the whole grant both for the land and tenure was the point wherein they did differ 4. And for the clearing of that they did enquire what the reservation of a tenure is to the grant Whither it be a part of the grant And Modus Concessionis or vvhither it be a distinct thing and Aliud from the grant as this Case is For if as they that argued for the Letters Patents held the reservation of the tenure and the grant of the land bee Aliud Aliud two distinct things in the Consideration of the vvhole grant made and the authoritie given by the said Commission for the making thereof then peradventure the patent may be voyde as to the tenure and yet good for the grant of the land But if the reservation of the tenure be incident unto the authoritie and included vvithin it and the reservation of the tenure and the grant of the land make up but one entire grant so that the one is a part of the other and the Reservation of the tenure bee Modus Concessionis Then the granting of the land reserving a diverse or contrary tenure to that vvhich their Authority did warrant them to reserve is a doing of Idem alio modo And so the whole act is voyde They held that the Reservation of the tenure is Modus Concessionis and that it is not Aliud S. a thing distinct and separate from the authority of the grant of the land but implyedly included within it and incident to it Although a grant may be vvithout Habendum expresse Tenendum Reddendum or Condition yet when they or any of them are added they are de modo Concessionis and doe direct and rule the grant 1. For the Habendum The proper office of the Habendum is to limit the estate yet sometimes it may 1. Alter the estate in the premises 2. Diminish or enlarge 3. Give to a stranger 4. Make the grant voyde 1. It may alter the estate in the premises As where land is given to two in the premises Habendum the one moytie to the one and the other moytie to the other by the premises they have a joynt estate the Habendum makes them tenants in Common Litt. 66. So where land is given to two Habendum to the one for life the remainder to the other By the premises they should have a joynt estate in possession But the Habendum doth alter that and maketh the one sole tenant of the freehold for life and the other sole tenant of the Remainder 8. E. 3. 320. feoffments faits 73. 2. It enlarges or diminishes the estate that would passe by implication in the premises and so destroyes the implication This is common in every grant 3. It gives to a stranger not named in the premises of the grant As if a man gives lands to I.S. Habendum with A. his daughter in Frank-marriage there the wife not named in the premises by the Habendum takes a joynt estate with her husband this Case is vouched in Pl. Com. 158. to be in 4. E. 3. which being not found in that yeare it is there so left without any further reference but you shall finde it in 5. E. 17. so Cokes Instit sect 17. yet vid. 4. E. 3. 4. So likevvise where a lease is made to A. Habendum for twentie yeares the Remainder to B. and his heires here B. gaineth an immediate freehold by the Habendum and yet he is not named in the premises of the deede Plowd Com. 158. 4. It will make the grant voyde As if I have a Rent in Fee and I grant it to another if I stay there the grant shall be for life But if I say further Habendum after the death of I.S. there all shall be voyde Plowd Com. 152. 156. So if the King grants lands by letters patents Habendum from a day to come there the whole grant is made voyd by the Habendum 5. Coke 93. Barwicks Case He in the Reversion for life grants his estate Habendum after Michaelmas and after Michaelmas the tenant atturnes yet Resolved that the grant is voyde though if there had beene no Habendum it had beene good by the premises of the deed Bucklers Case 2. Coke 55. In all these Cases the Habendum being voyde makes voyde the grants which would have beene good without it As the Habendum hath these severall operations in the grant so hath 2. the Reddendum As an estate by implication shall be controlled by an expresse limitation so an implyed Reservation shall be controlled by an expresse Reservation A man makes a lease rendring rent and does not say to whom the rent shall be paid this by implication shall be to the Lessor and his heires But if the words be to the Lessor the heire shall not have it 31. H. 8. Dyer 45. 12. E. 3. Ass 86. Plowd Com. 171. in Hill and Granges Case 10. E. 4. 18. 21. H. 7. 25. The Reservation of a Rent in some Cases shall make severance of the grant and make severall grants and severall reversions As if a man makes a lease of three Mannors reserving twenty shillings for one five pound for another and twenty pound for the third there are severall Reversions and there shall be severall Avowries 14. Eliz. Dyer 308. VVinters Case 9. E. 3. 12. 5. Coke 55. Knights Case 3. For the Tenendum The proper office of the Tenendum is to reserve the tenure and to toll the tenure by implication Before the statute of Quia Emptores terrarum If a man made a feoffment the feoffee held of the feoffor by such services as the feoffor held over But if other services were Reserved then the feoffee held by such services as were reserved That the Donee in tayle shall hold of the donor as the donor held over is Regularly true if the donor make no speciall Reservation for then the speciall Reservation excludes the tenure which the Law would create Cokes Instit sect 19. vid. 34. H. 8. Dyer 52. 4. For the Condition That does likewise direct and rule the grant the Condition does change the qualitie of the grant and makes the estate Conditionall and defeasible which otherwise would be absolute and indefeasible So that all these viz. the Habendum the Reddendum the Tenendum and the Condition are de modo Concessionis and doe Rule and direct the grant the first limits and sets forth the quantity the other describe the quality of the estate And of all these the Tenendum is inseparably annexed to the estate the rest may bee determined and yet the estate continue but the tenure cannot be determined as long as the estate continues 1. The Condition may be released 2. The Rent may be released 3. The estate may be enlarged But the tenure cannot bee destroyed It may bee transferred from one to another in Case of Common persons But a Tenure in Capite cannot be transferred or extinct by any release or grant for it is an incident inseparably annexed to
THE CASE OF TENVRES upon the Commission of Defective Titles Argued by all the Judges of Ireland with their Resolution and the Reasons of their Resolution DVBLIN Imprinted by the Society of Stationers Printers to the Kings most excellent Majesty 1637. TO THE RIGHT HONOVRABLE THOMAS Viscount WENTWORTH Lord Deputy generall of Ireland MY LORD THis work is Yours by more then one Interest and therefore it returnes naturally unto YOU for to lay aside my particular respects it being by Your Lordships favour that I serve his Majesty in this place You are Pater Patriae and not more by Your Office then by your love to this nation and your most equall and indifferent dispensation of Iustice next under his Majesty the Father of this Church and Common-wealth And for whom can an oblation of this nature be more proper besides all that is heere as it was at first spoken in an humble obedience to Your Lordships Order so it was after upon a noble invitation from You digested into this forme and it is now made publique by Your Commandement so that in all the passages of it it carryes Your Image Your Superscription and therefore by this dedication I doe not so much give it as restore it If there be any thing in it that is mine that answeares Your expectation even in that that it answeares Your expectation I have my reward for all that are below Your Lordship I hope it shall have this use it shall satisfie them that Your Lo proceedings in this businesse have bin in all points agreeable both to Honour and Iustice God leade Your Lordship by the hand untill You have finished those great and heroicall workes so happily begun May they all prosper to the high pleasure of Almighty God the encrease of Honour and Revenew to his Majesty of peace and prosperity to this Kingdome and to Your own immortall glory Your Lordships most humble servant James Barry The Case of Tenures vpon the Commission of Defective Titles Trin. 13. Caroli Regis AT the late enquirie concerning His Maiesties Title to the Countie of Mayo there was an Act of State published wherein it was declared that it was not his Maiesties intention to take from his people any thing that was iustly theirs and that therefore none who held any Lands or other Hereditaments whatsoever within that County by Letters-patents from the Crowne should be any wayes preiudiced by finding his Maiesties Title although their Letters-patents were not found or well and certaynely found in the great Office then intended to be taken but that they should have the same benefit of them as if they had beene specially found so as they did produce their Letters-patents or the enrollment thereof before the Lord Deputy and Councell at the Councell Board by a certayne day limited in the Act and that they were allowed by that Board to be good and effectuall in Law In pursuance of that Act there were severall Letters-patents produced and among the rest the Lord Viscount Dillon did shew forth Letters-patents obtayned from his late Maiestie and passed upon the late Commission of Defective titles Vpon perusall and consideration whereof his Maiesties Councell were of opinion that they were voyde in law And therefore it was thought fit and so ordered by the Lord Deputy and Councell that the doubt arising upon the Letters-patents should be drawne up into a Case and that that Case should be openly argued at the Councell Board by Councell learned on both sides The Case was after drawne up in these words KIng IAMES by Commission under the great Seale dated the second day of March in the fourth yeare of his raigne did authorize certayne Commissioners to grant the Mannor of Dale by Letters patents under the great Seale of this Kingdome to A. and his heires and there is no direction given in the sayd Commission touching the tenure to be reserved There are Letters-patents by colour of the sayd Commission passed unto A. and his heyres to hold by Knights service as of his Maiesties Castle of Dublin The question is whither the sayd Letters patents be voyde in the whole or onely as to the tenure THis Case was argued on severall dayes first by Nicholas Plunket for the Lord Dillon and Serjeant Catlin for the King and after by Iohn Pollexfen for the Lord Dillon and Osbaldeston Atturney generall for the King And because it was a Case of great weight and importance it was delivered unto the Iudges and they were required by the Lord Deputy and Councell to conferre and consider of it and to returne unto them their resolution concerning it but they upon private conference among themselves did not agree in opinion and therefore it was thought necessary for publique satisfaction that it should be argued solemnly by them all and therevpon in Trinity terme last the Case was argued by Ryves Puisne Iudge of his Maiesties Court of Chiefe place Barry second Baron of the Exchecquer and Cressy one of the Iudges of the Court of Cheife place and after on another day appointed for the Case by Mayart one of the Iudges of the Common pleas Bolton Chiefe Baron Lowther chiefe Iustice of the Common pleas and Shurly chiefe Iustice of the Court of chiefe place And for that I intend to make as summary a Report as I can I will first set downe such arguments and obiections as were made by them that argued for the mayntenance of the Letters patents It was obiected by them That the Letters patents were good for the Land and voyde onely as to the tenure For divers reasons 1. Regularly where a Man doth lesse then the authority or commandement committed unto him there the commandement or authority being not pursued the Act is voyde But where a Man doth that which hee is authorised to doe and more there it is good for that which is warranted and voyde for the rest Cokes instit sect 434. Perk. 189. vid. 8 Coke 85. But in the Case in question the Commissioners doe that which they had authority to doe and they doe more therefore for that which they had authoritie to doe that is to grant the Landes the Letters patents are good for that which they doe more that is the reserving of a tenure they are voyde Their authority was to grant the Mannor of Dale to A. and his heyres that they have fully done and if they had stayed there no man will deny but they had well executed their authoritie but they goe further and doe more and Reserve a tenure therefore for that more for that Reservation their Act is onely voyde 2. VVhere a Man hath authority to doe an act and hee doth it in substance though hee differ in the manner yet the authority is well executed As if a Man make a deede of Feoffment of Blacke-acre and whit-acre and a letter of atturney to enter into both Acres and to deliver seisin of both of them according to the forme and effect of the deede and hee entreth into Blacke-acre
and delivers seisin secundum formam Cartae this livery and seisin is good albeit hee did not enter into both nor into one in the name of both and yet this is done in another manner then his authoritie warrants for his authority was to enter into both and to deliver seisin of both neyther of which hee doth no not so much as enter into one in the name of both So vvhen the Feoffment is made to two or more and a letter of Atturncy to make Livery to both and the Atturney makes Livery of seisin to one of the feoffees secundum formam effectum Cartae this is good to both and yet in that Case hee that is absent may vvayve the Livery Surely this is done by the Atturney in another manner then the authority warrants for his warrant was to make Livery to both and the intention of the Feoffor was that both should take and the estate bee setled in both and yet hee makes Livery to one onely and so that the estate may bee setled onely in him and yet hee hath well executed his authority for in substance hee hath done that which is commanded and though it differs in the manner it is not materiall both those Cases are put in Cokes instit sect 66. But in the Case in Question the Commissioners have done in substance that which was commanded them therefore their authority is vvell executed and the act they have done is good That they have done in substance that which vvas commanded them appeares in it selfe for their authority was to grant the Mannor of Dale to A. and his heyres this they have done And if they have added any thing to the grant whereby it may bee sayd to bee done in another manner yet the act being done in substance it shall bee good 3. That wherein they have exceeded their authority scilicet the Reservation of the tenure it is not of the essence of the grant Of the essence of a grant are onely Grantor Grantee and the thing to bee granted and apt words in an Instrument or Patent Besides of the essence of a grant it cannot bee for grants were at Common-law tenures were introduced by the Conquest Selden in his Not. to Eadmer 194. Bracton libr. 2. de acquir rerum domin The tenure is another distinct thing aliud from the Land in that they cannot consist in one person the Land is the thing granted that belongs to the Patentee the tenure is Reserved to the King that belongs to him the Reservation is aliud or supra or praeter the grant not alio modo And therefore the Letters patents may bee voyde for the tenure and yet good for the grant of the Land 4. Although it were admitted that the Reservation of the tenure bee not a distinct thing or aliud from that which they had authority to doe but is rather a doing of the same thing for which they had warrant in another manner then their authority does warrant yet it will not follow that the whole act is voyde For an authority given may bee executed in another manner alio modo then the Commission doth Warrant and yet stand good for that which is done according to the authority And that may be in these Cases 1. Where the authority is cloathed with an interest for there in many Cases he that hath the authority may vary from the authority And the act though it bee done in another manner shall bee good As where the custome of a Mannor is that the Lord may grant Landes by Copy of Court-roll in Fee if the grant bee in tayle or but for life this is good Stanton and Barnes his Case Hill 36. Eliz. Roc. 492. in B. R. Cokes instit sect 66. So where the custome was to grant Copyes for two lives and hee grants to the Husband for life and after to the Wife Durante viduitate This is good Downes and Hopkins Case P. 36. Eliz. B. R. The Statute of 32. Henr. 8. doth enable tenant in tayle to make a Lease for one and twenty yeares if he makes a Lease for twenty yeares onely or to one for tenne yeares and after makes a Lease to another for eleven yeares more this is good and so it hath beene Resolved in Tompson and Traffords Case Hill 35. Eliz. B. R. 2. Where the varying from the authority given is in letter or circumstance and not in a point materiall or in substance for that see the Cases cited before Cokes instit sect 66. Litt. 434. 3. Where the varyance from the authority although it bee in matter of substance is supplyed by operation of law As if a licence bee granted to a Copy-holder for life to make a Lease for tenne yeares if hee shall so long live the Copy-holder makes a Lease for tenne yeares absolutely without the limitation videlicet if hee shall so long live yet adjudged good and the Licence well pursued It was Hatt and Arrowsmiths Case Hillar 38. Elizabeth B. R. And in the Case in question where all agree that the Kings meaning in this Commission was that a tenure in Capite should bee Reserved albeit it bee not expressed in words or if it had beene in expresse termes that a tenure in Capite should bee reserved and they had onely granted the Mannor without reservation of any tenure yet the Law supplying this defect and raysing a tenure in Capite this shall make the grant good 4. VVhere the varyance from the authority is cured by the party himselfe by some other act As if Tenant in tayle Husband and Wife a Bishop c. who are authorized by the Statute of 32. Henr. 8. to make leases for one twenty yeares or three lives of Landes usually lett make a lease of Landes usually lett and of Landes not usually lett reserving one entire Rent all is voyde Shepheards Case But if Tenant in tayle will make such a lease and reserve the accustomed Rent for the Landes usually lett and another Rent for the Landes not usually lett heere the lease shall bee good for the Landes usually lett and voydeable onely for the other for by these severall reservations the varyance from the authority is Cured Tanfeild and Rogers Case Trin. 36. Eliz. B.R. 5. VVhere the varyance from the authority how materiall soever it bee is notwithstanding made voyde eyther by the Common-law or act of Parliament As where the King does licence I. S. to grant twenty Markes annuity in Mortmaine and hee grants the Annuity with clause of distresse by Hussey and Bryan chiefe Iustices and Starky chiefe Baron and Iustice Faierfax the addition of distresse is without warrant and voyde yet all admit the grant of the Rent good notwithstanding 2. 3. H. 7. grants 36. By the Statute of 1. Elizabeth a grant by a Bishop of an ancient Office of Seneschall-ship to two that had never before beene granted but to one is adjudged voyde 10. Coke 61. the Bishop of Salisburyes Case Put case then that such a
grant is made by a Bishop to I. S. and to an Infant joyntly or the one after the other this is a materiall varyance and yet because the grant in respect of the Infant is voyde as it was held in Scambler and VValters Case M. 40. 41. Eliz. B.R. cited in Cokes instit sect 1. the grant to I. S. as they held is good 5. Although the habendum tenendum condition c. be partes of a grant yet the Habendum may be voyde and the grant good as in Auditor Kings case cited in 8. Coke 56. in the Earle of Rutlands Case where the Case was the King granted Landes to A. and his heyres in the premises Habendum to him and his assignes omitting the word Heyres in the habendum yet the Fee shall passe by the premises and the habendum shall be voyde The condition may bee voyde as in Litletons Case a Feoffment upon condition that hee shall not alien and yet the grant remayne good 6. The reservation of a tenure was not necessary in the grant if it were not necessary it is invtile and utile per inutile non vitiatur 3. Coke 10. Dowties case 7. The honour of the King shall be preferred before his profit 9. Coke 131. in Bewlyes case and therefore when the Kings grant may bee taken to two intents good in many Cases it shall be taken to that intent which is most beneficiall for the King But if it may bee taken to one intent good and to another intent voyde there for the honour of the King and the benefit of the Subject it shall be taken in such manner that the grant of the King may take effect for it was not the intent of the King to make a voyde grant vid. 8. Coke 56. the Earle of Rutlands case the Lord Staffords case 8. Coke 77. the Earle of Cumberlands case 8. Coke 167. Vpon this rule the Case of Priddle and Napper 11. Coke 11. was put which was sayd to bee a farre stronger Case then the Case in Question and that in Case of an authority executed in other manner alio modo and yet good The point resolved as to this purpose was this King Henr. 8. did grant Licence to the Prior and Covent of Mountacute to appropriate the Church of Tintinhul to their Priory and this was per verba de praesenti tempore It did appeare that at the time of the licence the Church was full of an Incumbent and so that no appropriation could be made in praesenti but in futuro by speciall wordes to take effect after the death of the present Incumbent and therefore the licence ought to have beene speciall otherwise the King was deceived in his grant and so the appropriation voyde which by colour of that licence they made to take effect after the death of the Incumbent But it was resolved that the appropriation was sufficient in law for the licence was generall and therefore it shall be taken in such sence that it may take effect that is to take effect after the death of the Incumbent And the reason there given is the rule before remembred for Construction of the Kings grants In which Case it is to be observed first that the licence or authority given by the King vvas in generall wordes to make the appropriation presently Secondly that this authority could not bee executed in that manner Thirdly by vertue of that licence they make the appropriation in futuro S. to take effect after the death of the Incumbent So they doe it in another manner then their authority vvarrants and yet good and their authority vvell pursued Then if that authority executed in so different a manner from the vvordes of the authority vvas adjudged to be well executed much more shall it in this Case be sayd to be vvell executed vvhen they have pursued the very vvordes of the authority and if to some intent there might be a construction made to make the grant voyde yet if by another construction the grant may bee made good and the Kings intention fulfilled vvithout any prejudice to him then for the honour of the King and the benefit of the Subject that Construction shall bee made that the grant shall bee good and such Construction may bee made in this Case for heere the tenure reserved being voyde as it is agreed by all a tenure in Capite being the tenure intended by the Commission shall bee raysed by implication of law by this Construction the grant shall bee made good and the Kings intention shall bee fulfilled without any prejudice to him They agree that in all grants of Lands by Letters patents heere in Ireland by vertue of the Kings Commission or letter Missive under the privy Signet if that tenure be not reserved eyther by the Letters patents or by the lavv which is directed by the sayd Cōmission or letter Missive there the grant shall bee voyde in the vvhole both for the Land and tenure And therefore where the king gives power to grant Lands and to reserve a tenure which the law will not create or to reserve some other thing vvhich the lavv it selfe will not reserve as if the Commission had beene to grant landes and to reserve a tenure by Knights service if the land be granted reserving a tenure in socage the grant is voyde in the vvhole So if the Commission had beene to grant land and to reserve tvventy shillings Rent and they reserve tenne shillings In these Cases the Commissioners have not done so much as they should the king is prejudiced and no construction or implication of lavv can helpe as in our Case it doth And heere in this Case the tenure reserved shall not toll that tenure which is implyed by the lavv because the tenure reserved is voyde For that they cited the Case of Littleton in his Chapter of Frank-almoigne sect 140. A Man that holds Landes by Knights service at this day grants them by licence to an Abbot c. to hold in Frank-almoigne the tenure reserved is voyde and hee shall hold by Knights service and so a gift in Frankmarriage reserving a Rent this reservation is voyde and hee shall hold onely by fealty 4. H. 6. 22. Othervvise it would be if the reservation vvere good for there the tacite reservation shall bee silent as in VVheelers case 6. Coke 6. They agree that if these Letters patents had beene made by Bill signed by the kings owne hand under the great Seale of England the tenure reserved would controll the tenure which the Lavv would have raysed For in Letters patents past in England the Letters patents are ultima intentio Regis and the Iudges vvho are to make Construction thereof are to ground their judgement upon the Letters patents themselves and the contents thereof without any regard to the particular or any thing without the Letters patents Doddingtons case 2. Coke 34. But in Letters patents of Lands in Ireland under the great Seale of Ireland the Letters patents are not
ultima intentio Regis but tota sola prima ultima intentio Regis are all to be taken and gathered out of the Commission or vvarrant from the king under the privy Signet upon vvhich they are passed And here the Iudges are to ground their judgement upon the Commission or vvarrant aswell as upon the Letters patents And to these seven Arguments or reasons all that was spoken by them that argued for the Letters patents may be reduced But it was resolved by the two chiefe Iustices the chiefe Baron Baron Barry and Iustice Ryves vvith whom Baron Lowther agreed in opinion though hee could not then argue by reason of sicknesse That the Letters patents are voyde in law both to the Land and to the tenure In this case five things did fall into consideration 1. The commission mentioned in the Case and the authority of it 2. Authorities and their severall sorts and how they ought to be pursued 3. The Authority in this case what it is if it be pursued as it ought to bee wherein it is not pursued 4. Tenures what they are in the grant that the reservation of a tenure is modus concessionis that it is not aliud or a distinct thing from the grant that tenures had their originall in England before the Norman Conquest 5. The reasons why the Letters patents are voyde in the whole and the authorities upon which the Resolution is grounded 1. The Commission mentioned in the case is the commission that was in force in the time of his late Maiesty for the strengthening of Defective Titles a Commission that was one of the greatest graces and bounties that ever before that time vvas vouchsafed by the kings of England to their Subjects of this kingdome a Commission that was agreed by all to bee a good and legall and effectuall commission and to contayne in it selfe full power and authority to grant Of vvhich the chiefe Iustice of the Common pleas in his argument fayd that upon this occasion he did seriously peruse it and in his judgement it was as full and strong a Commission for granting the Landes concurrentibus hijs quae de jure requiruntur as any hee had seene There vvas in the Commission as hee sayd plenitudo potestatis there is not any question of the Commission nor of the power granted by the Commission Neyther as it vvas declared was it the intention of his Maiesty to deny unto the Subject the full benefit of it in all things wherein the Commissioners had pursued their authority given by the Commission and proceeded according to the law For that that there was no direction in the Commission for the tenure it was no defect in the Commission as the chiefe Baron observed nor any omission or negligence in them that were trusted with the drawing of it it was done upon good aduise of purpose for the cases of them that vvere to passe upon that Commission were so different and there was such variety of tenures that it was not possible to give any certaine direction in the Commission concerning them Besides the intention of that Commission was not to give authoritie for the alteration or diminution of the Kings tenures it was intended onely for the establishing of the estates and possessions of the Subject And therefore there is not a vvord in it of any tenure so that the purpose of it was where any former tenure vvas in esse to preserve it and where no tenure was in esse to leave it to the Reservation of the Law So that now the Commission being cleared agreed to be good and legall and to contayne full power and ample authority to grant the Landes The sole Question vvill be of the pursuance of the Commission and whither this power granted by the Commission bee well executed and pursued by the Commissioners 2. To find out the law in this Case the severall sorts of authorities in our Bookes were considered and how they ought to be pursued For authorities these differences vvere agreed for Lavv. All authorities are eyther authorities in law or authorities in fait 8. Coke 146. the 6. Carpenters case Authorities in law are vvhere the law gives authoritie vvithout any authoritie from the party as the lavv gives authority to the Lord to distraine for his Rent and service to the ovvner of the soyle to distraine damage feasant to him in the reversion to enter and see if vvast be done and the like An authority in fait is where the authority is given by the party Authorities in fait are eyther Nude and bare authorities or authorities cloathed with an interest Cokes instit 52. Nude authorities are given eyther by 1. Deede 2. Commission 3. Patent 4. VVrit 5. or Act of parliament And for all those authorities it is a certaine rule and ground in our law that they are to be pursued strictly and precisely both for matter and forme or otherwise the act done by colour of that authority is voyde 10. H. 7. 15. But the execution of authorities that are cloathed vvith an interest are of a more large and favourable interpretation then the execution of those that are but bare authorities 5. Coke 94. 95. in Barwickes case 1. That authorities by Deede are to be pursued strictly and precisely both for matter and manner See the Case of 12. Ass 24. 26. Ass 39. There the Case vvas that the Plaintife did make a Charter of Fee-simple to the Tenant and a letter of Atturney to deliver Livery of seisin the Atturney delivers Livery upon condition this Livery is voyde for the authority is not pursued in the manner So on the contrary if the letter of Atturney had beene to deliver Livery of seisin upon condition and the Atturney makes Livery vvithout condition this is voyde Cokes instit 258. 11. H. 4. 3. A letter of Atturney is made to make Livery after the death of I.S. and the Atturney makes Livery during the life of I.S. all is voyde 40. ass 38. If I command a Man to make a Deede of feoffment in my name according to a Copy shewen unto him in Latine if hee make a Deede of feoffment according to the effect of the same wordes in English or French the Feoffment is without warrant for in that case hee does not pursue the authority in the manner 10. Henr. 7. 9. So where an authority is given to enfeoffe and he leavyes a Fine ibid. 10. Henr. 7. 15. 2. For authorities by Commission that they must be pursued it is the Earle of Leicesters case in Plowd Com. 380. The Earle of Leicester 1. Mar. was indicted of high treason before Sir Richard Sowthwell seaven other Commissioners by vertue of a Commission directed to the sayd Sir Richard and fourteene more After another Commission was directed to Sir Thomas VVhite and others reciting that where the Earle of Leicester stood indicted before Sir Richard Sowthwell and fourteene other Commissioners of divers Treasons c. It gave them authority
ad indictamentum praedictum recipiendum ipsum Robertum super inde audiendum c. ac debito fine triandum terminandum c. By colour of that Commission they did arraigne him upon that indictment found before eight of the Commissioners he confessed the treasons c. and had his judgement It was resolved that all that was done was voyde and coram non iudice for that they did not pursue their authority 3. Authority by Patent must be pursued The King licences an Abbot and Covent to Alien the Abbot sole Aliens it is voyde 21. Henr. 7. 7. 8. And the rule given by Frovvicke when the King makes any grant or Licence it ought to bee executed accordingly and strictly as if the King grants me Licence to make a feoffment by Deede I cannot make a Feoffment without Deede Nor e Contra So that the Licence must ever be pursued or otherwise the act done is not warranted by the Licence vid. 18. ass Pl. ultimo The Lord Cliffords case 2. Coke 80. Stamf. prarog Regis 31. The Licence was to levy a Fine of the Mannor of Dale to find two Chapleines and he would have levyed the fine leaving out the Chapleines and could not be suffered 3. Ed. 3. 5. Stamf. ubi supra vid. 30. Ed. 3. 17. 4. Authorities by VVrit must bee pursued In a praecipe quod reddat there must bee two Summoners therefore summons by one Summoner is not good Plowd Com. 393. 50. Ed. 3. 16. 5. Authority given by Parliament must bee pursued The Statute of Merton Cap. 3. ordaynes that in a Redisseisin the Sheriffe assumptis secum custodibus placitorum Coronae c. accedat ad tenementum illud de quo facta fuerit querela If the Sheriffe take but one Coroner it is not good for the act appoints a number two at the least which number ought to be satisfied or else the authority given by the Act is not pursued 23. ass 7. Plowd Com. 393. So that by the Rule of all these Books it is manifest that a Nude authority must be pursued strictly both for matter and manner or the act done by colour of the authority is voyde But in what Cases the Act so voyde for not pursuing of the authority shall bee voyde in the vvhole or in part onely this difference was taken Where hee that hath an authority doth that which hee is authorized to doe aliud and another thing distinct from that for which hee hath authority And where hee doth the same thing which hee is authorised to doe alio modo in another manner then the authority does warrant In the first Case it is good for that which is warranted and voyde for the aliud In the other it is voyde for the whole And therefore if a letter of Atturney be made to I. S. to make Livery of seisin in vvhite-acre and hee makes Livery in vvhite-acre and Blacke-acre there hee doth Idem aliud And therefore it is good for vvhite-acre that is according to his authority and pursuant to it and voyde for Black-acre which is Aliud from his authoritie Perk. 38. Otherwise it would bee if the letter of Atturney were to make Livery of one acre and hee makes Livery of two acres there it is voyde for both because he couples both togither and it is not named in certaine in the feoffment of vvhich Acre Livery shall be made according to 4. H. 7. 5. But in the case of Perk the Acre is named in certaine VVhite-acre and so a difference On the other side vvhen the same thing is done in another manner than the authority vvarrants there is Idem alio modo and therefore all is voyde As in the case of 12. Ass 24. 26. Ass 39. 40. Ass 38. 10. H. 7. 9. the cases already cited The true reason why in all those Cases the Act is voyde is because the Authoritie is executed Alio Modo And so is the reason expressely given in the booke of 12. Ass why the liverye is voyd because the Attourney doth it in other manner than the Authoritie warrants This is the difference that must rule the case one way or other And therefore the onely labour will be to find out under which part of that difference the case in question doth lye 3. For that First it will be necessary to enquire VVhat the authority in this Case is whether it be pursued as it ought to be wherein it is not pursued The Authority given to the Commissioners in this Case is twofold An Authority expressed in their Commission S. to grant the mannor of Dale And an Authority implied in lavv to reserve a tenure in Capite For where there is no direction for the tenure the law will imply a tenure in Capite as the best for the King In this Case then by the very Commission the tenure is made a part of the grant and Modus Concessionis for the authority though it bee twofold expressed and implied yet both being put togither that which is to bee done by vertue of that Authority is but one entire Act one grant a grant of the Mannor of Dale reserving a Capite tenure so that their Authority to grant the land is not absolute but sub modo so that they reserve a tenure in Capite And although the power to reserve a tenure in Capite bee onely implyed by the law and bee not given by expresse vvords in their Commission that makes no difference For by the rule of our Bookes Authorities implied in law as well as those that are expressed must be pursued Where a letter of Atturney is made to deliver Livery of scism the Atturney hath a tvvofold authority An authority expressed in his warrant and that is generall to deliver seisin And an Authoritie implied in lavv that is to deliver an Actuall and expresse Livery and not a Livery in Lavv. And therefore if the Atturney delivers seisin within the view though it bee vvarranted by his expresse authoritie yet because he hath not pursued his implied authoritie the Act is voyde And so it vvas resolved P. 3. Eliz. C.B. in Yarhams Case Cokes Instit sect 66. This then being their Authoritie S. to grant the Mannor of Dale and upon the grant to reserve a tenure in capite Novv hovv have they executed this authority There are Letters Patents passed to A. and his heires by Colour of the Commission to be holden by Knights service as of his Majesties Castle of Dublin Here they have not pursued their Authoritie for where by the Commission either a tenure in Capite ought to have beene reserved or else the tenure left to the reservation of the law They expressely reserve a tenure by Common Knights service That the Letters Patents as to this tenure thus reserved are voyde it was agreed on all sides But whither they should bee onely voyde to the tenure or whither the reserving of a tenure so divers from the tenure intended and warranted by the Commission shall destroy
the Crowne Obj. It was Obj. that the tenure is Aliud frō the land for the land is the subjects the tenure belongs to the King Resp To that 1. it was Answ that the questiō is not whither the tenure be Aliud from the land for t is cleare the land is one thing and the tenure another but the questiō is whither the reservation of the tenure be Aliud frō the authority of granting the land or included in it as modus concessionis S. they shal grant grant in this māner 2 It was answered both are the Kings But the tenure was asleepe by the possession in the King and it is now to bee awakened by this Commission in which it appeares that the intent and plaine meaning of the King vvas to grant the land to the subject and to reserve the tenure for himselfe And that the Tenure is not such a stranger to the land it is proved by our books in Mary Blages Case 1. H. 4. 2. It is said that land lies naturally in tenure 2. that land lies alwayes in tenure And therefore the tenure is of the nature of the land it arises out of the land and hath existence in the land it is inherent in it and inseparable from it it is upon the matter of the essence of the grant of the land for no grant of land in Feesimple to a common person either from the King or a Common person can be without a tenure either expressed or implyed We have not in our lavv properly Allodium that is any land in the hands of a subject that is not holden Cokes Instit sect 1. The lands onely that are in the Kings possession are free from tenure for a tenant is hee that holdeth of some superior Lord by some service And therefore the King cannot be a tenant because hee hath no superior but God praedium domini Regis est directum dominium cujus nullus est Author nisi Deus And as Bracton saith lib. 1. cap. 8. omnis quidem sub eo ipse sub nullo nisi tantum sub Deo vid. lestatute 16. R. 2. cap. 5. 14. Eliz. Dyer 313. 1. Coke 47. vid. 8. Coke 118. where it is said that it would bee against Common right and reason that the King should hold of any or doe service to any of his Subjects and therefore some have thought it not so proper in the Kings Case to say that he is scised in dominico suo ut de feodo Cowell Interpret verb. feudum institut p. 66. As if feodum or fendum were taken in our law as it is in the feudall law onely for lands held by services But with us it hath another signification Littleton tels us feudum idem est quod haereditas and so it was defined long before Littleton by Bracton and Briton and Fleta And in truth it hath two significations in our bookes In the first it is taken to be the same with an inheritance and so it is proper enough in the Kings Case In the other it is taken for lands held as in that of Hors de son fee. We finde both in Bracton lib. 4. cap. 9. fol. 263. feudum est quod quis tenet ex quacunque causa sibi haeredibus suis c. alio modo dicitur feudum quod quis tenet ab alio sicut dicitur talis tenet de tali tot feuda per servicium militare And agreeing with him is Fleta which for the most part is transcribed out of Bracton lib. 5. cap. 5. And here just occasion might bee taken to cleare our Master Littleton from that imputation which is cast upon him by the Author of the Common wealth of England pag. 127. where hee layes ignorance to his charge for laying that Feodum idem est quod haereditas which saies he it doth not signifie in any language It were easie to make it manifest how proper that sence is But because it hath partly appeared by that which hath beene sayd and for that the Author of that Booke is not knowne for some have doubted whither Sir Thomas Smyth be the Author of it or no Sir Iohn Fernes generositie pag. 99. And so to argue with him would be to fight with a shadow therefore they did abstaine So that it is cleare that onely lands in the Kings possession are free from tenure But if they once come into the hands of a Common person there if the feoffor doe not reserve a tenure the law will Before the statute of Quia Emptores Terrarum if a man made a feoffment in fee and reserved no tenure the law did imply a tenure and the feoffee held of the feoffor by such services as the feoffor held over Vpon a feoffment made after that statute if no tenure were expressed the law will imply a tenure de Capitalibus dominis And as it is in the Case of Common persons so in the Kings Case In every grant wherein feesimple passes there must bee a tenure either expressed or implied Of such Necessity is the Reservation of a tenure in the Kings grant that although the King should grant land without any Reservation of tenure or by expresse words absque aliquo inde Reddendo yet the law would create a tenure in Capite 33. H. 6. 7. 6. Coke 7 VVheelers Case 9. Coke 123. Anthony Lowes Case 14. H. 6. 12. The Abbot of St. Bartholomewes Case The King grants lands in fee Tenendum cy frankement come le Roy esten son Corone yet the patentee shall hold in Capite for it is vested in the King by his prerogative and cannot be extinct It is so inseparable it cannot bee released In Anthony Lowes Case The King grants or releases the Services to his tenant and his heires this release cannot extinguish the tenure in all though where the tenure is by Common Knights service or socage it extinguishes all the services but that onely vvhich is an incident inseparable to every tenure viz. fealty And all for this reason Because there is a necessitie of a tenure and the Kings Charter doth not alter the law the tenure and services are part and parcell of the Mannor and shall goe with the Mannor and discend as the Mannor to the heire of the part of the mother although it bee newly created 5. E. 2. Avowry 207. Besides consider the tenure in the Commencement and fruits of it it is ever inherent in and Relative to the land The Commencement of the tenure S. the forme of doing homage and fealty is that hee shall be faithfull and true for the land that he holds The fruits of the tenure what are they but the profits of the land wardship Livery primer seisin reliefe fine for Alienation and the rest And therefore where the land and signiory meete in an equall estate and right in the same person the signiory by unitie of possession is extinguished And there are tvvo reasons given of that extinguishment 1. Because the signiory that was
times it is probable the Lavves of both nations did not much differ As for the times after it appeares they did not by comparing their Regiam Majestatem and our Glanvill Neither is the bare Conjecture of Sir Henry Spelman sufficient to take avvay the force of those Lavves vid. Spelman Glossar verbo Feudum Vpon all this they did Conclude That upon consideration of the Authority given and grant thereupon made the reservation of the tenure cannot bee said to bee Aliud S. a separate and distinct thing from the Authority of granting the land but rather included within it And that the Reservation of the tenure though it bee not ipsa concessio the grant it selfe yet it is Modus concessionis and a part of the grant And that therefore the Authority being not pursued in that the whole grant is voyde 5. And so it was Resolved for these reasons and upon these Authorities 1. The Maine and principall reason vvhy they did Resolve that the Letters patents vvere voyde in the vvhole was because that here the Commissioners had but an Authoritie and that Authoritie they have not pursued By the Commission they were to grant the lands and to reserve a tenure in Capite or to leave the Reservation to the lavv Now there is a tenure by common Knights service reserved so they have executed their Authority in another manner then the Commission vvarrants they have done Idem alio modo And therefore by the rule of the bookes before cited the vvhole grant is voyde It vvas agreed by all that if the Commissioners here had granted the land Reserving a tenure in Capite the Patent vvould have beene good and effectuall or if they had granted the land and reserved no tenure there because the Lavv in that Case vvould rayse a tenure in Capite such a grant vvould have beene good and well warranted by the Commission 2. This Commission is a Nude Authoritie for the interest is in the King and the Commissioners have onely a bare Authority to grant and therefore it ought to be pursued most strictly both in matter and manner and the execution of it is to be expounded strictly This Ansvveres all the Cases that have beene put on the other side where an Authoritie in some sort may be executed alio modo and yet good as the Case of Stanton and Barnes where by Custome the Lord might grant Copy-holds in fee and hee grants a Lesser estate simply or a lesser estate vvith a remainder over And the other Report that hath beene cited betweene Downes and Hopkins where the Custome was to grant Copies for two lives and he grants to the husband for life and after to the wife durante viduitate The Case of Hatt and Arrowsmyth where a Copy-holder for life was licensed to make a lease for yeares si tam diu vixerit and hee makes a lease absolutely without that limitation The Case of Baron Feme making a lease upon the Statute of 32. H. 8. The Case of 3. H. 7. where upon a licence to grant an Annuity he grants it with clause of distresse And yet for that Case see the Case of Suttons Hospitall 10. Coke The Case of Priddle and Napper and all the other Cases that have beene put upon this ground For in all those Cases there is an interest coupled with the Authority and therefore they are not to bee compared to this Case in which there is only a meere and a bare Authority 3. This Commission is a publique authority of Record to which the subjects may resort and of which they ought to take Notice to passe according the Commission at their perill And therefore if either through ignorance or Carelesnesse or otherwise they neglect to have their patents drawne pursuant to the Commission the fault is their owne they cannot transferre the blame of this to the King as in like Case it is resolved upon the Commission of Bankrupts 2. Coke 26. So at the common Law a patent without recitall of a lease for yeares of Record is voyde for the subject may resort to the publique Record The King intends Ardua Regni This answeres the objection touching even that honour of the King that hath beene spoken of and cleares his performance of his part in this Case For the King in favour of his Subjects of this Realme hath granted a good and gracious and effectuall Commission upon which many legall and good and effectuall Letters Patents have beene made that have beene allovved and approved for good But if upon this Commission so good and gratious for the subject the subject shall contrary to the authoritie given by the Commission obtaine Letters patents in fraud and deceit of the Crowne to defeat the King of his tenures in Capite a principall flowre of his Crowne if these Letters patents bee voide where 's the fault certainely in the subject that contrary to the Authoritie of the Commission obtaines this grant in deceit of the King to defeat him of his tenure which vvas but an ill returne for so great and gratious a bountie And that Objection of the operation of law Answeres not the intention of the partie in this case for plainely and apparently the meaning of the Patentee vvas to suppresse the King's tenure in Capite and to hold by a meane and inferiour tenure which was contrary to the authoritie of the Commission and in deceit and prejudice of the King Now that Patents obtained in deceit and prejudice of the King are clearely and wholly and utterly voyde to all intents and purposes is a ground so obvious so positive and infallibly true that they would not cite any booke or authoritie to prove it for it is marvellous cleare and granted of all sides that patents obtayned in deceit and prejudice of the King are altogither voyde If any desire an Authoritie he may have a Cloud of Authorities in the Case of Alton VVoods Coke 1. Report 4. This is an Authoritie appearing within the body of the Record of the Letters Patents themselves for the Letters Patents are ex Assensu of such and such Commissioners virtute secundum intentionem Commissionis c. Now the tenure in Capite being as strongly implied in the Commission as if it had beene expressed as it hath beene confessed of the other part for it is upon this implication that they say the Patent is voyde for the tenure it is as much as if the King had given Commission to grant the land to hold in capite and not otherwise Now in so much as the Commissioners have granted the lands in other Manner and all this appeares within the body of the Record of the letters patents themselves the patent is voyde in the whole for Construction is to bee made upon the whole patent and not upon any part of it distinct as it is Resolved in Bucklers Case 2 Coke 55. And this hitherto hath beene alwayes the constant Resolution of all the Iudges of Ireland our Predecessors That if
vpon the same reason It vvas adjudged in B. R. Betweene one Hegge and Crosse 33 et 34. Eliz. vvhich you may see in Bucklers case 2. Coke 55. Where the Case vvas Tenant for life makes a lease for yeares and after grants the reversion to A. Habendum from a day to come for life after the day the lessee for yeares attorns in that Case the Habendum is voyde yet that voyde Habendum makes voyde the vvhole grant and excludes the implication of Lavv in the premisses and no estate shall passe by implication of Lavv in the premisses against the expresse limitation of the party in the Habendum see the Cases cited before p. 26. So our Tenendum although it be voyde yet the expresse reservation in the Tenendum shall exclude the implication of Lavv. For that opinion of Martyn in 4. H. 6. 22. that vvas Cited on the other part that if land be given in frank-marriage reserving a rent the reservation of the rent is voyde by reason of the implyed tenure in frankmarriage that opinion as vvas said may vvell be doubted of for vvee find as good Authority against it in the old Tenures fol. 211 That the Reservation of the rent is good and destroyes the frank-mariage and makes it a Common Estate tayle But the best opinion is that both of them shall stand togither S. the gift in frankmarriage and also the Reservation of the rent S. that the donce in frankmarriage shall hold quitt of the rent untill the fourth degree be past and then the rent shall take effect and so vvas the opinion of the Iudges in VVebb and Potters Case in 24. Eliz. and so are the bookes to be understood 13. E. 1. formedon 63. 31. E. 1. tayle 31. 26. E. 3. grants 75. et 26. Ass 66. For the Case of Littleton 140. A man seised of certaine tenements vvhich he held of his Lord by Knights service at this day grants by license the same tenements to an Abbot in frankalmoigne the Abbot shall hold immediately by Knights service of the same Lord of vvhom his grantor held and shall not hold of his grantor in frankalmoigne In that Case they say the expresse tenure being voyde a tenure by implication of Law does arise It vvas Answered there is a difference betvveene the Kings Case vvhich it the Case in question and the Case of a Common person For the grants of a Common person the rule of Law is that the grant shall be taken most strongly against the grantor For the Kings grants the rule is that they shall be taken most beneficially for the King and most strong against the patentees And vvee have another rule that the grant of the King shall not be extended to passe any thing contrary to the intent of the King expressed in his grant And if the grant cannot take effect according to his intent expressed in his grant the grant is voyde And therefore for the rules put by them that argued on the other side that the patents of the King shall be taken in such sence and to such intent that they shall be good c. It may be Answered that there is another ground in our Lavv that when the King is deceived in his grant so that it cannot take effect according to his intent expressed in his grant the grant is voyde so the best a exposition is to make all these rules to agree together And therefore the rules put on the other side are true vvith this limitation S. Except the King be deceived so that his grant cannot take such effect as he intends by his expresse grant In the Lord Lovells Case 18. H. 8. B. Pat. 104. The King excerta scientia et mero motu grants lands to one and to his heires males if a Common person had made such a grant the Lavv vvould say that the vvord males vvere voyde and the fee simple should passe But vvill the Lavv make such a construction in the Kings grant No there the grant shall be voyde for he vvas deceived in his grant in that it cannot take effect according to his intent expressed in his letters patents And so in the Case of 7. H. 4. 42. 21. E. 3. 47. The Earle of Kents Case If the King hath a vvard of land or a lease of land for yeares and by his letters patents grants the land to another and his heires the grant is voyde and it shall not amount by construction to a grant of his estate or interest vid. 21. Ass 15. And the other bookes Cited in the Case of Alton VVoods upon this ground 29 Eliz. in the Exchecquer the Case vvas King H. 7. was seised of tvvo mannors S. de Ryton et condor he grants ex certa scientia et mero motu totum illud manerium de Ryton et condor adjudged that the grant vvas voyde The like Case vvas resolved 39. Eliz. vvhere the queene vvas seised of the Mannors of Millborne and Saperton in the County of Lincolne and the queene grants ex certa scientia mero motu totum illud Manerium de Millborne cum Saperton in Com Linc and it vvas held that neither of the Mannors did passe And yet if a Common person had made such grants the grantee in both the said Cases should have had both the Mannors So in our Case the King is deceived in his grant in that his grant cannot take effect according to his intention therein expressed For the Kings intention is to make a grant agreeable in all things to the Authority given to the Commissioners by the sayd Commission And that appeares plainely by the very vvords of the letters patents for the vvordes are Sciatis quod nos c. virtute ac secundum intentionem et effectum of the said Commission Dedimus et Concessimus c. as in the patent and he conceived that the vvarrant made by the Commissioners for passing the patent which here vvee call the fiant had bene according to the intent and effect of the said Commission And upon that warrant vvhich exceeded the Authority given to the Commissioners this patent vvas past yet still vvith a reference to the intention and effect of the Commission Now this grant cannot by any possibility take effect according to the Kings intention therein expressed for the Kings intention in the beginning of the grant is that it shall be according to the intention and effect of the Commission vvhich must be a tenure by Knights service in capite either by expresse Reservation or by implication and operation of Lavv. And the tenure reserved in the patent is a tenure by Common Knights service as of the Castle of Dublyn differing altogether from the intention and effect of the Commission so as it is not possible that this tenure expressely reserved can be according to the intention and effect of the Commission or that the intent and effect of the Commission can any vvayes acoord with the tenure expressely reserved in the patent So as it
Because that the Authority appeares within the letters patents themselves and exposition shall be made upon the whole patent 5. Although it be a most ample and large Commission yet it is bounded and circumscribed by the Law with an equall Construction S. that nothing shall bee done in other manner then the Authority warrants in prejudice of the King 6. Because that this reservation of a meane tenure is in other manner then the authority warrants and is in damage and prejudice of the King 7. And lastly because that this expresse reservation controlls the implication of Law and for that the King was deceived in his grant in that it cannot take effect according to his intention therein expressed For these Reasons they did resolve That this expresse Reservation of a meane tenure tends to the destruction of the whole patent and makes it voyde in Law both to the lands and to the tenure The Order of the Councell Board upon this Resolution of the Iudges By the Lord Deputy and Councell WENTWORTH WHereas there was an Act of Councell made at this Board and dated at the Abbey of Boyle the Eleaventh day of Iuly 1635. ordayning and establishing that the Lords Knights Gentlemen and Inhabitants their heires and assignes holding any Castle Mannors Lands Tenements or other haereditaments in the County of Roscoman by or under any effectuall letters patents from his Majesty or any of his Royall predecessors Kings or Queenes of England should have hold possesse and enjoy all the said Castles Mannors Lands Tenements and hereditaments of what kinde or nature soever they be to them and to every of them and to those who hold any estates under them against his Majesty his heires and successors in as full large ample free and beneficiall manner to all intents purposes and constructions as if the truth of their severall Cases and their severall letters patents passed thereupon had bene specially found in the great office then to be taken for finding his Majesties title to the said County and their letters patents accordingly entred in haec verba in the said office so that they did produce their said severall letters patents or the enrollments thereof before us the Lord Deputy and Councell at this Board before the first day of the then next Easter Tearme and that no possession should be taken from any such patentees or their assignes or tenants whose patents should be at this Board allowed to be good and effectuall in Law And whereas the like Acts of Councell were made at this Board for the severall Counties of Slygo Mayo and Gallway and the County of the towne of Gallway And whereas severall letters patents past under his Majestyes great seale of divers lands tenements and hereditaments in the said severall Counties by colour of a Commission under the greate Seale dated the second day of March in the fourth yeare of the Raigne of his Majestyes Royall Father King Iames of blessed memory were presented unto us at this Board which being taken into consideration by us we thought fit for our better Information of the validity of the said letters patents to call before us some of those who claymed by those letters patents as namely our very good Lord the Viscount Dillon of Costillogallen whom wee appointed to attend us with his learned Councell therein which he did accordingly Whereupon his Majestyes learned Councell and the Councell learned of the said Lord Dillon agreed upon a Case drawen up by them to be argued by them on both sides before us which Case followeth in haec verba King Iames by Commission under the greate Seale dated the second day of March in the fourth yeare of his Raigne did authorize certaine Commissioners to grant the mannor of Dale by letters patents under the greate Seale of this Kingdome to A. and his heires and there is no direction given in the said Commission touching the tenure to be reserved There are letters patents by colour of the said Commission passed unto A. and his heires to hold by Knights service that is to say by the twentieth parte of c. as of his Majestyes Castle of Dublyn the question is whither the said letters patents be voyde in the whole or onely to the tenure upon which case his Majesties learned Councell and the learned Councell on the part of the said Viscount Dillon argued before us severall dayes and wee desirous to take such a Resolution in the matter as might be equall and just held fit to advise therein withall his Majestyes Iudges who not agreeing unanimously in opinion wee adjudged it fit that every of them should argue it and deliver his Iudgement and opinion therein before us which they did accordingly Wherein five of them viz. the Lord Chiefe Iustice of his Majesties Court of Kings Bench the Lord Chiefe Iustice of his Majestyes Court of common pleas the Lo Chiefe Baron of his Majestyes Court of Exchequer Baron Barry and Iustice Rives concurred in opinion clearely that the letters patents were voyde in the whole and two onely viz. Iustice Mayart and Iustice Cressy differed from those five in opinion holding that the letters patents were onely voyde as to the tenure we thereupon taking the same into consideration at this Board doe hereby adjudge order and declare that the said letters patents are wholly voyde in Law and consequently that all such letters patents passed under colour of the said Commission and that mention the parcells granted to be held by Knights service as of his Majestyes Castle of Dublyn or by any tenure other then by Knights service in Capite generally are not good effectuall or valid in Law but voyde in the whole And therefore we doe at this Board disallowe all such letters patents soe granted as aforesaid of any lands tenements or hereditaments in any of the said Counties of Roscoman Slygo Mayo Gallway or the county of the towne of Gallway Given at his Majestyes Castle of Dublyn 13. Iuly 1637. R. Dillon Ad. Loftus W. Parsons Gerr. Lowther R. Bolton Chr. VVandesford Ph. Mainwaring Cha. Coote Geo. Radcliffe THE END