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	king_n	sir_n	11,216	5	5.9979	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A26658	Select cases in B.R. 22, 23, & 24 Car. I Regis reported by John Aleyn ... ; with tables of the names of the cases and of the matters therein contained, also of the names of the learned councel who argued the same.	England and Wales. Court of King's Bench.; Aleyn, John.	1681 (1681)	Wing A920; ESTC R19235	80,917	114

Statute of 27 H. 8. which reduces the possession to the Vse recites that by conveyances to Vse the King lost his escheats and purchases of Aliens c. l. 1. 124. a. Now Trusts being of the same nature at this day they are ruled according as Vses were at the Common Law and therefore if a Woman conveys a term in Trust for her self and takes Husband and dies he shall not have the Trust by survivorship but the Administrators of the Wife should have it 4. Inst 87. a. Witham's Case But Roll said that it hath béen since resolved that the Husband shall have it in that case And Mainard said that the Alien himself had no remedy in equity for the Vse at Common Law nor for a Trust at this day for he could not compell the Feoffees to execute it 2. If the King should have the Trust yet he cannot seise the Land by Law for the Alien himself had not that power his remedy if he should have any was only in the Chancery 3. The Land it self being Copyhold the King cannot have it 1. Because it is not transferrable by act in Law without the concurrence of the Lord for the prejudice that may accrue to him in losing his Fine c. 2. Because the King cannot perform the services incident to the Tenure and yet in default thereof the L. could not take advantage of the forfeiture as against the King 3. It would be an injury to strangers that should have right to the Copyhold for the King is not to be impleded in the Lords Court where only remedy is to be taken 4. The Estate is too base for the King to hold On the contrary it was said 1. That the King should have had a Vse limited to an Alien at the Common Law and by the same reason that he was to have the Land purchased by Aliens viz. That the Realm should not be impoverished by strangers and Vses at the Common Law were not properly things in action but Inheritances descendible by the rules of the Common Law and would have passed by grant or devise by the name of Hereditaments as Hale said And he said that the preamble of the Statute of 27 H. 8. is not to be intended as though the King should not have remedy for the profits when the Vse was discovered but that the Lands were so craftily conveyed that the Vse could not be discovered Now the case is the same of a Trust 2. The King be virtue of this Trust may seise the Land for though the profits only are given him by the Trust yet he hath not any direct means to be satisfied of those profits unless he may seise the Land And therefore 5 H. 5. 3. where a Manor with an advowson appendant was granted to the use of one who was after outlawed and upon an avoidance the King brought a Quare impedit and had a Writ to the Bishop And Hales said that 19 Jac. in Sir John Dacke's Case in Scaccar ' to whom the King granted a term to the use of the Lord who was attainted of Felony upon great deliberation with all the Iudges it was resolved and accordingly decréed that the Trust should be forfeited to the King and the interest of Sir John also 3. Now that the Estate of the Copyholder is fixed by the Custome there is the same reason for that as for any other Inheritance And this Term the Court took an exception to the Commission which was only to enquire what Lands c. the Alien had but no Capias in manus in it and therefore it was resolved that the seisure was unduly made and therefore they did not openly declare their opinion upon the matter in Law But Bacon said that an Alien at the Common Law could not compell the Feoffees to execute an Vse And Roll said that though the King should have the Vse yet he could not seise the Land it self by Law but by equity he might have a Decrée for the Land and so was Sir John Dack's Case And the Court doubted what Iudgment should be given the Verdict being found for the King And the rule was that cesset intratio judicii c. for they held that they could not give any Iudgment but afterward Termino Paschae 24 Car. the opinion of the Court being changed they directed the Case should be argued And Hale argued for the King that no Iudgment could be given against him because the Record of the Inquisition is still remaining in the Chancery and this Court hath no power to procéed but only to trial of the Issue and upon the Verdict for the very Record as to that is in this Court and yet he said that the Record after the Trial hath béen remanded into the Chancery and Iudgment given there but the tenour only of the Inquisition is here as appears by the Entry c. but if it had béen brought in per manus proprias of the Kéeper of the Great Seal then the whole Record had béen here and so Iudgment should have béen given upon the whole Record And he took this difference that when the tenour of a Record being removed the Court where the Original Record resides cannot proceed then the Court where the tenour is may procéed upon the tenour And therefore if the tenour of a Fine be certified upon a Certiorari out of the Tower or Treasury into the Chancery and sent into the Common Pleas by Mittimus Execution may be awarded there upon the tenour 39 H. 6. 4. a. So if the tenour of a Iudgment in a Writ of Annuity be certified out of the rescript in the Common Pleas into the Chancery and sent thither by Mittimus they may award execution there upon the tenour 34 H. 6. 2. d. because in those cases there are no other Iustices that can proceed upon the Record it self but where the Iudges where the very Record resides may procéed thereupon notwithstanding any tenour certified in such cases there can be no proceeding upon the tenour As if the tenour of a Iudgment in ancient demesn be certified in Chancery and sent by Mittimus into the Common Pleas no Scire facias lieth thereupon because the Court of Ancient Demesn may still procéed to execution upon the Record it self 39 H. 6. 3. h. c. So in our case the Chancery may still procéed to seisure upon the Inquisition affirming it to be good 14 E. 4. 7. a. And therefore this Court cannot procéed upon the tenour of it for thence might ensue a clashing of the Courts the one affirming it and the other quashing it and for these reasons he prayed that the former rule might stand But it was answered by Maynard and resolved by the Court that Iudgment ought to be given against the King because the whole Record is virtually here otherwise they should be bound up to the Verdict so that Iudgment should be given according to that though it appear upon the whole Record that the King had no

because she might have many Sons But yet upon good consideration Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff for the Court shall not intend that Mary had any other Sons besides the Plaintiff And Roll cited a Case where one said your Landlord Henley is a Thief and laid his Declaration only with an Innuendo of the Plaintiff then Landlord c. and adjudged good But in another Case where one said your Landlord without a Surname is a Thief in such an Innuendo it was after great debate the Court being at first divided in opinion adjudged naught But there if the Plaintiff had averred that he to whom the words were spoken had no other Landlord it had been good Vide French and Edward's Case su 3. More versus Clypsam IN a Replevin Replevin the Plaintiff declares That the Defendant cepit centum oves matrices vervices of the Plaintiffs The Defendant avows that his Father was seised in fee of the place where c. and died seised and that the Lands descended to the Defendant as Son and Heir by virtue whereof he entred and was seised in fee and took the Beasts damage feasant the Plaintiff makes a reply and concludes with a traverse absque hoc that the Defendant at the time of the taking was adhuc est seised in fee of the Land and issue thereupon was found for the Plaintiff And it was moved in arrest of Iudgment that the Traverse was naught 1. Because the title of the Avowant is not answered for that the dying seised of the Father and the descent and the seisin of the Avowant is but a conclusion upon that 2. Because the Traverse is larger then the Avowry for adhuc est refers to the time of the pleading which is more then is alledged or then is material To the first it was answered that though it be not formal yet it is substantial enough for if the Son were not seised there could be no discent to him and therefore it is made good by the Verdict and the Court inclined to this opinion But the other exception was holden to be material Then an exception was taken to the Declaration because it is for 100 Ewes and Wethers and it doth not appear how many there are of Ewes and how many Wethers and the Sheriff is bound to make deliverance of the one sort and of the other for his delivery must be according to the Writ And though he may receive information from the parties so that it is a good return to say nullus venit ex parte querent ' ad ostendend'averia c. yet he is not bound to require it but ought to have sufficient certainty within the Record And for this cause after great debate Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff but it was agreed that oves without addition had been good enough and the Sheriff might have delivered the one sort and the other But if the Writ be for oves matrices the Sheriff cannot deliver Wethers so if it be for Black Horses the Sheriff cannot deliver White but is subject to an Action of Case Now there being some Ewes and some Wethers and the number not appearing the Sheriff is left at uncertainty and upon the same reason a Formedon of 100 Acres of Meadow and Pasture hath been adjudged naught as Roll said Com. Northumb. vers Green Trin. 23 Car. Rot. 1198. IN Debt Debt for Rent the Plaintiff declares That one Cross made a Lease for years to the Defendant rendring Rent payable half yearly who granted the reversion to the Plaintiff and such a day which was the day wherein the Rent was due the Defendant attorned and for three years Rent and a half which included the Rent due the day of the attornment the Action was brought and upon nil debet and a Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in arrest of Iudgment that the Rent was payable to Cross before the attornment for that shall be taken if worst for the Plaintiff to be after Sun-set but it was disallowed for the Court shall not intend it and if they should the Verdict supplies the averment of the contrary And both the Iudges said that if a Writ abate one day and another Writ is purchased which bears teste the same day it shall be intended after the abatement of the first Caly versus Joslin Uxor ' Trin. 23 Car. Rot. 1282. IN Debt Debt for Rent upon a Lease for years against the Husband and Wife Executrix which was laid in the debet and detinet Vpon plene administravit pleaded and a Demurrer thereupon the case was well debated by reason of contrary resolutions for Hargrave's Case was reversed in the Exchequer Co. 5.31 because the Action was in the debet and detinet but afterwards 7 Jac. between the Lord Rich and Frank. in C. B. upon great debate it was adjudged good in the debet and detinet And the like Iudgment was given 9 Jac. in C. B. in Sir Henry Carye's Case And after that Pasc 17 Jac. Rot. 346. B. R. between Paule and Moody it was adjudged good in the detinet only And the like 7 Car. in the Common Pleas and the same year in this Court between Smith and Nichols and the reasons of these contrary opinions was the inconveniency of the one side and the other for in as much as the Executors cannot waive the Term it were hard if the Rent should exceed the value of the Land and they having no assets that they should be charged in the debet of their own proper Goods and yet if the Action must be brought in the detinet only where fully administred were a good plea then may they retain the Land and with the profits thereof satisfie Debts upon specialty whereby the Lessor should be defeated of his Rent For the avoiding of which inconveniencies it was resolved that they may be charged in the debet and detinet for prima facie the Land shall be intended to be of greater value than the Rent and if it be otherwise Mich. 23 Car. Banco Regis Gilbert versus Stone Trin. 17 Car. Rot. 1703. IN Trespass Trespass for breaking of a House and Close the Defendant pleaded that 12 homines ignoti modo guerrino armati tantum minabantur ei quod de vitae suae amissione dubitabat and after requirebant compulsabant the Defendant to goe with them to the House quodque ob timorem minarum per mandatum compulsionem dictorum 12 hominum he did enter the said House and returned immediately through the said Close which is the same Trespass c. And upon Demurrer Hob. 134. c. without argument it was adjudged no plea for one cannot justifie a Trespass upon another for fear and the Defenant hath remedy against those that compelled him Also the manner of the pleading was naught because he did not shew that the way to the House was through the Close Mark versus Cubit Pasc 23 Car. Rot. 376. SLander