Selected quad for the lemma: body_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
body_n	heir_n	male_n	remainder_n	9,097	5	12.3740	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A33627	Certain select cases in law reported by Sir Edward Coke, Knight, late Lord Chief Justice of England ... ; translated out of a manuscript written with his own hand, never before published ; with two exact tables, the one of the cases, and the other of the principal matters therein contained.; Reports. Part 13. English	Coke, Edward, Sir, 1552-1634.	1659 (1659)	Wing C4909; ESTC R1290	92,700	80

of them to the use of himself for the term of his life and after to the use of his eldest sonne and to such a woman which he shall marry and to the heirs males of the body of the son and afterwards the father dieth and after the son taketh a wife and dieth if the wife shall take an Estate for life and the doubt was because the wife of the son was not within the Considerations and the use was limited to one who was capable scil the son and to another who was not capable and therefore the son should take an estate in tail executed But it was resolved by the said two chief Iustices and chief Baron That the Wife should take well enough and as to the first Reason they resolved That the Wife was within the consideration for the consideration was for the advancement of his posterity and without a Wife the Son cannot have posterity also when the Wife of the Son is sure of a Ioynture the same is for the advancement of the Son for thereby he shall have the better marriage And as to the second it was resolved That the Estate of the Son shall support the use to the Defendant and when the contingent happeneth the Estate of the Son shall be changed according to the limitation scil to the Son and the woman and the Heirs of the body of the Son And so it was resolved in the Kings-Bench by Popham chief Iustice and the whole Court of the Kings-Bench in the Reign of Queen Eliz. in Sheffields Case for both points XVIII Trinit 7 Jacobi Regis In the Court of Wards Sparies Case JOhn Spary seised in fee in the right of his Wife of Lands holden of the Crown by Knights service had issue by her and 22 Decemb. anno 9 Eliz. aliened to Edward Lord Stafford the Wife dyed the issue of full age the Lands continue in the hands of the Alienee or his Assigns and ten years after the death of the Father and twelve years after the death of the Mother Office is found 7 Jacobi finding all the special matter after the death of the Mother the Question was Whether the mean profits are to be answered to the King and it was resolved by the said two chief Iustices and the chief Baron That the King should not have the mean profits because that the Alienee was in by title and until Entry the Heir hath no remedy for the mean profits but that the King might seise and make Livery because that the Entry of the Heir is lawful by the Statute of 32 H. 8. XIX Trinit 7 Jacobi Regis In the Court of Wards IT was found by force of a Mandamus at Kendal in the County of VVestmerland the 21 of December 6 Jacobi Regis That George Earl of Cumberland long before his death was seised in tayl to him and to the Heirs males of his body of the Castles and Mannors of Browham Appleby c. the Remainder to Sir Ingram Clifford with divers Remainders over in tayl the Remainder to the right Heirs of Henry Earl of Cumberland Father of the said George and that the said George Earl so seised by Fine and Recovery conveyed them to the use of himself and Margaret his Wife for their lives for the Ioynture of the said Margaret and afterwards to the Heirs males of the body of George Earl of Cumberland and for want of such issue to the use of Francis now Earl of Cumberland and to the Heirs males of his body begotten and for want of such issue to the use of the right Heirs of the said George and afterwards by another Indenture conveyed the Fee-simple to Francis Earl By force of which and of the Statute of uses they were seised accordingly and afterwards 30 Octob. anno 3 Jacobi the said George Earl of Cumberland dyed without Heir male of his body lawfully begotten and further found that Margaret Countess of Cumberland that now is was alive and took the profits of the premisses from the death of the said George Earl of Cumberland until the taking of that inquisition and further found the other points of the Writ And first it was objected that here was no dying seised found by Office and therefore the Office shall be insufficient But as to that it was answerod and resolved That by this Office the King was not entitled by the common Law for then a dying seised or at first a dying the day of his death was necessary But this Office is to be maintained upon the Statute of 32 and 34 H. 8. by force of which no dying seised is requisite but rather the contrary scil If the Land be as this case is conveyed to the Wife c. And so it was resolved in Vincents case anno 23 Eliz. where all the Land holden in Capite was conveyed to the younger Son and yet the eldest Son was in Ward notwithstanding that nothing descended The second Objection was It doth not appear that the Estate of the Wife continued in her until the death of the Earl for the Husband and Wife had aliened the same to another and then no primer seisin shall be as it is agreed in Binghams case As to that it was answered and resolved That the Office was sufficient prima facie for the King because it is a thing collateral and no point of the Writ and if any such alienation be which shall not be intended then the same shall come in of the other part of the Alienee by a Monstrans de droit and the case at Bar is a stronger case because it is found that the said Countess took the profits of the premisses from the death of George the Earl until the finding of the Office XX. Trinity Term 7 Jacobi In the Court of Wards Wills Case HEnry Wills being seised of the fourth part of the Mannor of Wryland in the County of Devon holden of Queen Elizabeth in Socage-tenure in capite of the said fourth part enfeoffed Zachary Irish and others and their Heirs to the use of the said Henry for the term of his life and afterwards to the use of Thomas Wills his second son in tayl and afterwards to the use of Richard Wills his youngest son in tayl and for default of such issue to the use of the right Heirs of the said Henry and afterwards the said Henry so seised as abovesaid dyed thereof seised William Wills being his Son and Heir of full age Thomas the second son entered as into his Remainder All this matter is found by Office and the question was If the King ought to have primer seisin in this case and that Livery or Ouster le main shall be sued in this case by the Statutes of 32 and 34 H. 8. And it was resolved by the two chief Iustices and the chief Baron that not if in this case by the common Law no Livery or Ouster le main shall be sued and that was agreed by them all by the experience and course of the

his Deed indented dated the 22 of December in the first year of King James made between him of the one part and the said John Sammes and George Sammes Son and Heir apparent of the said John of the other part did bargain sell grant enfeoff release and confirm unto the said John Sammes the said Mead called Grany Mead to have and to hold the said Mead unto the said John Sammes and George Sammes and their Heirs and Assigns to the onely use and behoof of the said John Sammes and George Sammes their Heirs and Assigns for ever and by the same Indenture Sir Thomas did covenant with John and George to make further assurance to John and George and their Heirs to the use of them and their Heirs and Livery and Seisin was made and delivered according to the true intent of the said Indentures of the within mentioned premisses to the uses within mentioned John Sammes the Father dyeth George Sammes his Son and Heir being within age the Question was Whether George Sammes should be in Ward to the King or no And in this case three points were resolved 1. For as much as George was not named in the premisses he cannot take by the Habendum and the Livery made according to the intent of the Indenture doth not give any thing to George because the Indenture as to him is voyd but although the Feoffment be good onely to John and his Heirs yet the use limited to the use of John and George and their Heirs is good 2. If the Estate had been conveyed to John and his Heirs by the Release or Confirmation as it well may be to a Tenant by Copy of Court Roll the use limited to them is good for upon a Release which creates an Estate a use may be limited or a Rent reserved without question but upon a Release or Confirmation which enures by way of Mitter le droit an use cannot be limited or a Rent reserved But the third was of greater doubt If in this case the Father and Son were Ioynt-tenants or Tenants in common For it was objected when the Father is onely enfeoffed to the onely use of him and his Son and their Heirs in the Per that in this case they shall be Tenants in common By the Feoffment the Father is in by the common Law in the Per and then the limitation of the use to him and his Son and to their Heirs cannot devest the Estate which was vested in him by the common Law out of him and vest the Estate in him in the Post by force of the Statute according to the limitation of the use and therefore as to one moyety the Father shall be in by force of the Feoffment in the Per and the Son as to the other moyety shall be in by force of the Statute according to the limitation of the use in the Post and by consequence they shall be Tenants in common But it was answered and resolved That they were Ioynt-tenants and that the Son in the Case at Bar should have the said Grange by the Survivor for if at the common Law A. had been enfeoffed to the use of him and B. and their Heirs although that he was onely seised of the Land the use was joyntly to A. and B. For a use shall not be suspended or extinct by a sole seisin or joynt seisin of the Land and therefore if A. and B. be enfeoffed to the use of A. and his Heirs and A. dyeth the entire use shall descend to his Heir as it appeareth in 13 H. 7. 6. in Stoners Case and by the Statute of 27 H. 8. cap. 10. of Vses it appeareth That when several persons are seised to the use of any of them that the Estate shall be executed according to the use And as to that which was said That the Estate of the Land which the Father hath in the Land as to the moyetyof the use which he himself hath shall not be devested out of him To that it was answered and resolved That that shall well be for if a man maketh a Feoffment in Fee to one to tho use of him and the Heirs of his body in this case for the benefit of the issue the Statute according to the limitation of the uses devests the Estate vested in him by the common Law and executes the same in himself by force of the Statute and yet the same is out of the words of the Statute of 27 H. 8. which are Where any person c. stand or be scised c. to the use of any other person and here he is seised to the use of himself and the other clause is Where divers and many persons c. be joyntly seised c. to the use of any of them c. and in this case A. is sole seised But the Statute of 27 H. 8. hath been always beneficially expounded to satisfie the intention of the parties which is the direction of the uses according to the Rule of the Law So if a man seised of Lands in Fee-simple by Deed covenant with another that he and his Heirs will stand seised of the same Land to the use of himself and the Heirs of his body or unto the use of himself for life the remainder over in Fee in that case by the operation of the Statute the Estate which he hath at the common Law is devested and a new Estate vested in himself according to the limitation of the use And it is to be known that an use of Land which is but a pernency of the profits is no new thing but part of that which the owner of the Land had and therefore if Tenant in Borrough-English or a man seised of the part of his Mother maketh a Feoffment to another without consideration the younger Son in the one case and the Heir on the part of the Mother on the other shall have the use as they should have the Land it self if no Feoffment had been made as it is holden in 5 E. 4. 7. See 4 and 5 Phil. and Mar. Dyer 163. So if a man maketh a Feoffment unto the use of another in tayl and afterwards to the use of his right Heirs the Feoffor hath the Reversion of the Land in him for if the Donee dyeth without isse the Law giveth the use which was part of the Land to him and so it was resolved Trinity 31 Eliz. between Fenwick and Milford in the Kings-Bench So in 28 H. 8. Dyer 11. the Lord Rosses Case A man seised of one Acre by Priority and of another Acre by Posteriority and makes a Feoffment in Fee of both to his use and it was adjudged that although both pass at one instant yet the Law shall make a Priority of the uses as if it were of the Land it self which proves that the use is not any new thing for then there should be no Priority in the Case See 13 H. 7. b. by Butler So in the Case at Bar The use limited to

seperatio quia seperat duas Jurisdictiones So Dioces signifies the Iurisdiction of one Ordinary seperated and divided from others And because the Archbishop of Canterbury hath a peculiar Iurisdiction in London exempt out of the Dioces or Iurisdiction of the Ordinary or Bishop of London For that cause it is fitly said in the Title Peramble and body of the Act That when the Archbishop sitting in his exempt Peculiar in London cites one dwelling in Essex he cites him out of the Dioces or Iurisdiction of the Bishop of London ergo he is cited out of the Dioces And in the clause of the penalty of ten pounds It is said out of the Dioces or other Iurisdiction where the party dwelleth which agreeth with the signification of Dioces before And as to the words Far off c. they were put in the Preamble to shew the great mischief which was before the Act As the Statute of 32 H. 8. cap. 33. in the Preamble it is Disseisins with strength and the body of the Act saith such Disseisor yet the same extendeth to all Disseisors but Disseisin with force was the greatest mischief as it is holden in 4. and 5 Eliz. Dyer 219. So the Preamble of the Statute of West 2. cap. 5. is Heirs in Ward and the body of the Act is Hujusmodi praesentat as it is adjudged in 44 E. 3. 18. That an Infant who hath an Advowson by discent and is out of Ward shall be within the remedy of the said Act but the Frauds of the Guardians was the greater mischief So the Preamble of the Act of 21 H. 8. cap. 15. which gives falsifying of Recoveries recites in the Preamble That divers Lessees have paid divers great Incomes c. Be it enacted That all such Termors c. and yet the same extends to all Termors and yet all these Cases are stronger then the Case at Bar for there that word such in the body of the Act referreth the same to the Preamble which is not in our Case 2. The body of the Act is No manner of person shall be henceforth cited before any Ordinary c. out of the Dioces or peculiar Iurisdiction where the person shall be dwelling And if he shall not be cited out of the Peculiar before any Ordinary a Fortiori the Court of Arches which sits in a Peculiar shal not cite others out of another Dioces And these words Out of the Dioces are to be meant out of the Dioces or Iurisdiction of the Ordinary where he dwelleth but the exempt Peculiar of the Archbishop is out of the Iurisdiction of the Bishop of London as S. Martins and other places in London are not part of London although they are within the circumference of it 3. It is to be observed That the Preamble reciting of the great mischief recites expresly That the Subjects were called by compulsary proces to appear in the Arches Audience and other high Courts of the Archbishoprick of this Realm So as the intention of the said Act was to reduce the Archbishop to his proper Dioces or peculiar Iurisdiction unlesse it were in five Cases 1. For any Spirituall Offence or cause committed or omitted contrary to the right and duty by the Bishop c. which word omitted proves that there ought to be a default in the Ordinary 2. Except it be in case of Appeal and other lawfull cause wherein the party shall find himselfe greived by the Ordinary after the matter or cause there first begun ergo the same ought to be first begun before the Ordinary 3. In case that the Bishop of the Dioces or other immediate Iudge or Ordinary dare not or will not convent the party to be sued before him where the Ordinary is called the immediate Iudge as in truth he is and the Archbishop unlesse it be in his own Dioces these speciall Cases excepted mediate Iudge scil by Appeal c. 4. Or in case that the Bishop of the Dioces or the Iudge of the place within whose Iurisdiction or before whom the Suit by this Act should be begun and prosecuted be party directly or indirectly to the matter or cause of the same suit Which clause in expresse words is a full exposition of the body of the Act scil That every suit others then those which are expressed ought to be begun and prosecuted before the Bishop of the Dioces or other Iudge of the same place 5. In case that any Bishop or any inferiour Iudge having under him Iurisdiction c. make request or instance to the Archbishop Bishop or other inferiour Ordinary or Iudge and that to be done in cases only where the Law Civill or Common doth affirm c. By which it fully appeareth That the Act intendeth That every Ordinary and Ecclesiasticall Iudge should have the Conusance of Causes within their Iurisdiction without any Concurrent Authority or Suit by way of prevention And by this the Subject hath great benefit as well by saving of travell and charges to have Iustice in his place of habitation as to be judged where he and the matter is best known As also that he shall have many Appeals as his Adversary in the highest Court at the first Also there are two Provisoes which explains it also scil That it shall be lawfull to every Archbishop to cite any person inhabiting in any Bishops Diocesse within his Province for matter of Heresie which were a vain Proviso If the Act did not extend to the Archbishop But by that speciall Proviso for Heresie it appeareth that for all causes not excepted is prohibited by the Act Then the words of the Proviso go further If the Bishop or other Ordinary immediatly hereunto consent or if the same Bishop or other immediate Ordinary or Iudge do not his duty in punishment of the same which words immediatly and immediate expound the intent of the makers of the Act. 2. There is a saving for the Archbishop the calling any person out of the Dioces where he shall be dwelling to the probate of any Testaments which Proviso should be also in vain if the Archbishop notwithstanding that Act should have concurrent Authority with every Ordinary through his whole Province Wherefore it was concluded that the Archbishop out of his Dioces unlesse in the Cases excepted is prohibited by the Act of 23 H. 8. to cite any man out of any other Dioces And in truth the Act of 23. of Henry the eighth is but a Law declaratory of the ancient Canons and of the true exposition of them The Act of 23 H. 8. is a Declaration of the old Canon Law And that appeareth by the Canon Cap. Romana in sexto de Appellationibus and Cap. de Competenti in sexto And the said Act is so expounded by all the Clergy of England at a Convocation in London An. 1 Jac. Regis 1603. Canon 94. Where it is decreed ordained and declared That none should be cited to the Arches or Audience but the Inhabitants within the Archbishops Dioces