Selected quad for the lemma: son_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
son_n	brother_n	father_n	sister_n	23,792	5	10.2345	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A29389	Reports of that grave and learned judge, Sir John Bridgman, knight, serjeant at law, sometime chief justice of Chester to which are added two exact tables, the one of the cases, and the other of the principal matters therein contained.	Bridgman, John, Sir.; J. H.; England and Wales. Court of Common Pleas.	1659 (1659)	Wing B4487; ESTC R19935	180,571	158

Sister and he to enter at the age of one and twenty years and if any of his Sons died before the age of one and twenty years his part should be divided amongst the S●●vivors and so every one should be heire to the other and all of them came of age and paid the money and it was holden that each of them had an Estate in Fee and not in Taile and Dyer 357. Chick did devise the Fee-simple of a Messuage to A. his wife and after her death to W. his Son which W. was his Heir apparent A. did enter and married again and dyed having Issue by him and adjudged that A. had an Estate for life the Reversion to W. for life the Remainder to A. in Fee and 14 Eliz. a. One seised of Lands in Fee devised them to B. and the heirs of his body and if he died that it should remain to A. in fee yet B. shall have an Estate in Taile by the first words and shall not be restrained by the last words And Trinit 37 Eliz Rot. 382. Bacon against Hill and having three Tenements did devise them to his wife for life and then one of them to each of his three Sons and if any did die his part should remain to the Survivors and if any had Issue and died before he entred his Issue should have it and R. one of the Sons had Issue the wife died and R. died and adjudged that his Issue should have nothing Object But it may be objected that Francis cannot die without heire so long and his Sisters are living and therefore it shall be construed that the Devisor did intend only the heires of his body Answer But it does not appear that the Daughters were of the whole blood to Francis so that they may be heires to him for although where a Brother or Sister is spoken of in pleading it shall be intended of the whole blood because a Brother of the half blood is but half a Brother yet here when the Father onely does call them his Sons and Daughters and is so found by the Iury that they were his Sons and Daughters yet this is no proof that they were of the whole blood for they are daughters to the Father by what ever wife they were had And so I conceive upon the whole matter that the wife does take an Estate for life by the devise and that the Son shall have a Fee-simple but yet subject to this future devise sc if he die without heire that the Wittingb shall have it and so all the Will shall be good except the limitation to the Daughters for their lives and it cannot be intended that the Devisor did intend to prefer the Wittingb being his collaterall Cosins before the Issue of his Daughters which Issues are of his owne body Judgment And before that I argued againe Hillar 14 Jacob. Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff for they all agreed that Francis had but an Estate-tail by these words of the Will viz. If M. A. and A. do out live their Mother and their brother Francis and his heires and Francis cannot die without heire so long as his Sisters are living and therefore the word Heirs shall not be intended Heires generall but heires of his body wherefore Iudgment was entred ut supra c. Mich. 14 Jac. Mason against Manning IN an Ejectment upon a Lease made by John Crooker and Christopher Crooker the two and twentieth of May 14 Jac. of two houses forty acres of Land forty of Meadow and forty of Pasture in S. Needs Habendum from the Annunciation last past for three years The Ejectment was the twenty third of May in the same yeare The Defendant as to the force and armes c. pleaded not guilty and as to the residue he said that Queen Elizabeth was seised in Fee of the Mannor of S. Needs whereof the said Tenements are and time out of mind were parcell and that the Queen the ninth of March in the one and thirtieth year of her Raign by her Letters Patents shewed here under the Exchequer Seal did devise the said Tenements to Robert Croker for life the Remainder to Edward Bett for life the Remainder to Edward Adams for life the Queen dies whereby the Reversion does descend to the King Robert Croker dies and the thirtieth of March 14 Jacob. Edward Bet doth devise the said Tenements to the Defendant from the Annunciation last past for three years whereby he entred and was possessed untill the said John and Christopher Croker did oust him and did disseise the said Edward Bet whereby they were seised in fee by disseisin and made the Lease to the Plaintiff upon which the Defendant claiming his term did enter and did out him and the Defendant was and yet is possessed of the said Tenements the Reversion to Edward Bet for life the remainder to Edward Adams for life the Reversion to the King unde non intendit quod curia domino Rege inconsulto ulterius procedere vellet aut debeat and prayed ayd of the King and did aver the life of Edward Bet. And I conceive that ayd is not grantable in this case 1. Because that it is but an Action of Trespass 4 H. 6. 10. Tenant for life of a Lease from the King shall not have ayd of the King for that no Freehold is to be recovered and he is able to plead to all matters in a Trespass 2. The Defendant shall not have ayd of the King because he is not his immediate Tenant but he may pray in ayd of Edward Bet his Lessor and he of the King 1 H. 4. 18. In a Scire facias to execute a Fine the Tenant said that the Land was given to him for life the remainder to N. in Tail the remainder to W. in fee who was attaint of Treason whereby his remainder came to the King and he prayed ayd c. And the Court said that he ought to pray ayd of N. and he of the King and after he said that W. was also attaint of Treason whereby he had ayd of the King 33 H. 6. 29. In a Trespass where the Defendant justified as Baily of a Hundred to distrain for amercements and prayed ayd of the King and by Prisot he could not have it for the Sheriff is the immediate Officer to the King and to this agrees 11 H. 6. 39. where such justification was for taking of Toll and 9 H. 6. 26. In a Replevin the Defendant made Conusance as Baily of I. who held of the King for life and prayed ayd of the King and adjudged he should not have it for there is no privity betwixt the King and him because he is not immediate and 28 H. 6. 13. A man shall not have ayd of the King and Queen or of the King and his Tenant for life but first of the Queen or Tenant for life and they of the King and a man shall not have ayd of the King but where he is Baily or Servant

James of a house in the Parish of St. Mary Abchurch in the Ward of Candlewick-street Habendum from Michaelm last past for three years and layd the Ejectment to be the 28 Octob. in the same year The Defendant pleaded Not guilty And the Iury found that William Say was seised in Fee of the said Messuage and of two other Messuages in the Parish of St. Johns in Walbrook London and held them in Socage And that the 8 Octob. 1562. the said William having issue Francis his Son and Margaret Agnes and Alice by his Will in writing did devise the said Messuage in these words I bequeath to Francis my Son all my three Houses after the death of my Wife Barbara and his Mother and if Margaret Agnes and Alice and either of them do out-live their Mother and their Brother Francis and his Heirs then they to enjoy the three Houses for their lives and the three Houses then I give freely to my Sisters Sons Iohn Wittinbury and Roger Wittinbury and they to pay unto the Wardens of the Batchelors Company of the Merchant-Taylors 6 l. 10 s. yearly to be given to the poor and needy Brethren of the same Company for ever and if the said Iohn and Roger and their Successors do deny the said payment of 6 l. 10 s. it shall be lawful that the said Wardens to enter into the three Houses and to discharge them for ever William Say the Devisor dyes Barbara enters Francis Agnes and Alice dye without issue Barbara dyes Margaret enters John Wittinbury dyes without issue Roger Wittinbury dyes without issue and the Lessor is Cosin and Heir to him viz. Son of Margaret Pierson Sister of the said Roger. The 18 of August 13 Jacob. Margaret dyed seised having issue John Savage her Son and Heir who entered which Son the 17 February 13 Jacob. did infeoff Edward Jackson in Fee who the second of September 13 Jacob did infeoff Richard Slydhurst in Fee who the third of September 13 Jacob. did make the Lease to the Defendant for four years who entered upon whom the Lessor did enter and made the Lease to the Plaintiff upon whom the Defendant did enter And prayed the Opinion of the Court c. And I conceive Iudgment ought to be given for the Defendant But first as to the Question that hath been made scil What Estate John and Roger Wittingbury shall take if they shall take any Estate at all by this Will I shall not argue for I agree that if they have any Estate it is a Fee-simple in respect of the continual and perpetual charge imposed upon them for the payment of 6 l. 10 s. to the Wardens c. for that is to have a perpetual continuance in respect of the persons to whom it is to be payd scil the Poor And also the persons to pay are the two Wittingburies and their successors who in the Exposition of the Will shall be taken for their Heirs and Assigns and also in respect of the limitation of the payment scil for ever which in a Will makes a Fee-simple and ●●●●s much as the charge is to continue for ever it follows also that the Estate ought to continue for without the Estate the charge cannot be But I conceive that John and Roger shall take nothing by this will or at least that they shall take but a future Estate to begin after the death of Francis without Heir and then their time will never come for John Savage under whom the Defendant doth derive his Estate is Heire to Francis and therefore the Plaintiff nor his Lessor being Heire to Robert Wittingb the Survivor cannot have this house And to prove this here is an Estate limited by expresse words to Francis and his Heirs and no apparent intent by the Devisor that the word Heirs shall be restrained to the Heirs of his body unlesse by reason of the limitation of the Remainders afterwards which cannot be as hath been said if Francis had a Fee-simple But as to this I say that the same reason may be given when a man deviseth Land to A. and his Heires and if he die without Heire that it shall remain to B. and his Heires in which case if the Devise to A. shall be restrained to an Estate in Taile the Remainder to be is good but no such intent can be collected against expresse words and therefore the Remainder is utterly void as in 19 H. 8. 8. B. where the Rule is given that when the intent of the Testator does not agree with the Law his intent shall be void and this is a certain Rule And West 2. cap. 1. where it is provided Quod voluntas donatoris observetur yet it ought alwaies to agree with the Rules of Law as is proved by the 8. Assise 33. where was a Gift in Taile to two and if one dies that the Survivor shall have all to him and the heirs of his body now doth the Law say that they have severall Inheritances but the will of the Donor was that the Survivor should have all which being repugnant to the Rule of Law was adjudged to be a void Clause 35 H. 8. 6. Estates 75. Estates given to the husband and wife for their lives the Remainder to the heires of their bodies is an Estate-taile executed notwithstanding the expresse will of the Donor because an Estate for life and of Inheritance cannot be distinct in one and the same person without a mean Estate in another So that in Wills if the intent be against Law they are void And so is it if the intent be ambiguous and not manifestly to be collected out of the words of the Will And in our Case no manifest intent does appear to make the Estate of Francis an Estate in Tail C●ke 6. Rep. Wildes Case One devised land to A. for life the Remainder to B. in Taile the Remainder to R. and his wife and after their deaths to their Children who then had two Children the Devisor dies and A. dies and B. dies without Issue and and it was adjudged that the Children of R. and his wife should have only an Estate for life because that by Iudgment of Law they have but an Estate for life and if R. and his wife should have an Estate in Taile it ought to be by the intent of the Devisor which intent ought to be manifest and certain and so expressed in the Will and in this case no such intent does appear for perhaps his intent was to accord with the Rule of Law 15 16 Eliz. 9. a. A. having three Houses having three Sons and a Daughter did devise to B. his first Son a House paying ten pounds to his Sister and he to enter after the death of the wife of the Devisor and did devise to his second Son another Houses paying to the Daughter ten pounds and he to enter at the age of one and twenty years and did devise the third House to the third Son paying ten pounds to his

him and his heirs for ever if B. shall have issue of his body and if he die without heirs of his body that the Land shall revert to the Donor and his heirs B. had issue which died without issue and it was adjudged that B. had but an Estate in tail and because he died without heirs of his body it was adjudged that the Donor should recover against the collaterall heire of B. And if the Law be so in Deeds or Grants executed in the life of the Donor a fortiori in a Devise which is to be taken more favourably then an estate made by Deed and therefore it is sufficient in a Devise to have the intention of the Devisor understood either to make an estate in fee or in tail although proper words to make such an estate be not used and the intent of the Devisor cannot be more manifest to have an estate in tail then in this case As to the second Point the question will be whether the younger Son hath an estate in Tail or in Fee determinable by this limitation and it seemed to them that he shall have but an Estate in tail In which the question is to which estate these words of limitation to wit living the elder Son shall be referred viz. Whether to the Estate made to the younger Son or to the Estate given to the elder for if they be referred to the Estate made to the younger there is no question but these words do abridge restrain the estate but if to the elder then they make no restraint or restriction as to the estate of the younger Son but onely limit the remainder to the elder Son on this contingency only viz. If he be alive at the time of the death of the youngest Son without issue And to prove that these words shall be referred to the estate devised to the elder brother They said That if the land had been devised to the younger Son and the heirs of his body and if he dyed without issue living the elder that the elder should have the estate to him and his heirs it is clear that the younger hath an absolute estate tail and that then the remainder to the elder shall be on this contingency viz. If he be living when the younger dies without issue And so is Frenchmans Case 1 2. Eliz. who demised land to his wife for life the remainder to Charles Frenchman and the heirs males of his body and if he died without heirs males of his body the remainder to Arthur Frenchman and the heires males of his body Charles had issue a Daughter and died without issue male and it was adjudged that the Daughter should not have the land for this contingency does not alter the Estatetail that was first limited to Charles and although the Devise in the case at Bar be to the youngest Son and his Heirs without any limitation of his body yet the limitation afterwards to wit if he die without issue does explain well enough that the heires of his body are intended and then the subsequent words living the Eldest Son cannot alter the estate first given to the younger Son And Hil. 40. Eliz. in the Kings Bench by Walmesly If one deviseth land to his Son and his heirs and further deviseth that if he die without issue that the land shall be sold yet the Son shall have an estate in fee and not in tail but otherwise if he devised that if he died without issue that the lands should remain over for in the first case he disposeth of no more of the estate by the last words then he did at the first but in the last case he disposeth of the estate it self in remainder And this was agreed by Owen 18 19. Eliz. Rot. 354. and 15. 16. Eliz. Rot. 330. where the case was That one Edward Clark being seised in fee of two houses had issue Henry and two Daughters Alice and Thomasin Henry dyed before the two daughters living the Father the Father devised one house to his daughter Alice and her heirs for ever and the other to Thomasin who was at that time but eight years of age and her heirs for ever and if she died before the age of sixteen years Alice then living Alice should have it to her and heirs and if Alice should die having no issue living Thomasin Thomasin should have the house of Alice to her and her heirs and if both of them died without issue he devised the two houses to the two Daughters of his Son Henry and their heirs and if they died without issue he devised the remainder to a stranger Proviso That if Alice should marry I. S. that Thomasin should have her part to her and her heirs and if Thomasin should dye having no Child that the daughters of Henry should have all and if they died having no Child the remainder to a stranger as aforesaid The Devisor dies then Alice marries N. but not I. S. and enters into her house Thomasin after sixteen years of age dies without issue And if Alice or the daughters of Henry should have the estate of Thomasin was the question And it was holden by three Iustices that the daughters of Henry should have it because that Thomasin did not die within the age of sixteen years and that it being objected that there was no estate tail to any of the daughters but a fee simple conditionall upon a contingent it was at last adjudged 14. Eliz. Rot. 340. that they were Tenants in tail by this Devise in Mich. 37 38. Eliz. 42. Mich. 14 15. Eliz. And Michaelmas 18. Jacobi Judgment This Case was argued by Montague cheif Iustice Doderidge Haughton and Chamberlain who all agreed that by this Devise the youngest Son had not an Estate-tail but a limited see so that by his dying without issue living the elder Son his estate was quite determined and all except Doderidge agreed that the Recovery could not hurt the future Devise But Doderidge was much against this opinion by reason of great mischeif that might ensue by making of Perpetuities in Devises and cited Archers Case and Capels Case but notwithstanding Iudgment was affirmed as aforesaid De Termin Trinitat 18 Jacob. Rot. 1198. Dawtree against Dee and others IN an Action on the Case wherein the Plaintiff Declared That he the fifth of July 16 Jacobi was and is seised in Fee of a Capital Messuage called Moor-place with the appurtenances and of 600 Acres of Land meadow and pasture in Petworth with the said Messuage used of the annual value of 100 l. which Messuage he and those whose Estate he hath in the said Messuage and Tenements therein Farmors and Tenants have time out of minde used to keep good hospitality for the relieving of the Poor in Petworth aforesaid and that in the Church of Petworth aforesaid on the said fifth of July and also time out of minde there hath been and is a little Chancel on the North part of