Selected quad for the lemma: land_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
land_n	issue_n	son_n	tail_n	2,526	5	10.4836	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A31458	The laws of Q. Elizabeth, K. James, and K. Charles the First concerning Jesuites, seminary priests, recusants, &c., and concerning the oaths of supremacy and allegiance, explained by divers judgments and resolutions of the reverend judges : together with other observations upon the same laws : to which is added the Statute XXV Car. II. cap. 2 for preventing dangers which may happen from popish recusants : and an alphabetical table to the whole / by William Cawley of the Inner Temple, Esq.	Cawley, William, of the Inner Temple.	1680 (1680)	Wing C1651; ESTC R5101	281,468	316

lieu of the Twenty pounds per month And therefore the Resolution or Judgment said to be given in the Case of one Gray Anno 1. or 2. Jac. and cited in Beckets Case 8 Jac. Lane 93. and by Sergeant Bridgman in his Argument of Parker and Webbs Case 16 Jac. Rolles 2. 25. and applied thereunto viz. That if a Recusant convicted fails of the payment of the Twenty pounds per month the King shall have his Lands as a gage or penalty and the profits shall not go towards satisfaction thereof However it were true as the Law stood upon 29 Eliz. and before the making of this Act of 1 Jac. yet 't is not Law at this day nor could be applicable to either of those Cases of Becket or Parker and Webb which came to be debated long after this Act was made and the Law of 29 Eliz. altered in that point Vide Stat. 29 Eliz. cap. 6. Sect. 7. Where any such seizure shall be had c. This Relative such takes in both the seizures beforementioned viz. a seizure upon Indictment and Judgment thereupon by force of the Statute of 23 Eliz. and a seizure upon Conviction on Proclamation and default according to the Statute of 29 Eliz. And What seizure is here meant Stat. 23 Eliz 1 29 Eliz. ● as in both those Cases the Recusant who fails of the payment of the Twenty pounds per month shall have the benefit to discount the profits received by the King so the King shall in the like Cases of seizure retain the two parts in his hands after the Recusants death until the residue of the Debt or Duty due and payable to the King be satisfied Where this extends not to Intailed Lands Two parts of the Lands c. of any such Recusant This Clause extends not to Intailed Lands unless where there is a Judgment for the King against the Ancestor for his Recusancy And therefore if the Recusant convicted upon Proclamation and default be Tenant in Tail and two parts of his Lands be seized in his Life time for non-payment of the Twenty pounds per month and he die the arrears not being satisfied to the King yet the heir in Tail shall have the Land out of the Kings hands without payment of the arrears For that such Conviction is in the nature of a Verdict only Conviction upon Proclamation no Judgment and not of a Judgment as was held in Doctor Fosters Case Rolles 1.94 C. 41. And where a Statute gives to the King a seizure or forfeiture of Lands it shall not be intended of Lands in Tail unless it be expresly so appointed by the Statute or by force of some other Statute cooperating therewith In which Case the Intailed Lands may be charged by general words in the Statute which gives the forteiture or seizure An instance whereof we have in the Case of a Recusant Tenant in Tail Indicted Stat. 23 Eliz. 1 Convicted and Adjudged upon 23 Eliz. 1. for his Intailed Lands shall remain after his death in the Kings possession until the arrears be satisfied 29 Eliz. 6 33 H. 8. 39 and that by force of 29 Eliz. c. 6. and this Statute cooperating with the Statute of 33 H. 8. cap. 39. which charges the Lands of the heir in Tail with debts due to the King upon a Judgment had against the Ancestor Praemunire Stat. 16 R. 2. 5 But otherwise 't is in the Case of a Praemunire upon the Statute of 16 R. 2. cap. 5. which saith the Lands and Tenements of the Offender shall be forfeit to the King for there his Intailed Lands shall be forfeit during his life only And the reason is for that general words in an Act of Parliament unless aided by some other Act of Parliament shall never take away the force of the Statute de donis conditionalibus Co. 1. Inst. 130. 391. Co. 11.63 Godbolt 308. Lord Sheffeild and Ratcliffe Treason Stat. 26 H. 8. 13 5 E. 6. 11 And therefore in the Statutes of 26 H. 8. cap. 13. and 5 E. 6. cap. 11. which make Intailed Lands forfeitable for Treason the word inheritance was added any Estate of Inheritance which expresly denotes Lands in Fee Tail as well as Feesimple Now there being neither in this Act or that of 29 Eliz. any express appointment that the two parts of all Lands seized in the Recusants life time wherein he had any Estate of Inheritance shall after his death continue in the Kings possession nor no other Statute which charges the heir in Tail with the forfeiture due to the King upon Conviction by Proclamation and Default the general words here that his Lands Tenements c. shall continue in the Kings possession shall not inforce a construction in prejudice of the Heir in Tail who claims by the Statute de donis conditionalibus but where there is no Judgment the Recusants Fee simple Lands shall after his death satisfie the intent of these Statutes And so was the Law in reference to intailed Lands upon the Statute of 29 Eliz. cap. 6. which speaks of the full satisfaction of Arrearages in Case of the death of the Recusant Arrears where to be paid by the Heir in Tail where not And the Arrears were to have been paid by the Heir in Tail only in such Case where there was a Judgment obtained by the King against the Ancestor for his Recusancy but not where the Ancestor Tenant in Tail was convicted only upon Proclamation and default for in this last Case the Heir in Tail was not bound by the Statute of 33 H. 8. cap. 39. because 't is not a Debt by Judgment as that Statute requires Moore 523. C. 691. And thus the Opinion of the two Chief Justices Trin. 43 Eliz. is to be understood for they held That if intailed Lands had been seized for non-payment of the 20 l. per month and the Tenant in Tail had died the issue in Tail should not have had the Land out of the Queens hands before the Debt were satisfied but should have been charged with the said Debt Cro. Eliz. 846. At the end of which Case is added a Dubitatur But yet the Opinion there held stands good if it be intended only of a Conviction of the Ancestor by Judgment upon Trial or Confession and not of a Conviction upon Proclamation and default And be it further Enacted by the Authority of this present Parliament Stat. Sect. 2. None shall go or send any other to a Seminary c. That all and every person and persons under the Kings Obedience which at any time after the end of this Session of Parliament shall pass or go or shall send or cause to be sent any Child or any other person under their or any of their Government into any the parts beyond the Seas out of the Kings Obedience to the intent to enter into or be resident in any Colledge Seminary or House of Iesuits Priests or any other Popish Order

as the person so sent or gone beyond the Seas shall conform him or her self and take the aforesaid Oath and receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper And after such Oath taken and conforming of himself and receiving the Sacrament of the Supper of the Lord he or they which have so received the profits of the said Lands Tenements Hereditaments Goods and Chattels or any of them shall make account of the profits so received and in reasonable time make payment thereof and restore the value of the said Goods to such person as shall so conform him or her self as aforesaid And of him that sendeth them And that all such persons as shall send the said Child or Children over Seas without Licence as aforesaid unless the said Child or Children be Merchants or their Apprentices or Factors Marriners or Soldiers shall forfeit one hundred pounds to be divided had and recovered in thrée equal parts whereof the one third part shall be to the King his Heirs and Successors the other third part to such as shall sue for the same and the other third part to the Poor of such Parish where such Offender doth inhabit or remain by Action of Debt Bill Plaint or Information in any the Kings Majesties Courts of Record wherein no Essoign Protection or Wager of Law shall be admitted or allowed Next of kin who The next of his or her kin It hath been a great Question formerly whether the Mother can be said to be of kin to the Child and it hath been held in the negative as well by the Common Lawyers as Civilians as appears by the Case in 5 E. 6. called the Duke of Suffolks Case and that of Browne and Shelton Bro. tit Administr ' 47. But the Law is now held to be otherwise viz. That the Mother shall be taken to be of kin to the Child and that in a nearer degree then is the Brother or Sister And that she shall be preferred in the Case of an Administration upon the Statute of 21 H. 8. cap. 5. and of Guardianship by the Statute of Marlebridge where a man dies seized of Lands holden in Socage Which later Opinion agreeth with that of Littleton in his tenures fo 1. where he saith That the Parent is nearer of blood to the Child then the Uncle vide Co. 1. Inst 88. And in Ratcliffes Case Co. 3.40 the Duke of Suffolks Case is denied to be Law So that if any Child be sent or go beyond the Seas contrary to this Act his Mother shall be preferred before his Brother or Sister and as next of kin may have and enjoy his Lands c. unless she be a Popish Recusant For next of kin And who not or next of blood shall not be accounted here by course of descent but as in the Case of a purchase where a Remainder is limited to the next of blood or kin And therefore if a man hath issue three Sons A. B. and C. and dieth A. and B. have issue each of them a Son and die The Son of B. goeth beyond the Seas contrary to this Act In this Case C. the youngest Uncle shall by force of this Act have and enjoy the Lands of the Offender until his Conformity and not the Son of A. the elder Uncle For that C. hath in him jus propinquitatis as being the Uncle and so nearer of kin then the Cousin german And yet the Son of A. is heir at Law jure representationis as being the Son of the eldest Brother Vide Co. 1. Inst 10. Palmer 304 305. Periman versus Pierce Shall have and enjoy the said Lands c. What is forfeited It was held by Montague and Hobart Chief Justices Pasch 15 Jac. in Tredway's Case That if a person goes beyond the Seas contrary to this Act yet the State of the Land is not forfeited nor setled in the next of kin but vests in the heir himself who is the Offender For the Statute saith not that he shall not take by descent but only that he shall take no benefit by descent and that therefore this Statute differs from those of 5 R. 2. of consenting to Ravishment Stat. 5 R. 2. 11 H. 7. Sale by the heir and 11 H. 7. of discontinuances by Women And Hobart said That if the Heir beyond Sea bargain and sell the Land descended to him he shall prevent the next of kin if he hath not entred And if he hath entred the Land shall be taken from him Quaere of this for Tanfeild Chief Baron seemed to be of a contrary Opinion in the main point and held that the State of the Land is setled by this Act in the next of kin Ley 59. Note in the Report of this Case of Tredway it s said to be the meaning of this Act that the profits of the Land should be received by the next of kin during the Offenders Non-conformity But these words have and enjoy seem to imply some what more and that the next of kin shall have the Land it self All such persons as shall send the said Child or Children c. Here Wingate tit Crown numb 139. mistakes the person who shall forfeit the hundred pounds Forfeiture of 100 l. applying it to the Child who goes beyond Sea and not to the person who sends him Stat. Sect. 19. The forfeiture of those already gone beyond the Seas And for that many Subjects of this Realm being neither Merchants nor their Factors nor Apprentices Soldiers nor Marriners are of late gone beyond the Seas without Licence and are not as yet returned Be it further Enacted by the Authority of this present Parliament That if any of the said persons so gone beyond the Seas without Licence which are not yet returned shall not within six months next after their return into this Realm then being of the age of Eighteén years or more take the Oath above specified before some Iustice of Peace of the County Liberty or Limit where such person shall inhabit or remain that then every such Offender shall take no benefit by any gift conveyance descent devise or otherwise of or to any Lands Tenements Hereditaments Goods or Chattels until he or they being of the said age of Eightéen years or above take the said Oath and that likewise in the mean time the next of kin to the person so offending which shall be no Popish Recusant shall have and enjoy the said Lands Tenements Hereditaments Goods and Chattels so given conveyed descended or devised until such time as the person so offending shall conform himself and take the aforesaid Oath and receive the said Sacrament of the Lords Supper And after such conforming taking of the said Oath and receiving of the said Sacrament he or they that shall have so received the profits of the said Lands Tenements Hereditaments Goods and Chattels shall make account of the profits so received and in reasonable time make payment thereof and of the value of such Goods and Chattels to

the arrearages of twenty pounds monthly before such seizure due or payable shall ensue or be continued against such Offender so long as the same person shall continue in coming to Divine Service according to the intent of the said Estatute It was resolved by all the Judges Mich. 37 38 Eliz. That if a man had been convicted according to this Statute by Proclamation upon default and afterwards conformed himself Where Conformity discharges the penalty he should be discharged of the penalty due upon his Conviction notwithstanding these words and full satisfaction of all the Arrearages And the reason of this given by Coke Chief Justice B. R. in Dr. Fosters Case is for that this Statute saith That such Conviction should be as sufficient as if there were a Verdict recorded but 't is only a Judgment which converts the penalty into a Debt and not a Verdict And here all penalties are discharged upon Conformity unless such as are converted into a Debt But otherwise it would have been if there had been a Judgment against the Recusant upon Trial or Confession on the Statute of 23 Eliz. cap. 1. Stat. 23 Eliz. 1. For then his Conformity would have come too late to have saved the penalty incurred by his Conviction For by the Judgment the penalty was converted into a Debt Rolles 1. 94. C. 41. Quaere tamen Whether these words here due and payable are to be understood due and payable upon a Judgment only However now by the Statute of 1 Jac. cap. 4. 1 Jac. 4. if the Recusant conform either before or after Judgment he shall be discharged of all penalties But the profits of the Recusants Lands taken before his Conformity shall never be restored Savile 130. C. 201. The profits not to be restored It hath been questioned upon this Statute Where the penalty is discharged upon the death of the Recusant where not if a Recusant convicted by Proclamation upon default had died before seizure of two parts of his Lands whether his Lands might have been seized after his death for the Arrearages of the 20 l. per month or if they were seized in his life time whether they should have been discharged after his death without payment of such Arrears And the Opinion of those who held that the seizure should neither ensue nor continue after his death but that the Arrears were discharged was principally grounded upon the aforesaid construction of this Statute viz. that due and payable extended only to Arrearages due and payable upon a Judgment and converted into a Debt But when the Recusant was convicted by Proclamation the penalty was never converted into a Debt and therefore when he died there were no Arrearages due in the sense of this Statute for the heir to pay And yet that by such Offender here is generally intended all Recusants convicted as well by Proclamation upon default as upon Judgment and the heirs of either should have had the benefit of this Proviso viz. That upon the death of the Ancestor no seizure should ensue or be continued only in the Case of a Judgment the Arrears were to have been paid But there seems now to be no further need of this Question for the Statute of 1 Jac. cap. 4. Stat. 1 Jac. 4. meets with both these Cases For if there be no seizure of the Recusants Lands in his life time the discharge of the heir will depend upon his Conformity and if there were a seizure the two parts shall continue in his Majesties possession till the Arrears are paid and satisfied Intailed Lands when discharged and when not But this is not intended of intailed Lands For without any aid of this Proviso if a Recusant Tenant in Tail be convicted by Proclamation upon default and dies neither any seizure for the Arrears of the 20 l. per month shall ensue after his death nor if they were seized in his life time shall the seizure be continued after his death nor is the Heir in Tail bound to pay any such Arrears But if a Judgment be had against the Recusant Tenant in Tail in his life time the Heir is bound in that Case of which see farther in Stat. 1 Jac. cap. 4. Sect. 4. If a Judgment was had against the Recusant before the said Statute of 1 Jac. and he had died before seizure of the two parts of his Lands The question was whether after his death they might have been seized by force of this Statute of 29. for the Arrears of the penalty incurred in his life time For that the seizure here given is meerly in nature of a nomine poenae or penalty inflicted for his contempt in not paying the 20 l per month and should not have gone in satisfaction of the Debt But the Queen should have held the Land till the 20 l. per month were otherwise paid and satisfied And when this penalty of seizure was not executed in the Recusants life time by his death the contempt was gone and consequently the penalty inflicted for that contempt could not then be put in Execution Vide Lane 92 93. Beckets Case Ibid. 107. Halseys Case Stat. 1 Jac. 4. But now by the Statute of 1 Jac. 4. the seizure is not as a meer penalty for the contempt of non-payment but for the satisfying of the King of the Arrears of the 20 l. per month and the profits of the Land shall go towards the payment and satisfaction thereof so that now there is no question but the two parts of the Recusants Lands may be seized after his death Seizure after the Recusants death unless the Heir discharge himself by his Conformity Note Discharge upon Affidavit in all these Cases of seizure where the Land is to be discharged upon the death of the Recusant although an Affidavit be made of his death and a discharge obtained thereupon yet 't is a Rule in the Court of Exchequer Commission to enquire That a Commission shall be awarded first to enquire Savile 130. Case 201. And where by the said former Estatute Stat. Sect. 8. The third part of the forfeiture how to be disposed of the third part of the forfeitures for not coming to Divine Service is limited to the Poor Be it further Enacted by the Authority aforesaid That it shall and may be lawful to and for the Lord Treasurer of England Chancellor and Chief Baron of the Exchequer for the time being or two of them to assign and dispose of the full third part of the twenty pounds for every month paid or to be paid into the Receipt of the Exchequer as is aforesaid for the relief and maintenance as well of the Poor and of the Houses of Correction as of impotent and maimed Soldiers as the same Lord Treasurer Chancellor and Chief Baron or any two of them shall order or appoint Any thing in the said Estatute made in the said thrée and twentieth year of her Majesties Reign mentioned to

be a Popish Recusant convict at any time after his or her conviction shall exercise any publick Office or Charge in the Commonwealth but shall be utterly disabled to exercise the same by himself or by his Deputy except such Husband himself and his Children which shall be above the age of nine years abiding with him and his Servants in houshold shall once every month at the least not having any reasonable excuse to the contrary repair to some Church or Chappel usual for Divine Service and there hear Divine Service And the said Husband and such his Children and Servants as are of méet age receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper at such times as are limited by the Laws of this Realm and do bring up his said Children in true Religion This Clause extends not to all sorts of Recusants who are convicted or have Wives who are Recusants convicted as is mistaken in the late additions to Dalton cap. 81. tit Recusants Sect. 46. To whom this clause extends But at this day only to the Popish Recusant convicted or having a Wife who is a Popish Recusant convicted To whom not A Popish Recusant not convicted hath a Wife who is convicted of Recusancy but is no Popish Recusant The Husband is not disabled by this Statute to exercise any publick Office or Charge for that neither the Husband is a convicted Recusant nor the Wife a Popish Recusant A person who is convicted of Recusancy but is no Popish Recusant hath a Wife who is a Popish Recusant but not convicted The Husband is out of this Branch of the Statute for that neither the Husband is a Popish Recusant nor the Wife convicted Stat. Sect. 11. A Married Woman being a Popish Recusant And be it also Enacted by the Authority aforesaid That every Married Woman being or that shall be a Popish Recusant convict her Husband not standing convicted of Popish Recusancy which shall not conform her self and remain conformed but shall forbear to repair to some Church or usual place of Common Prayer and there to hear Divine Service and Sermon if any then be and within the said year receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper according to the Laws of this Realm by the space of one whole year next before the death of her said Husband shall forfeit and loose to the Kings Majesty his Heirs and Successors the issues and profits of two parts of her Ioynture and two parts of her Dower in thrée parts to be divided during her life of or out of any the Lands Tenements or Hereditaments which are or were her said Husbands and also be disabled to be Executrix or Administratrix of her said Husband and to have or demand any part or portion of her said late Husbands Goods or Chattels by any Law custom or usage whatsoever The issues and profits of two parts of her Ioynture and two parts of her Dower A Woman may have Joynture and Dower both And not of two parts of her Joynture or Dower as Wingate tit Crown numb 134. For there are divers Cases where notwithstanding the Statute of 27 H. 8. cap. 10. the Wife shall have her Dower and Joynture both And forfeit two parts of both And if she offend against this branch she shall forfeit the profits of two parts of both And that not only where the Joynture made to her is not warranted by that Statute but in some Cases where the Joynture is pursuant and according to the Statute she shall have her Dower and Joynture both Of the first sort are these Where the Joynture is not warranted by Stat. 27 H. 8. 10. If an Estate be made of Lands to the Wife for the life of another Co. 4. 3. Vernons Case Or for a thousand years or for a thousand years if she live so long Co. 1. Inst 36. Or if a Rent be granted to the Wife for the life of another or for years or any other way not pursuant to that Statute Vide Anderson 1. 288. c. 296. Bickley's Case Anderson 2. 30 31. c. 20. Wentworths Case Or if an Estate be made to others in fee or for the Wives life upon Trust for her benefit Co. 1. Inst 36. Or if a man Covenant to stand seized to the use of himself in Tail the Remainder to the use of his Wife for life Pasch 16. Jac. B. R. Woods Case Or if the Husband make a Feoffment in see to the use of himself for life the remainder to another for life or years the remainder to the Wife for her life Co. 4. 2. 3. Hutton 51. Sherwells Case In all these Cases although the Lands or Rent were conveyed to the Wife for her Joynture yet the Estate not being within the Statute of 27 H. 8. her acceptance thereof shall not bar her Dower but she shall have such Joynture and her Dower also And the reason why in the two last Cases the Wife shall not be barred of her Dower although there be an Estate limited to her for her life is because the Estate is not in its first Creation appointed to take immediately after the death of the Husband And no matter which arises ex post facto can salve this or make it a Joynture within that Statute to bar her Dower And therefore if in the first of those two Cases the Husband Tenant in Tail dies without issue or if in the last Case he in the remainder die before the Husband or the term for years determines in the Husbands life time so that the Wife may enter presently after his death yet because the Estate to the Wife for her life was not originally limited to take immediately after his death it shall not bar her Dower For quod ab initio non valet in tractu temporis non convalescet Co. 4. 2 3. Hutton 51. And as in all the Cases before mentioned if the Estate were made for her Joynture the Wife shall have such Joynture and her Dower both so if she be an Offender within this branch of the Act and conform not within the year next before her Husbands death she shall forfeit the profits of two parts of both Of what Lands she shall not forfeit the profits But otherwise it is where an Estate is given or limited by the Husband to the Wife and it s neither expressed nor can be averred and proved to be given or limited for her Joynture or in recompence of her Dower And therefore if any of the Estates before mentioned which are not within the Statute of 27 H. 8. be granted or limited to the Wife by the Husband or any other Estate for her life or otherwise which would be a good Joynture within the said Statute if it were intended for a Joynture as if a man before or after Marriage Covenants to stand seized of Lands to the use of himself for life the Remainder to his Wife for her life and it is neither expressed in the Deed nor can be averred and