Selected quad for the lemma: land_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
land_n	lease_n	life_n	tail_n	1,422	5	9.7324	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A05165	The case of tenures upon the commission of defective titles argued by all the iudges of Ireland, with their resolution, and the reasons of their resolution.	Santry, James Barry, Baron, 1603-1672.	1637 (1637)	STC 1530; ESTC S106989	30,816	68

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

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