Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	bishop_n	john_n	richard_n	14,102	5	9.2019	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
B02573	The case of Dr. John Jones, respondent, upon the appeal of William Beaw, &c.	Jones, John, b. 1644 or 5.; Beaw, William.	1691 (1691)	Wing C905AA; ESTC R220860	1,066	1

THE CASE OF D R. JOHN JONES RESPONDENT Upon the APPEAL of WILLIAM BEAW c. THE Office of Chancellor Principal Official and Vicar-General of the Bishop of Landaffe was and is an Antient Office and has been antiently before the Reign of Queen Elizabeth usually grantable and granted to Two Persons to hold for their Lives and the Life of the longer Liver of them Francis Lord Bishop of Landaffe by Letters Patents under his Episcopal Seal granted this Office to Dr. Richard Lloyd and the Respondent John Jones to hold to them joyntly and severally and to the longer Liver of them Which Grant was duly confirm'd by the Chapter of that Church and accordingly the said Dr. Richard Lloyd for several Years by the Respondent's consent quietly held and enjoyed the same The said Lord Bishop died and Dr. William Lloyd succeeded in that Bishoprick and upon his Translation to the Bishoprick of Norwich Dr. William Beaw succeeded and is now the present Lord Bishop of Landaffe The present Lord Bishop of Landaffe having in his Custody the Original Grant of this Office to Dr. Richard Lloyd and the Respondent Constituted Commissioners to Execute the Office and refused to admit the Petitioner to Execute and Enjoy the said Offices as by Law he ought Whereupon the Respondent brought an Action at Law against the Appellant and others for the Profits of the Office by them received which Action by the Death of One of the then Defendants abated Afterwards the Respondent brought his Bill in Equity against rhe Appellant to have an Account of and Satisfaction for the Profits of the said Office to which the Appellant answered and confessed the Patent and Grant to the said Dr. Richard Lloyd and the Respondent whereupon the Respondent proceeded to try his Right and Title to the said Office in an Action at the Common Law against the Appellant and at Gloucester-Assizes on full Evidence obtained a Verdict and had Judgment thereupon That afterwards the Court of Chancery Ordered That a Trial at Bar should be had upon an Action of the Case for Trial of the Title of the said Office whereupon a Trial was had at the Kings-Bench-Bar and upon full and long Evidence a Verdict was given for the Respondent and upon the Importunity of the Appellant's Counsel the Case was Stated and Argued before all the Judges of the said Court of Kings-Bench who on Hearing several Arguments on both Sides were all of Opinion That the Letters-Patents and Grant made to Dr. Richard Lloyd and the Respondent were good in Law and that the Respondent was well Intituled to the said Office for his Life That the said Cause coming to be Heard in Chancery on the Equity reserved in the Presence of Council on both Sides the Lords-Commissioners were of the same Opinion and Decreed an Account to be taken of the Profits of the said Office and the Respondent to be quieted in the Possession and Enjoyment thereof Which Decree the Respondent hopes is Just and that it shall be Confirmed 7. Septemb. 1671. 20. March 1674. June 1686. 20 Novemb. 1691.