Selected quad for the lemma: land_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
land_n	estate_n	life_n	remainder_n	3,973	5	10.9980	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A33627	Certain select cases in law reported by Sir Edward Coke, Knight, late Lord Chief Justice of England ... ; translated out of a manuscript written with his own hand, never before published ; with two exact tables, the one of the cases, and the other of the principal matters therein contained.; Reports. Part 13. English	Coke, Edward, Sir, 1552-1634.	1659 (1659)	Wing C4909; ESTC R1290	92,700	80

his Deed indented dated the 22 of December in the first year of King James made between him of the one part and the said John Sammes and George Sammes Son and Heir apparent of the said John of the other part did bargain sell grant enfeoff release and confirm unto the said John Sammes the said Mead called Grany Mead to have and to hold the said Mead unto the said John Sammes and George Sammes and their Heirs and Assigns to the onely use and behoof of the said John Sammes and George Sammes their Heirs and Assigns for ever and by the same Indenture Sir Thomas did covenant with John and George to make further assurance to John and George and their Heirs to the use of them and their Heirs and Livery and Seisin was made and delivered according to the true intent of the said Indentures of the within mentioned premisses to the uses within mentioned John Sammes the Father dyeth George Sammes his Son and Heir being within age the Question was Whether George Sammes should be in Ward to the King or no And in this case three points were resolved 1. For as much as George was not named in the premisses he cannot take by the Habendum and the Livery made according to the intent of the Indenture doth not give any thing to George because the Indenture as to him is voyd but although the Feoffment be good onely to John and his Heirs yet the use limited to the use of John and George and their Heirs is good 2. If the Estate had been conveyed to John and his Heirs by the Release or Confirmation as it well may be to a Tenant by Copy of Court Roll the use limited to them is good for upon a Release which creates an Estate a use may be limited or a Rent reserved without question but upon a Release or Confirmation which enures by way of Mitter le droit an use cannot be limited or a Rent reserved But the third was of greater doubt If in this case the Father and Son were Ioynt-tenants or Tenants in common For it was objected when the Father is onely enfeoffed to the onely use of him and his Son and their Heirs in the Per that in this case they shall be Tenants in common By the Feoffment the Father is in by the common Law in the Per and then the limitation of the use to him and his Son and to their Heirs cannot devest the Estate which was vested in him by the common Law out of him and vest the Estate in him in the Post by force of the Statute according to the limitation of the use and therefore as to one moyety the Father shall be in by force of the Feoffment in the Per and the Son as to the other moyety shall be in by force of the Statute according to the limitation of the use in the Post and by consequence they shall be Tenants in common But it was answered and resolved That they were Ioynt-tenants and that the Son in the Case at Bar should have the said Grange by the Survivor for if at the common Law A. had been enfeoffed to the use of him and B. and their Heirs although that he was onely seised of the Land the use was joyntly to A. and B. For a use shall not be suspended or extinct by a sole seisin or joynt seisin of the Land and therefore if A. and B. be enfeoffed to the use of A. and his Heirs and A. dyeth the entire use shall descend to his Heir as it appeareth in 13 H. 7. 6. in Stoners Case and by the Statute of 27 H. 8. cap. 10. of Vses it appeareth That when several persons are seised to the use of any of them that the Estate shall be executed according to the use And as to that which was said That the Estate of the Land which the Father hath in the Land as to the moyetyof the use which he himself hath shall not be devested out of him To that it was answered and resolved That that shall well be for if a man maketh a Feoffment in Fee to one to tho use of him and the Heirs of his body in this case for the benefit of the issue the Statute according to the limitation of the uses devests the Estate vested in him by the common Law and executes the same in himself by force of the Statute and yet the same is out of the words of the Statute of 27 H. 8. which are Where any person c. stand or be scised c. to the use of any other person and here he is seised to the use of himself and the other clause is Where divers and many persons c. be joyntly seised c. to the use of any of them c. and in this case A. is sole seised But the Statute of 27 H. 8. hath been always beneficially expounded to satisfie the intention of the parties which is the direction of the uses according to the Rule of the Law So if a man seised of Lands in Fee-simple by Deed covenant with another that he and his Heirs will stand seised of the same Land to the use of himself and the Heirs of his body or unto the use of himself for life the remainder over in Fee in that case by the operation of the Statute the Estate which he hath at the common Law is devested and a new Estate vested in himself according to the limitation of the use And it is to be known that an use of Land which is but a pernency of the profits is no new thing but part of that which the owner of the Land had and therefore if Tenant in Borrough-English or a man seised of the part of his Mother maketh a Feoffment to another without consideration the younger Son in the one case and the Heir on the part of the Mother on the other shall have the use as they should have the Land it self if no Feoffment had been made as it is holden in 5 E. 4. 7. See 4 and 5 Phil. and Mar. Dyer 163. So if a man maketh a Feoffment unto the use of another in tayl and afterwards to the use of his right Heirs the Feoffor hath the Reversion of the Land in him for if the Donee dyeth without isse the Law giveth the use which was part of the Land to him and so it was resolved Trinity 31 Eliz. between Fenwick and Milford in the Kings-Bench So in 28 H. 8. Dyer 11. the Lord Rosses Case A man seised of one Acre by Priority and of another Acre by Posteriority and makes a Feoffment in Fee of both to his use and it was adjudged that although both pass at one instant yet the Law shall make a Priority of the uses as if it were of the Land it self which proves that the use is not any new thing for then there should be no Priority in the Case See 13 H. 7. b. by Butler So in the Case at Bar The use limited to

same but they estreat the same into the Exchequer which hath power by the Law to writ forth Proces to the Sheriff to levy the same But if a man be convicted in the Star-Chamber for Forgery upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. that in that case for the double costs and damages that an English Writ shall be made directed to the Sheriff c. reciting the conviction and the Statute for the levying of the said costs and damages of the goods and chattels and profits of the Lands of the Defendant and to bring in the mony into the Court of Star-Chamber and the Writ shall be sealed with the great Seal and the Test of the King For the Statute of 5 Eliz. hath given Iurisdiction to the Court of Star-Chamber and power to give Iudgment amongst other things of the costs and damages which being given by force of the said Act of Parliament by consequence the Court by the Act hath power to grant Execution Quia quando aliquid conceditur ei omnia concedi videntur per quod devenitur ad illud And it was resolved That the giving of the damages to the Plaintiff was begun but of late times and although that one or two Presidents were shewed against this Resolution they being against the Law the Iudges had not any regard to them The like Resolution was in the Case of Langdale in that Court XXXI Hillary Term 7 Jacobi Regis In the Common-Pleas Morse and Webbs Case IN a Replevin brought by John Morse against Robert Webb of the taking of two Oxen the last day of November in the third year of the Reign of the King that now is in a place called the Downfield in Luddington in the County of Worcester The Defendant as Bayliff to William Sherington Gent. made Conusance because that the place where is an Acre of Land which is the Freehold of the said William Sherington and for damage-feasants c. In Bar of which Avowry the Plaintiff said That the said Acre of Land in parcel of Downfield and that he himself at the time and before the taking c. was and yet is seised of two yard Land with the appurtenances in Luddington aforesaid And that he and all those whose Estate he hath in the said two yards of Land time out of minde c. have used to have Common of pasture per totam contentam of the said place called the Downfield whereof c. for four Beasts called Rother Beasts and two Beasts called Horse-beasts and for sixty Sheep at certain times and seasons of the year as to the said two yards Lands with the appurtenances appertaining and that he put in the said two Oxen to use his Common c. And the Defendant did maintain his Avowry and traversed the Prescription upon which the parties were at issue and the Iury gave a special Verdict That before the taking one Richard Morse Father of the said John Morse and now Plaintiff whose Heir he is was seised of the said two yards Lands and that the said Richard Morse c. had the Common of Pasture for the said Cattel per totum contentum of the said Downfield in manner and form as before is alledged and so seised The said Richard Morse in the twentieth year of Queen Elizabeth demised to William Thomas and John Fisher divers parcels of the said two yards Lands to which c. viz. the four Buts of arable with the Common and intercommon to the same belonging for the term of four hundred years by force of which the said William Thomas and John Fisher entered and were possessed and the said Richard so seised dyed thereof seised by which the said two yards Lands in possession and Reversion descended to the said John Morse the now Plaintiff And if upon the whole matter the said John Morse now hath and at the time of the taking c. had Common of Pasture c. for four Beasts called Rother Beasts and two Beasts called Horse-beasts and for sixty Sheep c. as to the said two Acres of Land with the appurtenances belonging in Law or not the Iury prayed the advice of the Court. Note that this Plea began Trin. 5 Jacobi Rot. 1405. And upon Argument at the Bar and at the Bench it was resolved by the whole Court that it ought to be found against the Defendant who had traversed the Prescription For although that all the two years Lands had been demised for years yet the Prescription made by the Plaintiff is true for he is seised in his Demesn as of Fee of the Freehold of the two yards of Land to which c. And without question the Inheritance and Freehold of the Common after the years determined is appendant to the said two yard Lands and therefore clearly the issue is to be found against the Defendant But if he would take advantage of the matter in Law he ought confessing the Common to have pleaded the said Lease but when he traverseth the Prescription he cannot give the same in evidence 2. It was resolved That if the said Lease had been pleaded that the Common during the Lease for years is not suspended or discharged for each of them shall have Common Rateable and in such manner that the Land in which c. shall not be surcharged and if so small a parcel be demised which will not keep one Ox nor a Sheep then the whole Common shall remain with the Lessor so always as the Land in which be not surcharged 3. It was resolved That Common appendant unto Land is as much as to say Common for Cattel levant and couchant upon the Land in which c. So that by the severance of part of the Land to which c. so prejudice can come to the Ter-tenant in which c. 4. See the Case of in the fourth part of my Reports fo was affirmed for good Law and there is no difference when the Prescription is for Cattel levant and couchant and for a certain number of Cattel levant and couchant But when the Prescription is for Common appurtenant to Land without alledging that it is for Cattel levant and couchant there a certain number of the Cattel ought to be expressed which are intended by the Law to be levant and couchant XXXII Hill 7 Jacobi Regis In the Common-Pleas Hughes and Crowthers Case IN a Replevin between Robert Hughs Plaintiff and Richard Crowther Defendant which began Trin. 6 Jacobi Rot. 2220 The Case was that Charls Fox was seised of six acres of Meadow in Bedston in the County of Salop in Fee and 10 Octob. 9 Eliz. leased the same to Charls Hibbens and Arthur Hibbens for 60 years if the aforesaid Charls Hibbens and Arthur Hibbens should so long live and afterward Charls died and if the Lease determine by his death was the Question and it was adjudged That by his death the Lease was determined for the life of a man is meer collaterall unto the Estate for years otherwise it is if a