Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	bill_n	house_n	pass_v	12,480	5	7.4741	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A26141	An enquiry into the jurisdiction of the Chancery in causes of equity ... humbly submitted to the consideration of the House of Lords, to whom it belongeth to keep the inferiour courts within their bounds / by Sir Robert Atkyns, Knight ... ; to which is added, The case of the said Sir Robert Atkyns upon his appeal against a decree obtained by Mrs. Elizabeth Took and others, plaintiffs in Chancery, about a separate maintenance of 200£ per annum, &c.	Atkyns, Robert, Sir, 1621-1709.	1695 (1695)	Wing A4137; ESTC R16409	49,475	54

the Plea of the Defendant in Chancery was good And that the Lord Chancellor ought not to Examine the matter in Equity after the Judgment at the Common Law For thô he would not Examine the Judgment yet he would by Decree take away the Effect of the Judgment And it is there said That the Precedents produced in the times of H. 8. and E. 6. were grounded upon the sole Opinion of the Lord Chancellor and passed Sub Silentio And that no Precedent nor Prescription could prevail against the Statutes of the Realm Thereupon this being certified to the Queen the Plea stood for a good Plea Note The Twelve Judges are the most proper Expounders of Statutes see the 2 Instit. fol. 611. in the answer to the 16th Objection made by the Bishops and Clergy where all the Judges do affirm That they never heard it excepted to before the time of King James I. that any Statute should be expounded by any other than by the Judges of the Law and fol. 618. in the answer of the Judges to the last Objection of the Bishops it is truly said by all the Judges of that time also That if the Twelve Judges Err in Judgment it cannot otherwise be reformed not by the Chancellor nor by the Bishops but Judicially by the Parliament the Superiour Court not by the Council Table neither They further resolv'd That the Interpretation of all Statutes that concern the Clergy being parcel of the Laws of the Realm do belong to the Judges of the Common Law yet this was a Contest about Jurisdiction P. 11. Jac. in the King's-Bench Crok Jac fol. 343. Courtney versus Glanvil The Plaintiff had a Decree against the Defendant Glanvil after Glanvil had obtain'd a Judgment at the Common Law by Confession and Glanvil was imprison'd by the Chancery for not obeying the Decree It is said by Cok. Ch. Just. That the Decree and Imprisonment was Unlawful being after Judgment and that the King's-Bench upon an Habeas Corpus ought to Relieve Glanvil The same Case is reported by Sergeant Rolles in his 1 st Rep. Mich. 12. Jac. fol. 111. and Coke said While I have this Coif on my Head I will not allow it Hill 11. Crok Jac. fol. 335. in the K. B. Heath and Ridley's Case It is said by the Court That by the Statutes of 27 E. 3. cap. 1. 4 H 4. cap. 23. After Judgment given in Curia Domini Regis be it in Plea Real not Royal or Personal it ought not to be avoided but by Errour or Attaint And in the same term it was delivered for a general Maxim in Law That if any Court of Equity doth intermeddle with any Matters properly Triable at the Common Law or which concern Freehold they are to be Prohibited Mich. 12. Jac. in the K. B. Roll. 1 Rep. fol. 71. Wright versus Fowler It was order'd by that Court That Cause should be shown why a Prohibition should not be granted to the Dutchy-Court for Proceeding upon a Bill in Equity after Judgment thereupon the Plaintiff in Equity relinquish'd his Bill Mich. ●…13 Jac. K. B. Rolles 1 Rep. fo 252. Coats and Suckerman against Sir Hen. Warner George Crook prayed a Prohibition to the Dutchy for Examining a matter after Judgment in the King's-Bench by Coke Crook Doderidge and Haughton It is said We are resolved that no Court of Equity may meddle after Judgment and a Prohibition was granted It is further said That a Prohibition may be granted by the King's-Bench to the Common Pleas or Exchequer and so of all the Courts of Westminster-Hall if they hold Plea against an Act of Parliament or against the Common Law Mich. 16. Car. 〈◊〉 in the K. B. Crok Car. 1. fol. 595. Calmadies Case A Prohibition was granted against the Court of Requests for proceeding in Equity after a Judgment given in the King's-Bench And the Court Resolv'd That so they would always do whenever any Exhibited Bills there after Verdict and Judgment And the Case of Austin versus Brereton is there cited which was 40 Eliz Austin obtained Judgment in the King's-Bench the Defendant Brereton Sued in the Court of Requests to be Relieved and the Plaintiff at Law was Committed by the Court of Requests and was Bail'd by the King's-Bench and Sir Tho. Gawdy one of the Judges was convened before the Queen for it yet it was held good and Brereton was enforced to satisfie the Judgment Mich. 7. Car. 2. 1655. in the Exchequer Sir Tho. Hardres Rep. fol. 23. Morel versus Douglas The Bill in Equity was to be Relieved against a Judgment by Nihil dicit upon a Bond for the Money was paid There was a Demurrer to the Bill upon the Stat. of 4 H. 4. and the Court allowed the Demurrer There the Case of Langham and Limbrey is cited where the same point was Ruled by the House of Lords by advice of all the Judges the Judgment was for no less than 18000 l. in an Action of Covenant Trin. 1658. In the Exchequer Sir Hardres's Rep. fol. 121. Harris versus Colliton The Defendant had Judgment at Law against the Plaintiff in Equity for Rent of an House The Plaintiff in Equity Harris Exhibited a Bill in Equity to be Reliev'd against that Judgment Suggesting that the House was Demolish'd in the War so that he could make no Profit The Defendant in Equity Colliton sets forth the Stat. of 4 H. 4. and Demur'd to the Bill Finch afterwards Lord Chancellor argued for the Defendant Colliton to maintain the Demurrer As to the Precedents he answers That a 1000 of them will not change the Law and many of them passed Sub silentio or upon the sole Opinion of the Chancellor who is willing to enlarge his own Jurisdiction this was plainly and stoutly said He further held That there were no regular Proceedings in Equity till of late times for Parliaments ought to have been once or twice a year to redress such Grievances Stephens who argued for the Plaintiff in Equity held That the Statute of 4 H. 4. did not extend to the Chancery because the Jurisdiction in Equity of the Chancery was not in being at the making of that Statute and therefore it could not be restrained by it Bigland for the Defendant That the Statute of 27 E. 3. cap. 1. of Praemunire did not extend to a Suit in Chancery because the Chancery was not a Court of Equity at the making of that Stat. and Lambert who was a Master of the Chancery in his time is cited to prove it And 't is there said That the Chancellor TOOK NtOT UPON HIM ex Officio to determine matters in Equi●…y till Edw. IVth's time Saunders afterwards Chief Justice of the King's-Bench of Council for the Plaintiff at Law grants it to be true that at the making of the Statute of 27 E. 3. there were no Proceedings in Equity in Chancery but that the words or in any other Court will extend to any Courts that then were

the Parties to such Judgment be in Peace A Peace with a witness to be involv'd again with a new tedious expensive Chancery-Suit so uncertain in the Event and tied to no certain Rules When the Plaintiff at Law flatter'd himself and was glad that he had arriv'd at his desired Haven Post varios casus post tot discrimina He is wonderfully deceived he must set out to Sea again to another long East-India Voyage But what Authorities Law-Books or Resolutions of Judges or Courts of Justice have the Chancery had for the expounding of the Statute of 4 to Henry IV. in this sense which utterly makes that Statute of no Effect besides those of itheir own Chancellors and besides the Privy-Seal of King James I. upon consulting only with his own Council at Law A very strange way of Proceedng The Great Seal and the Privy Seal are on their side 't is true if these in such Case must be submitted to what then becomes of the Stat. of 2 E. 3. cap. 8. whereby it is accorded and established That it shall not be commanded by the Great nor the little Seal to disturb or delay common Right and tho such Commandments do come the Justices shall not therefore cease to do right in any point the Stat. of 14 E. 3. c. 14. is fully to the same effect The complaint against the late Court of Star-chamber which yet was established by Law was that by experience it was found to be an intolerable burthen to the Subject and the means to introduce an Arbitrary Power and therefore that Court was taken away by the Act of 16 Car. 1. Cap. 10. I shall now on the other side endeavour to make it clear to the Honourable the Lords that such Proceedings of the Chancery of Relieving after Judgment at Law upon any pretence of Equity whatsoever is not only against the express words and meaning of that Act of 4 H. 4 but against the Ancient and Fundamental Common Law of England and this I doubt not to make out by all sorts of Authorities and Resolutions Ancient and Modern and in the Reigns of several Kings and Queens of this Nation and that not one authentick Legal Authority can be produced to the contrary I shall begin with the most ancient Authority and that is in 6 E. 1. in the Case of the Earl of Cornwall cited in Sir Coke's 3 Instit. in the Chapter of Praemunire fol. 123. Judgment was there given before the Justices of Oier and Terminer against the Bishop of Exeter and his Tenants The Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Excommunicated all Persons that dealt in those Proceedings against the Bishop of Exeter and his Tenants before those Justices The Record says That the Judgments given in the King's Court ought not to be Impeach'd in any other Court This appears by that Record to be the Antient Law The Stat. of 4 H. 4. now treated of is in effect a Declaration of the Common Law for it recites in the Preamble as was before observed that such Proceeding was in Subversion of the Common Law of the Land which proves it to be done against the Common Law In the Case of Cobb and Nore Pasc. 5. E. 4. Coram Rege cited by Sir Edw. Coke in the same third Instit. fol. 123. A Judgment was obtain'd by Covin and Practise against all Equity and Conscience in the King's-Bench For the Plaintiff in the Judgment retained by Collusion an Attorney for the Defendant without the knowledge of the Defendant then being beyond Sea the Defendant's Attorney confesseth the Action whereupon Judgment was given The Defendant sought his Remedy by Parliament and by Authority of Parliament Power was given to the Lord Chancellor by advice of Two of the Judges to hear and order the Case according to Equity If the Chancellor had any such Power before what need was there of resorting to the Parliament Non recurritur ad extra-ordinarium nisi cessat ordinarium And why was it not referred to the Chancellor alone without Associates if it did of Right belong to him before Such a Case in these days would be held in Chancery to be a most proper Case for the Relief of that Court. And Note further That one Person alone thô a Lord Chancellor was not to be entrusted with a Judicial Power but others were joined with him In the 22 E. 4. fol. 37. It is said by Hussey Ch. Justice If after Judgment the Chancellor grant an Injunction and commit the Plaintiff at Law to the Fleet the King's-Bench will by Habeas Corpus discharge him In the 21th year of K. H. VIII Articles were Signed by Sir Tho. Moor the Chancellor himself and by Fitz-James Ch Justice and Justice Fitzherbert against Cardinal Wolsey One was for Examining matters in Chancery after Judgment at the Common Law in Sir Edw. Cok. 3. Instit. fol. 124. in Subversion of the Laws See the 2 Instit. fol. 626. at the end of that folio before cited more of Cardinal Wolsey and the Indictment against him In Crompton's Jurisdiction of Courts fol. 67 69. and 57. about the time of 13 Eliz. a Man was Condemn'd in Debt in the Common Pleas that is had Judgment entred against him and he Exhibited a Bill in Whitehall and had an Injunction to stay Execution and the Plaintiff that had the Judgment at Law moved in the Common Pleas to have Execution and it was granted notwithstanding the Injunction afterwards the Chancery committed the Plaintiff at Law to the Fleet for Suing out Execution and the Lord Dier Chief Justice and the whole Court of Common Pleas deliver'd him out of the Fleet by Hab. Corpus In the Case of Sir Moile Finch and Throgmorton Mich. 39. 40. Eliz. Throgmorton Exhibited a Bill in Chancery against Sir Moile Finch and shewed clear matter in Equity to be Relieved against a Forfeiture of a Lease for years pretended by Sir Moile for Breach of a Condition where there was no default in the Plaintiff Throgmorton To which Bill the Defendant in Chancery Sir Moile Finch Pleaded That he had obtained Judgment in the Exchequer in an Ejectment in the Name of his Lessee against Throgmorton the Plaintiff in Chancery and that Judgment had been affirm'd in Error and demanded the Judgment of the Chancery if after Judgment given at the Common Law he should be drawn to answer in Equity Egerton would not allow the Plea but over-ruled it Note He did not Plead the Statute of 4 H. 4. but grounded his Plea at the Common Law Queen Elizabeth referr'd the Consideration of this Plea and Demurrer to all the Judges of England not to her own Council Learned in the Law for the Twelve Judges are the proper Judges of this Question tho it concern'd their own Jurisdiction After hearing Council and the intent of the Lord Chancellor being said to be not to Impeach the Judgment but to Relieve upon collateral Matter in Equity Upon great Deliberation it was Resolved by all the Judges of England That

or at any time should be where there might be the same mischiefs viz. by Impeaching Judgments given in the King's Courts which are so often declared to be in Subversion of the Law He affirms That the Proceedings by English Bill in Chancery are not Coram Domino Rege in Cancellaria as the Latine Proceedings are but by a Bill or Petition directed to the Lord Chancellor and not to the King This Case was adjourn'd and we heard of no further Proceeding I was then of Council for the Plaintiff at Law to maintain the Stat. of 4 H. 4. and the Demurrer Crompton's Jurisdiction of Courts in the chapter of the Chancery fol. 67. he allows of the Statute of 4 H. 4. and agrees it extends to the Chancery and mentions what is written by Doctor and Student upon that point So that here are all sorts of Resolutions in this very point and from all sorts of Authorities in Law and in several Reigns Ancient and Modern by the whole Parliament declared by several Statutes by the House of Lords by all the Twelve Judges at several times by all the Courts of Law in Westminster-hall and in particular by the Court of Exchequer most of whose business is to Relieve in Equity grounded upon a Power and Jurisdiction vested in them by Act of Parliament if not by Prescription the two onely ways whereby a Jurisdiction in Equity can be given as has been often resolved and was before observed And all these are Unanimous not one Judge dissenting or doubting not any one Resolution Book or Authority in the Law to the contrary And yet as I am informed the Court of Chancery constantly and without any hesitancy or scruple made of it proceeds to Relieve in Equity after Judgment at Law The Plea and Argument for it on the Chancery side which we may find in a late Author the Title of whose Book is Reports of Cases in the Court of Chancery Printed 1693. to which is added Arguments to prove the Antiquity Dignity Power and Jurisdiction of that Court And much to that purpose is recited in Sir Edw. Coke 3 Instit. fol. 125. in the beginning of that folio It is a Privy Seal 14 Jac. Anno 1616. whereby that King assuming to himself a Power to Arbitrate between the Courts of the Common Law and the Chancery in questions concerning their Jurisdiction and more especially in the great Dispute between the Judges and the Chancellor Whether the Chancery could Relieve in Equity after a Judgment obtained at Common Law which Dispute did arise upon the construction of the Stat of 4 H. 4. cap. 23. whichdid by Law belong to the Judges to determine and resolve as hath been proved and they had determined it King James taking it to belong to his Kingly Office to Arbitrate in such Cases Decides as they would believe the Controversie by adjudging it with the Chancery which he signifies under his Privy Seal and thereby does Will and Command the Chancellor shall from thence-forward proceed to give such Relief in Equity And this was done against the Unanimous Resolution of all the Judges of England and without calling the Judges to Debate it and without any Hearing of them looking upon them as Parties concerned and practical which is a Scurvey Reflection and Scandal upon the Justice of the Nation See the 2d Instit. of Sir Edw. Cok. fol. 617. The Answer of the Twelve Judges to the Twenty fourth Objection to this purpose so that the King upon hearing his own Council Learned in the Law only took upon him to Over-rule all the Twelve Judges in a point of Law and to Interpret and Expound an Act of Parliament which properly belongs to the Judges next under the Supream Court And no wonder is it if King James I. took this Arbitrage upon him as belonging to his Kingly Office and resolved it under his Privy Seal when his constant Opinion was that he was above the Law and that it was Treason to affirm the contrary which yet all the Twelve Judges stoutly did and cited Bracton for it Rex sub Deo Lege See a Collection of King James's Works in a large Folio Printed 1616. pag. 203. where he affirms that the King is above the Law and that he may Interpret it And pag. 534. That it is his Office to make every Court to contain it self within his own Limits See the Act for regulating of the Privy Council c. 16 Car. 1. cap. 10. before-mentioned in the 5th Paragraph it is Declared and Enacted That neither his Majesty nor his Council have or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Authority by Petition Articles or any other way to draw into question determine or dispose of the Lands or Goods of any of the Subjects of this Kingdom but the same ought to be Tried and Determined in the ordinary Courts of Justice and by the ordinary Course of Law See the several ancient Statutes that require and command the Judges to proceed to administer Justice without Regard had to the Great or Privy Seal that command the contrary Magna Charta cap. 29. 2 E. 3. c. 8. 14 E. 3. c. 14. 20 E. 3. c. 11. Some will argue for the Jurisdiction of the Chancery in Equity from the Statute of Westminster the 2d 13 E. 1. cap. 24. which directs That Nemo recedat à Curia Regis sine Remedio from hence they Collect that where there is matter of Equity wherein the Common Law cannot Relieve there the Chancery by this Statute is enabled to provide Remedy Whereas the Design and Scope of that Statute extends no further than to the framing of Writs in order to Relief by Actions at the Common Law where the Register of Writs that ancient Book of Law had for some new and special Cases provided no Writ which is the first step in every Action and is proper work for the Chancery which is therefore styled Officina Brevium It is very far from giving that Court any Jurisdiction in Equity but it shews what Remedy is to be given towards a Proceeding at the Common Law and not to Relieve against it But it may be noted from this ancient Statute that neither the Chancellor nor the Chancery could alter an Original or so much as frame a new Writ were there never so great Necessity for it till enabled by this Statute It could be done only by the Parliament and in such Cases the Parties were forced to wait till the meeting of a Parliament tho they had manifest Right and clear Equity on their side but no Remedy at Law If it were then a Court of Equity why did not the Chancery Relieve in Equity because the Party was without Remedy at Law Note in the next place That the Parliament by that Statute doth not entrust the Chancellor alone nor any one Person with the framing of new Writs fitted to such new Cases tho they were Cases that had a manifest Right but not a Legal Remedy and yet Writs