Selected quad for the lemma: life_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
life_n	fee_n	lease_n	tenant_n	4,677	5	10.0235	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A42925	Repertorium canonicum, or, An abridgment of the ecclesiastical laws of this realm, consistent with the temporal wherein the most material points relating to such persons and things, as come within the cognizance thereof, are succinctly treated / by John Godolphin ...	Godolphin, John, 1617-1678.	1678 (1678)	Wing G949; ESTC R7471	745,019	782

interdum vicesima aut tricesima And in He●sloe's Case Co. 9. par it is said That Tithes Quatenus Tithes were Spiritual things and due ex jure Divino and were not accounted as Temporal Inheritances Hence it is That where a Parson leased all his Glebe Lands with all Profits and Commodities rendring 13 s. 4 d. pro omnibus exactionibus demandis and afterwards Libelled in the Spiritual Court against his Lessees for the Tithes thereof It was the Opinion of the Court That Tithes are not things issuing out of Lands nor any Rent or duty but Spiritual and if the Parson doth Release to his Parishioners all Demands in his Lands his Tithes thereby are not extinct and therefore a Consultation was granted And in the like case it hath been Adjudged That the Lessee should pay Tithes to the Parson for that they are jure Divino due and cannot be included in Rent If a Parishioner sets forth his Tithes and sever the Tenth part from the Nine parts justly and truly although he doth not give Personal notice to the Parson nor general notice in the Church of the time of setting forth his Tithes whereby the Parson might be present at the setting of them forth and to see that it be justly done yet it is a good setting forth of the Tithes as in the Case between Chase and Ware in a Writ of Error upon a Judgment in an Action upon the Case against the Parson for leaving his Tithe of Hay upon the Parishioners ground after notice of setting them forth whereby the Parishioner lost his Grass there But it was not alledged that the Parson had notice of the time of setting them forth and yet the Court affirmed the Judgment against the Parson A. Parson in Consideration of 20 s. yearly promised to B. that B. should pay no Tithe for a certain Wood per parol and in Consideration thereof B. promised to pay the 20 s. yearly and this Agreement was during their Lives B. made a Lease at Will of the Wood the Lessee had a Prohibition against him for the Agreement was good and Jermyn demanded what Remedy against the Lesse for the 20 s. Doderidge None but he shall have Action on the Case against B. or his Executors but the Lessee for years may have Action against the Parson if he Sue him in the Ecclesiastical Court. For the Case was There was an Agreement per parol made between S. Parson and B. the Parishioner B. promised to S. for himself his Executors and Assigns to pay him Ten load of Wood and 10 s. for the Tithe of a Wood during the life of S. And S. promised not to Sue him c. for any other Tithe B. dies his Executor made a Lease at Will of the Wood the Question is whether the Tenant at Will may take his Action against the Parson who sued him for other Tithes c. In a Prohibition against a Parson who sued for Tithes it was Surmized That the Clerk of the Parish and his Predecessors Assistants to the Minister had used to have five shillings for the Tithe of the Lands where c. It was the Opinion of the Court That if this Special matter be shewed in the Surmize it might perhaps be good by reason of long continuance But they held that by Common intendment Tithes are not payable to a Parish-Clerk and he is no party in whom a Prescription can be alledged wherefore a Consultation was awarded The Parson of T. sued for Tithe-Wood of the Park of T. for a Prohibition it was surmized That he and all those c. time out of mind c. had used to pay to the Vicar of T. ten shillings yearly for all Tithes of Wood growing in the place and the proof was That he paid ten shillings for discharge of Tithe-Wood in the Park and two other places The Prohibition was denied and a Consultation awarded because the right of Tithes between the Parson and the Vicar came in question and because the party failed in the proof of his Prescription In a Prohibition to stay Suit for Tithes surmizing that he set forth his Tithes and for some reasonable cause he detained part of them And the Parson sued him in the Ecclesiastical Court upon which it was Demurred because by the fetting forth they were Lay-Chattels But the Court held That the Prohibition did not lie for against the party himself who setteth forth his Tithes a Suit is maintainable in the Ecclesiastical Court if he detains them although he might have his Remedy for them at the Common Law Otherwise if they were taken away by a Stranger after they were set forth For a Prohibition it was Surmized That he had used to pay the Tenth sheaf of Corn the Tenth Cock of Hay the Tenth Fleece of Wool and so the like in satisfaction of all Hay Corn Cattel c. And it was held That it was no sufficient Surmize for a Prohibition because that which he used to pay is but the Tenth in kind In Sands and Pruries Case the question was whether Tithes were grantable by Copy It was Objected they could not because it is against the nature of Tithes whereof none could have property before the Council of Lateran and it was impossible there should be any Custome to demise them by Copy when none had interest in them and they cannot be parcel of a Mannor for they are of several natures though united in one mans hands But by the Court Resolved they might be granted by Copy so it had been time so out of mind A Parishioner severed his Tithes but being in a Close the Gate was locked so as the Parson could not come at them The question was whether the Gate were locked or open and thereupon a Prohibition brought The Court was of Opinion that although the Tithes were severed yet they remain Suable in the Ecclesiastical Court and then the other is but a consequent thereof and Triable there and the Prohibition denied In Sharington and Fleetwood's Case it was Resolved That if a Parson Libels for Tithes and a Prohibition is granted and after he Libelleth for the Tithes of another year the first Suit not being determined an Attachment upon the Prohibition lieth against him And in the Case between Talentire and Denton where the Bishop of Carlisle being seized in Fee of Tithes in right of his Bishoprick made a Lease of them for Three Lives rendring the ancient Rent the Tithes having been usually demised for the same Rent It was Resolved That the Lease was not good against his Successor because he had not remedy for the Rent by Distress or Action of Debt Otherwise it had been if only a Lease for years for there Debt lieth for the Rent In Leigh and Wood's Case it was Resolved That if the Owner sets forth his Tithe and a Stranger takes them no Suit shall be for the same in the Ecclesiastical Court

void a Stranger doth usurp and presents his Clerk to the Avoidance and Six months pass and afterwards the King being entitled to the Avoidance by reason of the Outlawry bring a Quare Impedit against the Incumbent as being in wrongfully and remove him By this means the Advowson is recontinued again to the Rightful Patron whereof he was ousted by the Usurpation who upon the reversal of the Outlawry shall Present in case the Church becomes void again 12. A man hath Three Avoidances granted him of one Church at one time and by one Deed The Church becomes void the Grantor by Usurpation presents his Clerk who is Admitted Instituted and Inducted afterwards the Church becomes void again In that case the Grantee shall present to the Second Avoidance for that the former Presentation made by the Grantor usurping did not put the Grantee out of all the Avoidances and Adjudged accordingly 13. A. seized of a Mannor with an Advowson appendant presented B. who was Admitted Instituted and Inducted afterwards A. fells the Mannor to which the Advowson was appendant unto J. S. The Church becomes void by the death of B. whereupon the Queen 15 Feb. 1588. Present J. D. by these words viz. Per mortem naturalem Incumbeatis ibid. vacant who thereupon 20th of the said Feb. was Admitted Instituted and Inducted by Letters of Institution Per Dominam Reginam veram indubitatam Patronam The said J. D. dies The King presents R. in these words viz. Ad nostram Praesentationem sive ex pleno jure sive per Lapsum Temporis sive alio quocunque modo spectant The only Question was Whether notwithstanding all this matter the Advowson did remain Appendant or not And it was Adjudged by the Court That the Advowson remained Appendant notwithstanding the Queens presentation of J. D. For it appeared there was no colour of Title to the Queen to present no Lapse for the Presentation Institution c. were all in the same month wherein the Advoidance was And it was no Usurpation by the Queen because the Presentation supposed a Right where none was and so was void for the Queen meant to do no wrong And upon the same reason the Presentation of R. afterwards by the King was void And it was then further holden by the Court That the Presentation of J. D. being void it was but a Collation of the Bishop which makes no disappendancy nor so much as a plenarty against the Rightful Patron but that he may bring his Quare Impedit when he will and if the Bishop receive his Clerk the other is out ipso facto 14. Although an Advowson be a kind of Reversion of a right of Presentation to a Living or Benefice called Spiritual yet it is now in the nature of other Temporal Inheritances and therefore he that hath this Right in him may either devise it by Will or grant it by Deed in Fee or for life or for years as other things And in regard an Advowson or Jus Patronatus refers to and respects not the Oblations and Tithes belonging to the Church but rather the Building thereof with the Ground whereon it is built and the Endowment thereof if therefore any debate or controversie should happen to arise touching any of these last mentioned it might prejudice the Patron as to his Right to the Advowson but if the controversie be only touching the other viz. the Oblations or Tithes whether Great or Small the Jus Patronatus will remain good and entire to the Patron notwithstanding such Controversie provided the Suit doth not extend and be for a fourth part of the whole belonging to the Church Lindw de Foro Comp. cap. Circumspecte verb. Item si Rector gl ibid. verb. quarta pars And he to whom the Right of Advowson of any Church appertains is termed Avowè for distinctions sake to discriminate him from those who sometime Present in the Name of another as a Guardian that presents in the Name of his Minor as also to difference him from such as have only for term of their Lives or of years or by Intrusion or Disseisin the Lands to which an Advowson appertains the Avowè properly and strictly taken being only he who may Present in his own Right and in his own Name 15. It hath been Adjudg'd That an Advowson belonging to a Prebend will not pass by a Lease thereof albeit it hath in it these words viz. Commodities Emoluments Profits and Advantages because all these four words being of one sense and nature imply things gainful which is contrary to the nature of an Advowson regularly as aforesaid yet an Advowson may be yielded in value upon a Voucher and may be Assets in the hand of an Executor and in the foresaid Case of London vers c. it is said That an Appropriation nor the Advowson of it will not pass by the name of an Advowson yet an Advowson will be contained under the name of a Tenement And where the King granted that Monks should have all their Possessions of the Abbey in the Vacation for their sustentation Ruled that they should not have the Advowsons because no sustentation arose from them nor will an Advowson though it be appendant pass in the Kings Grant without special words yet in the Case of a Recusant convict to whose Lands an Advowson is appendant the seizure of Two parts of his Land for the King is a Seizure by consequence of two parts of the Advowson without mention of it and if the King have but Two parts of an Advowson yet he shall Present alone for no Subject can be Tenant in Common with the King who though he be no party to a Quare Impedit yet if his Title appear clear for him against both parties shall have a Writ awarded for him to the Bishop Or if the King joyn issue in a Quare Impedit which is not found fully for him yet if a Title do any way appear the Court must award a Writ to the Bishop for him 16. A. brought Quare impedit against D. The Plaintiff counted that the Defendant had disturbed him to Present ad Vicariam de D. and shewed That the Queen was seized of the Rectory of D. and of the Advowson of the Vicarage of D. and by her Letters Patents gave unto the Plaintiff Rectoriam praedictam cum pertinentiis etiam Vicariam Ecclesiae praedict And it was holden by the whole Court That the Advowson of the Vicarage by these words doth not pass nor so in the Case of a Common person much less in the Case of the King But if the Queen had granted Ecclesiam suam of D. then by Walmsley Justice the Advowson of the Vicarage had passed 17. Although he who after the death of a Parson Incumbent hath Right of Presentation in him doth not upon a Disturbance bring a Quare Impedit not Darrein Presentment but suffereth a Stranger to usurp upon him yet he

was no Discharge of the Tithes of the Copyhold Lands And in this Case it was also Adjudged That a Farmer of Lands might Prescribe in Modo Decimandi but not in non Decimando The Statute of 31 H. 8. gave all Colledges Dissolved to the Crown in which there is a Clause That the King and his Patentees should hold Discharged of Tithes as the Abbots held Afterwards the Statute of 1 Ed. 6. gave all Colledges to the Crown but there is in it no Clause of the Discharge of Tithes The Parson Libelled in the Ecclesiastical Court and the Farmer of the Lands of the Colledge of Maidstone in Kent brought a Prohibition upon the Statute of 31 H. 8. The Court was clear of Opinion That the King had the Lands of the Colledge by the Statute of 1 Ed. 6. and not by the Statute of 31 H. 8. But the Justices doubted the Lands coming to the King by that Statute whether they should be Discharged of Tithes by the Statute of 31 H. 8. there being no Clause in the Statute of 1 Ed. 6. for Discharge of Tithes But it was Resolved by the Justices That Unity without Composition or Prescription was a sufficient Discharge of Tithes by the Statute of 31 H. 8. The Templers were Dissolved and their Possessions and Priviledges by Act of Parliament 17 Ed. 2. transferred to St. Johns of Jerusalem and their Possessions by Act of Parliament 32 H. 8. cap. 24. given to the King It was Resolved That the King and his Patentees should pay Tithes of those Lands although the Lands propriis sumptibus excolantur because the Priviledges to be Discharged of Tithes were proper to Spiritual persons and ceased when the person Spiritual was removed And the Statute of 31 H. 8. of Dissolutions did not extend to such Lands as came to the King by Special Act of Parliament as those Lands of St. Johns of Jerusalem did And Mich. 6. Jac. C. B. in a Case de Modo Decimandi it was said That one may be Discharged of Tithes five waies 1 By the Law of the Realm viz. the Common Law as tithes shall not be paid of Coles Quarries Bricks Tiles c. F. N. B. 53. and Reg. 54. nor of the After-pasture of a Meadow c. nor of Rakings nor of Wood to make Pales or Mounds or Hedges c. 2 By the Statutes of the Realm as 31 H. 8. 13. 45. Ed. 3. c. 3 By Priviledge as those of St. Johns of Jerusalem in England the Cistertains Templers c. as appears 10 H. 7. 277. Dyer 4 By Prescription as by Modus Decimandi annual recompence in satisfaction 5 By real Composition By all which it appears that a man may be Discharged of payment of Tithes yet a Lay-man ought not to prescribe in non Decimando albeit the may in modo Decimandi And this in effect agrees with Tho. Aquinas in his Secunda Secundae Quaest 86. art ult vid. Dr. Stu. lib. 2. c. 55. fo 164. And the Causes why the Judges of the Common Law permit not the Ecclesiastical Judges to try Modum Decimandi being pleaded in their Courts is because that if the Recompence which is to be given to the Parson in satisfaction of his Tithes doth not amount to the value of this Tithes in kind they might overthrow the same And that appears by Lindwood Constit Mepham de Decim c. Quoniam propter verb. Consuetudines For this Reason it is said a Prohibition lies and therewith agrees 8 Ed. 4. 14. vid. 7 Ed. 6. Dyer 79. and 18 Eliz. Dyer 349. In a Prohibition upon a Suit in the Ecclesiastical Court by the Defendant the Vicar of D. for Tithes A Prohibition prayed upon his Plea thereof a Modus Decimandi to pay so much yearly to the Parson of Dale in Discharge of his Tithes and the same Plea there disallowed The whole Court agreed that this Modus between him and the Parson will not discharge him from payment of Tithes as to the Vicar and therefore by the Rule of the Court a Consultation was granted Also the Court was of Opinion That where a Bishop holds Lands discharged of Tithes and he makes a Feoffment of the Land the Feoffee shall be discharged of Tithes and the like if the King hath ancient Forest Lands discharges of Tithes and the King grants this Land the Grantee is discharged of Tithes And it is a General Rule That he which may have Tithes may be Discharged of Tithes So long as the Land is occupied by him who hath the Fee-simple which did formerly belong to the Order of Cistertians it shall pay no Tithes but if he lett it for years or life the Tenant shall pay Tithes For anciently there were many large Estates wholly exempted from paying Tithes as Land belonging to the said Cistertian Monks to the Knights Templers and Hospitallers As in the Earl of Clanrickard's Case who Libelled in the Ecclesiastical Court for the Tithes of Hay of a certain Meadow against Dame Denton who pleaded That the Prior of A. was seised of that Meadow as parcel of the Possessions of the Priory and that they held it discharged time out of mind c. whereupon Issue was joyned upon a Prohibition and it was found for the Plaintiff for that the Land was only discharged when it was in the hands of the Priory and not when it was in the hands of their Farmers and they were of the Order of Cistertians whereupon a Consultation was granted And now a new Prohibition was prayed for that in the Ecclesiastical Court they had added to the former Libel when the Statute of 50 Ed. 3. cap. 4. is That whereas a Consultation is duly granted upon a Prohibition that the same Judge may proceed in the same case by virtue of the former Consultation notwithstanding any other Prohibition Provided alwaies that the matter in the Libel of the said cause be not altered enlarged or otherwise changed Dr. Pope Doctor of the Civil Law said That there was not any enlarging or changing in substance of the Libel in question for whereas in the former Libel it was That they had used to pay Tithes time out of mind now in the second Libel is added That although the Prior was discharged yet they viz. the Farmers have paid Tithes for 20 30 or 40 years and time out of mind Montague Ch. Justice said That it seem'd that that was not an alteration but Doderidge and Houghton Justices held That that was an alteration of the Libel for now by that last Libel They could fetch them in for Tithes though they were discharged in the hands of the Abbot and for that the Tithes had been paid for 20 30 or 40 years since the Statute aforesaid the which is a sufficient time to make a Prescription according to the Law of the Civilians they would charge the Land with Tithes in whose soever hands they are when by the Statute it ought to be discharged only in