it into Fee that so it might be subject to the Recognizance and hoped to get it from his wife also One Bridges his wives kinsman withstood this now dyeth the woman the Portion unpaid Bloomer is sued for it in Chancery and the opinion of the Court against him the Bishop of Canterbury had certified against him and because his counsell was not ready that day the Chancellor declared he must take the Archbishops Certificate not as a Testimony but as a judiciall proceeding and therefore willed Bloomer to satisfie the Archbishop or else he must decree against him Hill 1. Iacobi Nota that witnesses ad informand conscientiam shall never be appointed to be taken but upon hearing ubi Iudex dubitat but yet witnesses examined after publication not fit to be published may be fit to be ad informandum conscientiam if it shall be thought meet upon the hearing Hill 1. l. Daniel Hill having put in for his Clyent a long insufficient demurrer to a Bill exhibited against his Clyent in which supposed demurrer were many matters of fact and other things frivolous and vaine The Lord Chancellor Egerton awarded five pound costs against the party And ordered that neither Bill Answer Demurrer nor any other Plea should from henceforth be received under the hand of the said Hill 27. April 1. Iacobi In the case of Tenant right between Musgrave and some of his Tenants on the borders The Lord Chancellor pronounced that neither in Tenant right nor in other Coppyholds would he make any order for all the Tenants in generality but for speciall men in speciall cases nor for any longer time then the present except it were by agreement between the Lord and the Tenants which then he would decree if it appeared reasonable 8. Iunii 1. Iacobi Item that he neither would help Leases paroll in Chancery and that it was good for the Common-wealth if no Lease paroll were allowed by the Law nor promises to be proved by witnesses considering the plenty of witnesses now a dayes which were testes diabolices qui magis fame quam fama moventur 8. Iunii 1. Iacobi Lands given ad divina Celebranda by Feoffement till an Estate should be

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