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	tenant_n	4,234	5	10.2032	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A51526	An answer to two books the first being stiled a reply to Sir Thomas Mainwaring's book, entituled, An answer to Sir Peter Leicester's Addenda, the other stiled Sir Thomas Mainwaring's law-cases mistaken / written ... Sir T.M.	Mainwaring, Thomas, Sir, 1623-1689.	1675 (1675)	Wing M299; ESTC R21694	25,559	69

servitio obnoxium so that Maritagium the Genus comprehends the Members and both opposite one to another as either free marriage or not free marriage let Sir Peter therefore answer this his own Argument as he thinks fit As to what he pretends in the 22 23 and 24 pages I did not say that the Gift of Ellesmere to Lhewellin was but an Estate for Life it being said in the Precept to make Livery to be an Estate in maritagio though not in libero maritagio and to make Livery thereof would have been needless if it had been a Gift in free marriage Neither is Joane his Wife proved to be a Bastard so that that Precedent is out of doors but I did give some Reasons why that Precedent would have stood him in no stead if she had been a Bastard and that a Gift in free marriage and could yet say more in that particular if occasion did require but that not being the Case I will forbear to say any more concerning the same In his 24 page and so on to the 42 besides some mistakes of his which because they are not material to the point I will not here take notice of he spends a great deal of time in proving that Hellen the Wife of John Scot was the Daughter of Lhewellin by his Wife Joane Daughter of King John whereas he did clearly prove the same in his 28 and 29 pages in very few words and the same doth also appear by a Record hereafter mentioned which very lately came to my knowledge but yet for all that this Precedent will do him no good as well because the said Joane is not proved to be a Bastard as also because Budeford and Suttehale were not given to the said Lhewellin in libero maritagio as will anon appear Sir Peter doth indeed tell us that those Mannon were given in libero maritagio to the said Lhewellin but the Deed lately belonging to Somerfield Oldfeld Esq doth prove no such thing but doth only prove that the said Lhewellin did mistake himself and think that they were given him in free marriage when they were not so given I therefore believing Sir Peter that those Mannors were given in free marriage to Lhewellin when they were not and perceiving Lhewellin to say that King John had given them to him but not telling with whom and knowing as appears in the 13 14 15 and 16 pages of my Answer to his Addenda if they were given to him in frank marriage with his Wife Joane the Daughter of the said King that the said Lhewellin had not power to dispose of them from his Son David who was his right Heir could not find out any other way to reconcile every thing in this particular but by supposing that Lhewellin had a former Wife who was a Kinswoman to King John with whom those Lands were given and by whom he had his Daughter Hellen And what I said was by way of consequence for I relied only upon my fourth Argument as appears in the said 13 page and brought the other three but as concurrent And what I there believed might very well have been true for Sir Peter proves that Lhewellin had a former Wife and if his words had been true in saying that those Mannors were given to the said Lhewellin with the said Joane in libero maritagio my words must necessarily have been true also for I was only mistaken in Hellens Mother by building upon that unsound foundation which Sir Peter did there lay But mark what work Sir Peter doth make of it now he hath proved Hellen to be Lhewellin's Daughter by his said Wife Joane for he in his 37 page grants all my Quotations I would I had cause to say the like by him and also grants what by those Lawyers is said in the 14 and 15 pages of my Answer to his Addenda which is a certain sign he doth not understand what they do say for by what is there said it appears that if a Man have Land given him in free marriage with a Wife he hath only custodiam cum uxore and hath not so much as an Estate for his own life until he be Tenant by the courtesie of England and by consequence he cannot dispose of those Lands to any person whatsoever from the next Heir And this ignorance of his runs him upon his mistake in the 36 and 37 pages of his latter Book wherein he says that a man would have but custodiam cum uxore although the Wife were not of the blood of the Donor whereas you may see in the 14 and 15 pages of my Answer to his Addenda that though when Lands be given with a Woman to a Man in frank marriage it is liberum tenementum uxoris non viri cum non habeat nisi custodiam cum uxore yet it is secus otherways when the Land is given in marriage pro homagio servitio viri and one reason of this difference betwixt Land given in marriage for which no service is to be done and Land given in marriage for which Homage is to be done is because in the one Case the Land may revert to the Donor but in the other Case the Land can never revert as you may find in Glanvil lib. 7. cap. 18. who after he hath told you what free marriage is hath these words Cum quis itaque terram aliquam cum uxore sua in maritagium ceperit si ex eadem uxore sua haeredem habuerit filium vel filiam clamantem auditum infra quatuor parietes si idem vir uxorem suam supervixerit sive vixerit haeres sive non illi in vita sua remanet maritagium illud post mortem vero ipsius ad donatorem vel ejus haeredes est reversurum Sin autem ex uxore sua nunquam habuerit haeredem tunc statim post mortem uxoris ad donatorem vel haeredes ejus revertetur maritagium Et haec est quaedam causa quare de maritagio tali non solet recipi homagium Si enim sic donata esset terra aliqua in maritagium vel alio modo quod inde reciperetur homagium tune nunquam de cetero ad donatorem vel ejus haeredes licite possit reverti ut supradictum est Sir Peter therefore must either confess that Lhewellin had no power to dispose of those Lands in such manner as he did and then that Precedent will be of no more force if the said Joane had been a Bastard than a Precedent would be of a Man who now should give Lands is libero maritagio to one who is not of the blood or else he must acknowledge that those Lands were given to Lhewellin but in maritagio and so he being liable to do homage for them might dispose of them as he did please And that they were given to him but in maritagio will appear as well by the making of Livery of them which is needless in a Gift in frank marriage as also

Layman who was but an Esquire or Gentleman which was the thing which he ought to have done he vainly spends his time in acquainting you with some Notes of his in Manuscript never yet printed on the several Notions of the word Dominus and the English word Sir but as he hath there omitted some things to which those words were used to be applied so he went too far when in his 77 and 79 pages he applied to the Lady Hawise de Quency the word Dominus and the word Sir In his 86 page and so on to almost the end of the 89 he would fain persuade the Reader that Hugh Cyveliol was not One and twenty years of age when he joined with his Mother Maude in giving Stivinghale to Walter Durdent Bishop of Chester and his Successors to which Deed Eustace the Constable was a Witness and tells you of a Precedent in his Book of Antiquities pag. 114. 115. where you may find Richard Earl of Chester joining with Ermentrude his Mother in the Grant of Wudemundeslai to the Abby and Church of Abington in Barkshire Anno 6. Henrici 1. Anno Domini 1106. whiles he was scarce 12 years old whereof the Book of Abington immediately before the Deed saith thus fol. 47. Ipse Comes benefactum extulit suo descripto roboravit quod descriptum Sigillo quidem matris Signari constitit nondum enim militari Baltheo cinctus materno Sigillo literae quaelibet ab eo directae includebantur hac de re quod eò annotatur Comitissae potiùs quam Comitis Sigillo signatur But he doth not give you the Deed in either of his two little Books therefore I think fit to Transcribe it here for the satisfaction of those who have not seen the same as I find it in his Historical Antiquities pag. 114. but misprinted 122. RIcardus Cestrensis Comes Ermentrudis Comitisia mater ejus Nigello de Oilii Rogero filio Radulfi omnibus Baronibus de Oxenford Scira Salutem Amicitiam Sciatis quia pro amore Dei anima Patris mei remission nostrorum Peceatorum Concedimus hidam illum quam Droco de Andeleia dedit Eeclesiae Abbendonensi quae est in loco qui dicitur Wudemundeslai Nos eidem Ecslesia concedimus auctorizamus perpetuò habendam solidam quietam ab omni nostro servitio Et Rogerus filius Radulsi Successores ejus sint quieti in nostro servitio quantum ad illam hidam pertinet Et defendimus ut nullo modo Rogerus vel alius per eum inquietet habitantes in terra illa Hoo autem fecimus testimonio nostrorum Baronum scilicet Willielmi filii Nigelli Hugonis filii Normanni Ricardi Balaste Willielmi filii Auskitilli Ricardi filii Nigelli Domini Goisfridi Capellani aliorum Hoc actum est in sexto Anno Regni Henrici Regis in mense Mail in die Pentecostes And to make the Reader believe that Hugh Cyveliok was not of age when he sealed the said Deed of Stivinghale he tells you pag. 86. of his first Book and pag. 30. of his latter Book that what Earl Richard then did was according to the Law and Customs of those elder Ages and that Earls and great Lords in those former Ages did often join with their Mothers who had the Tuition of them in Deeds and Charters whiles they were very young and before they attained the age of One and Twenty years whereas I am confident Sir Peter cannot prove that persons who were under age did then use to join with their Mothers and so give away their Lands of Inheritance for Mr. Selden in his Titles of Honour pag. 785. at the bottom and pag. 786. the place which Sir Peter cites tells us that this of the Earl of Chester viz. Earl Richard is only a Note of a Monk after the Entry of the Charter of Confirmation and no part of the Body of the Charter And in regard that he sees no other Testimony of ancient time to second it with the like he should think that the Monk was either grosly deceived in his reason of Nondum enim Militari Balteo cinctus est or else that he meant only that the Earl was a Child within age and that by reason of his Minority Wardship and the Tuition of his Mother who joineth with him in the Charter her Seal was only used to it as also to his Letters Also a little after in the same page Mr. Selden thus says Now the Law being that whosoever was Knighted though before the age of One and Twenty was of full age in regard of any Wardship or any other Tuition as presently is further shewed and the use being that such great Lords were Knighted often before they were of that age and so had their full age supplied and that perhaps also while they were in ward they used only their Guardians Seals lest the authority of a Seal of their own before they had discretion to use it might have done them prejudice in point of * Note honour at least if not in matter of profit It is likely enough that the Monk here took the phrase of being not Knighted to serve for being not of full age So that the having of a Seal was not peculiar to this Order of Knighthood but to such only of what condition soever as were of full age Also Sir Peter doth not in either of his two new Books give you the Charter of this Earl Richard and his Mother but only tells you of it in general terms for he cannot but see that it is not a selling or giving away any Land of Inheritance but is only according to Mr. Selden a confirming of that Hyde of Land which Droco de Andeleia had given to Abington Church And Mr. Selden a little after in the next page says though the wardship of the Body be ended in the case of Knighting after the death of the Tenant by receiving the Order of Knighthood yet * Note the Land continues to the Lords until the full age of the Heir as if he had not received the Order What then is this to the Case of Hugh Cyveliok who did pass away Stivinghale to the Bishop of Chester and his Successors for ever And without doubt the said Land was given immediately after the death of Earl Randle Father to the said Hugh for he dying Excommunicate his friends in that age would be very impatient until he was absolved and it cannot be imagined that Maude did join with her son Hugh because he was under age for that he could not be because he here passed away Lands for ever as also because he was old enough to take Melyenith Castle in the year 1142 and if he was then but 12 years of age he would be 23 years old in the year 1153 about which year his Father Earl Randle dyed his Mother therefore certainly had Stivinghale which is not in Staffordshire as Sir Peter in his 86 page