Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	earl_n	sir_n	warwick_n	19,099	5	12.1312	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
B02588	The case of John Vanden Bemde, Esq., and Sir John Rotheram, Kt.	Vanden Bemde, John.; Rotheram, John, Sir, 1630-1696?; Radnor, Sarah Robartes, Countess of, d. 1720.	1692 (1692)	Wing C935B; ESTC R173531	3,599	5

The CASE of John Vanden Bemde Esq AND Sir John Rotheram Kt. The Countess of Radnor Appellant John Vanden Bemde Esq AND Sir John Rotheram Kt. Respondents 26 August 14. Car. 2. 1662 BY Indenture of Lease and Release Charles late Earl of Warwick upon the Marriage of his Son Charles Lord Rich with the Lady Anne Cavendish now Countess of Exon settled part of his Estate upon the said Lady Anne for Joynture and after Failure of Issue Male of the Body of the said Lord Rich as also of the Earl limits a Term for 99 Years to Trustees to be disposed of by the Earl by his Deed or Will And for want of such Appointment then in Trust for the next in Remainder and then limitted the whole Estate in such manner as that a Third part of the Moiety thereof came to the Lord Bodmyn the Appellant's Husband in Tail General with the Reversion in Fee to the Earl and his Heirs In 1673 The Lord Rich died without Issue and the Earl of Warwick by his Will appointed all the Mannors and Lands to the Countess his Wife for so many Years of the Term of 99 Years as she should live and to her Executors for One Year after her Death and charged the same from and after the Countess's Death with several Annuities for Life many whereof were in being at the time of Mr. Vanden Bemde's Purchase herein after mentioned and Two of which are still in being one for 100 l. and the other for 10 l. per Annum And the Earl shortly after died without Issue Male. 14 15 Jan. 1676 Mr. Abraham Vanden Bemde the Respondent Vanden Bemde's Father purchased of the Lord Bodmyn for 5000 l. his Third part of a Moiety and had it conveyed by Deed and Fine The Countess of Warwick then living a healthy Lady and likely to live many Years being but about 46 Years old there being the said Two Ladies Estates for Life in being and the said Annuities In 1678 The Countess of Warwick died and after the Countess's Death the Respondent Vanden Bemde's Father for 4000 l. conveyed a Moiety to the Trustees of the Respondent Sir John Rotheram Note That Robert Earl of Warwick Father of Earl Charles being seiz'd 16. Jac. I. acknowledged a Statute for 1000 l. to Thomas Bootteler which Statute is extended upon the Lands in Question and that Statute and Extent was presently upon their Purchase of the Estate purchased by the Respondent Vanden Bemde's Father and Sir John Rotheram and the same was assigned in Trust for them As also the Respondents have the Term for 99 Years assigned in Trust for them to protect their purchased Estate The Appellant brought her Writ of Dower in the Court of Common-Pleas against Abraham Vanden Bemde and although the Statute and Extent was a good Barr against her from having actual Seisin of Dower as well as the Term for 99 Years yet in a Court of Law the Party pleading can only insist upon one single Matter for his Defence And therefore Mr. Abraham Vanden Bemde pleaded only the Term for 99 Years and she had Judgment but to stay Execution till after the Determination of the Term for 99 Years 20 May 1686 The Appellant exhibited her Bill in Chancery against Mr. Abraham Vanden Bemde alone to set aside the said Term and Extent Whereupon the Lord Chancellour Jeffreys ordered that neither the Term or Statute should be given in Evidence or set up at Law to barr the Appellants Recovery of her Dower for which purpose upon her withdrawing her Judgment Mr. Abraham Vanden Bemde was to withdraw his Plea to the Term for Years and plead de novo But the Appellant never signed and inrolled that Decree nor prosecuted the same but rested several Years without further Proceeding In 1692 She exhibited a Bill of Revivor against the now Respondent Vanden Bemde as Heir and Executor of his Father to which he answered and thereby setting forth another Title as Purchaser from his Father by Virtue of the Agreement on his Mother's Marriage she dismiss'd that Bill and in 1693. exhibited her Original Bill against both the Respondents to which they pleaded their Titles And upon hearing the Cause the now Lord Keeper directed a Master in Chancery to look into the Matter of the said Abraham Vanden Bemde's Purchace and the Value of the Land and state a Case on the whole Matter And upon the Master's Report accordingly made my Lord Keeper after long Consideration had of the Case and View of Precedents produced on both sides the 13. March last Declared he saw no Cause to give the Appellant any Relief but dismiss'd her Bill Upon which the Appellant hath brought her Appeal It is by the Common Law that the Wife is Dowable where her Husband is seized in Law in Fee Simple or Fee Taile But if the Heir at Law or a Purchaser had any Matter that was a Barr to her at Law she never had any relief in Chancery against such Barr For as she Claimed by Act in Law where that failed she never could help her self elsewhere It is a common Case for a man to make a Lease for Years of his Lands before his Marriage in Trust to attend the Inheritance to avoid the Dower of his Wife and also for a Purchaser to have the Estate conveyed to himself and a Friend in trust for him to prevent Dower Which have always prevailed to barr the Wife of Dower and never any relief sought or given against such Leases or Trusts And if a Court of Equity should take upon it to set these aside to entitle the Wife to Dower many Estates would be shaken and the Consequence would be the cause of Suits and Controversies in many Families and prove very mischievous to them Note This Lease was made by Warwick before the Appellant's Husband had any Title to the Estate so it is stronger than if it were the Husband 's own Act. The Statute and Extent was purchased by the Respondents and cost 600 Pound and is a good Barr of her Dower as Law Whereas it is said the Appellant brought a great Fortune and so ought to have something out of her Husband's Estate it was her's and her Friends fault not to provide a Jointure and Settlement and she marrying without must trust to the Consequence of Law concerning what she ought to have Object That the Estate was much more worth than was paid by Abraham Vanden Bemde and therefore it shall be presumed That in his Purchase there was Consideration had and Allowance made to him for the Appellant's Dower Answ There is no Proof made of any such thing in the Cause The Rents of the Lands are but 840 Pound per Annum And when Mr. Vandenbemde purchased the Countess of Exon who is still alive had a Jointure upon the whole Estate which is since made an Annuity of 1200 Pound per Annum 200 Pound whereof is charged upon the Estate in question And the Countess of Warwick the rest for her Life and a Year after And after that charged with several other Annuities for Life And had the Countess of Warwick lived till now as she might have done the Earl of Burlington her Elder Brother being still alive as the Countess of Exon has done it would have proved a very dear Bargain Nor is there any manner of Proof of any Treaty or Consideration had for any Abatement in respect of the Appellant's Dower Object But it appears by the Report taken by the Master in Chancery as also by a Report taken in the time of the Lord Jeffreys that the Estate was of much greater Value than what Mr. Abraham Vandenbemde gave for it and for that reason the Lord Jeffreys made his Decree Answ The Masters took a wrong Estimate of the Value of the Estate and also Under-Valuing the Lives to wit the Countess of Warwick's Life at Seven Years Purchase whose Life was then lookt upon as a good Life she being of a middle Age and the Countess of Exon's Life at Nine Years Purchase who has lived 20 Years and may still as many And small Rates for the Annuities So that these were imaginary Valuations of an Estate Taile in Remainder subject to many Contingencies which might have made that Purchase no great Bargain And there were Exceptions taken to those Reports so they were not Conclusive Besides the Appellant's Council before the Lord-Keeper waved laying any stress upon the Report for that Imaginary Computation Note That the Creditors of the Lord Bodmyn by Judgments exhibited their Bill to set aside this term of 99 Years and the said Statute which Cause came to Hearing before the late Lords Commissioners who allowed Mr. Vanden Bemde to be a good Purchaser and dismiss'd their Bill And if a Creditor could not be relieved in Equity much less shall a Dowress who Claims only by Construction of Law and under such Qualifications as the Law allows and no other Wherefore the Respondents humbly pray that the Appeal may be dismiss'd Sir John Rotheram AND John Vanden Bemde RESPONDENTS To the Appeal OF The Lady Radnor APPELLANT The Facts within mentioned are reduced to this Point WHether a Term of 99 Years raised by Charles Earl of Warwick before the Appellant's Husband had any Title to the Estate and by whose Settlement he was made Tenent in Tail in Remainder after several Estates for Paying Annuities and other Purposes declared by the said Earl's Last Will and Testament and also a Statute acknowledged by his Father shall be set aside by a Court of Equity to let the Appellant into Dower of the Lands in question of which her Husband had such Estate against a Purchaser who paid off the Statute and took an Assignment thereof and also of the Term to protect his Purchase being admitted to be good Bars at Common Law against such Dower For this there is no Precedent in any Court of Equity as is admitted by the Appeal it self And in Case such a Precedent should be made it will let Titles of Dower into many Estates of the Nobility and Gentry and thereby defeat Heirs and Purchasers thereof and the usual Settlement thereupon which are generally protected by precedent Terms and Incumbrances and all Conveyancers will be at a loss how to advise their Clients for the future in the Safety of a Purchase Wherefore the Respondents humbly pray that the Appeal may be dismiss'd