Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	england_n	king_n	year_n	2,458	5	4.8013	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A34029	Modern reports, or, Select cases adjudged in the Courts of Kings Bench, Chancery, Common-pleas, and Exchequer since the restauration of His Majesty King Charles II collected by a careful hand.	Colquitt, Anthony.; England and Wales. Court of Chancery.; England and Wales. Court of King's Bench.; England and Wales. Court of Common Pleas.; England and Wales. Court of Exchequer.	1682 (1682)	Wing C5414; ESTC R11074	235,409	350

Queen he had made a Prior Grant to one Danson of which Grant we here produce the Inrolment This Grant to Danson was an effectual Grant for anno 11 Jacobi a Presentation was made by J. R. Th. Danson which proves that this Grant took effect and the Defendant himself deduceth the Title of his own Patron under that Grant Barrel Wingate is not to be accounted a stranger for he makes Title by the Letters Letters Patents of 2 Eliz. so that he encounters the Queen with her own Grant and his Title under that Grant was allowed by the Court who gave Iudgment accordingly There was no faint Pleader in the Case as appears by the Record that has been read And covin shall not be presumed if it be not alledged We deduce our Title under the Grant made to Danson 29 Eliz. in our plea but that is only by way of inducement to our traverse Cur. By that Iudgment temp Regin Eliz. the Quéens Title was avoided We must not presume that Wingate had a Title Ex diuturnitate temporis omnia presumuntur solemniter esse acta That Quare Impedit was brought when the matter was fresh Without doubt Danson would have asserted his Title against Wingate if he had had any The Defendant did not do prudently in conveying a Title to his Patron under the Grant made to Danson but issue being taken upon the Quéens dying seized he shall not be concluded to give in Evidence any other Title to maintain the Issue Vpon which Evidence the Iury found for the Defendant that Queen Elizabeth did not die seized North said He was clearly of Opinion That the Kings Title by Vsurpation should be avoided by a Recovery against his Clerk though the Recoverer were a meer stranger The Company of Stationers against Seymour THe Company brought an Action of Debt against Seymour for printing Gadbury's Almanacks without their leave Vpon a special Verdict found the question was Whether the Letters Patents whereby the Company of Stationers had granted to them the sole printing of Almanacks were good or not The Iury found the Stat. of 13 14 Car. 2. concerning Printing They found a Patent made by King James of the same Priviledge to the Company in which a former Patent of Queen Elizabeths was recited and they found the Letters Patents of the King that now is Then they found that the Defendant had printed an Almanack which they found in his verbis figuris and that the said Almanack had all the essential parts of the Almanack that is printed before the Book of Common Prayer but that it has some other additions such as are usual in common Almanacks c. Pemberton The King may by Law grant the sole-printing of Almanacks The Art of Printing is altogether of another consideration in the eye of the Law than other Trades and Mysteries are the Press is a late Invention But the Exorbitancies and Licentiousness thereof has ever since it was first found out been under the care and restraint of the Magistrate For great Mischiefs and Disorder would ensue to the Common-wealth if it were under no Regulation and it has therefore always been thought fit to be under the Inspection and Controul of the Government And the Stat. 14. Car. 2. recites that it is a matter of publique Care In England it has from time to time been under the Kings own Regulation so that no Book could lawfully be printed without an Imprimatur granted by some that derive authority from him to Licence Books But the question here is not Whether the King may by Law grant the sole-Printing of all Books but of any and of what sort of Books the sole-printing of Law-Books is not now in question that seémed to be a point of some difficulty because of the large extent of such a Patent and the uncertainty of determining what should be accounted a Law-Book and what not And yet such a Patent has been allowed to be good by a Iudgment in the House of Péers When Sir Orlando Bridgeman was Chief Justice in this Court there was a question raised concerning the validity of a Grant of the sole-printing of any particular Book with a Prohibition to all others to print the same how far it should stand good against them that claim a Property in the Copy paramount to the Kings Grant and Opinions were divided upon the Point But the Defendant in our Case makes no Title to the Copy only he pretends a nullity in our Patent The Book which this Defendant has printed has no certain Author and then according to the Rule of our Law the King has the property and by consequence may grant his Property to the Company Cur. There is no difference in any material part betwixt this Almanack and that that is put in the Rubrick of the Common-Prayer Now the Almanack that is before the Common-Prayer proceeds from a publick Constitution it was first setled by the Nicene Council is established by the Canons of the Church and is under the Government of the Archbishop of Canterbury So that Almanacks may be accounted Prerogative Copies Those particular Almanacks that are made yearly are but applications of the general Rules there laid down for the moveable Feasts for ever to every particular year And without doubt this may be granted by the King This is a stronger Case than that of Law-Books which has been mentioned The Lords in in the Resolution of that Case relyed upon this That Printing was a new Invention and therefore every man could not by the Common Law have a liberty of printing Law-Books And since Printing has been invented and is become a common Trade so much of it as has been kept inclosed never was made common but matters of State and things that concern the Government were never left to any mans liberty to print that would And particularly the sole Printing of Law-Books has been formerly granted in other Reigns Though Printing be a new Invention yet the use and benefit of it is only for men to publish their Works with more ease than they could before Men had some other way to publish their Thoughts before Printing came in and forasmuch as Printing has always been under the Care of the Government since it was first set on foot we may well presume that the former way was so too Queen Elizabeth King James and King Charles the First granted such Patents as these and the Law has a great respect to common usage We ought to be guided in our Opinions by the Iudgment of the House Peérs which is express in the point the ultimate resort of Law and Iustice being to them There is no particular Author of an Almanack and then by the Rule of our Law the King has the Property in the Copy Those additions of Prognostications and other things that are common in Almanacks do not alter the Case no more than if a man should claim a property in another mans Copy by reason of some inconsiderable

pleaded A special Verdict that the Lands are Copyhold Lands and surrendred to the use of one for eleven years the Remainder for five years to the Daughter the Remainder to the right heirs of the Tenant for eleven years The eleven years expire the Daughter is admitted the five years expire And there being a Son and Daughter by one Venter and a Son by another Venter the Son of the first Venter dies before admittance and the Daughter of the first Venter and her Husband bring Trover for cutting down of Trees And the question was if the admittance of Tenant for years was the admittance of the Son in Remainder Levings I conceive it is and then the Son is seized and the Daughter of the whole blood is his heir and he cited 4 Rep. 23. 3 Cro. 503. Bunny's case Wyld The Estate is bound by the Surrender Hales If a man doth surrender to the use of John Styles till admitted there is no Estate in him but remains in the Surrenderor but he hath a right to have an admittance If a surrender be to J. S. and his heirs his heir is in without admittance if J. S. dies About this hath indeed been diversity of Opinion but the better Opinion hath been according to the Lord Coke's Opinion I do not see any inconvenience why the admission of Tenant for life or years should not be the admittance of all in Remainder for Fines are to be paid notwithstanding by the particular Remainders and so the Books say it shall be no prejudice to the Lord. Twisd I think it is strong that the admission of Lessee for years is the admission of him in Remainder for as in a case of possessio fratris the Estate is bound so that the Sister shall be heir so here the Estate is bound and goes to him in Remainder Hales I shall not prejudice the Lord for if a Fine be assessed for the whole Estate there is an end of the business but if a Fine be assessed only for a particular Estate the Lord ought to have another If a surrender be to the use of A. for life the Remainder to his eldest Son c. or to the use of A. and his heirs and then A. dies the Estate is in the Son without admittance whether he takes by purchase or descent And Iudgment was given accordingly Draper versus Bridwell Rot. 320. ALL the Court held that an Action of Debt would lye upon a Iudgment after a Writ of Error brought Twisden They in the Spiritual Court will give Sentence for Tythes for rakings though they be never so unvoluntarily left which our Law will not allow of Wyld said that Actions personal transitory though the party doth live in Chester yet they may be brought in the Kings Courts Hales Shew a President where a man can wage his Law in an Action brought upon a Prescription for a duty as in an Action of Debt for Toll by Prescription you cannot wage your Law Pybus versus Mitford Postea THe Chief Iustice delivered his Opinion Wyld Rainsford and Twisden having first delivered theirs Hales I think Iudgment ought to be given for the Defendant whether the Son take by descent or purchase I shall divide the case 1 Whether the Son doth take by descent 2 Admitting he doth not whether he can take by purchase We must make a great difference betweén Conveyances of Estates by way of use and at Common Law A man cannot convey to himself an Estate by a Conveyance at Common Law but by way of Vse he may But now in our case here doth doth retorn by operation of Law an Estate to Michael for his life which is conjoyned with the Limitation to his heirs The reason is because a Limitation to the heirs of his body is in effect to himself this is perfectly according to the intention of the parties Objection The use being never out of Michael he hath the old use and so it must be a Contingent use to the heirs of his body But I say we are not here to raise a new Estate in the Covenantor but to qualifie the Estate in Fee in himself for the old Estate is to be made an Estate for life to serve the Limitation Further Objection It shall be the old Estate in Fee as if a man deviseth his Lands to his heirs the heir is in of the old Estate But I answer if he qualifie the Estate the Son must take it so as in Hutton fo So in this case is a new qualification Roll 789. 15 Jac. If a man makes a Feoffment to the use of the heirs of the body of the Feoffor the Feoffor hath an Estate Tail in him Pannel versus Fenne Moor 349. Englefield and Englefield 2 I conceive if it were not possible to take by descent this would be a Contingent use to the heirs of the body Objection It is limited to the heir when no heir in being Why I say it would have come to the heir at Common Law if no express Limitation had been and it cannot be intended that he did mean an heir at Common Law because he did specially limit it Fitz. tit Entayle 23. An Assise for the Serjeant at Mace's place in the House of Commons The Plaintiff had his Patent read The Court asked if they could prove Seisin They answered that they had recovered in an Action upon the case for the mean profits and had Execution Court For ought we know that will amount to a seisin Twisden Vpon your grant since you could not get seisin you should have gone into Chancery and they would have compelled him to give you seisin Hales A man may bring an Action upon the case for the profits of an Office though he never had seisin So the Record was read of his Recovery in an Action upon the case for the profits Hales This is but a seisin in Law not a seisin in Fact The Counsel for the Plaintiff much urged that the Recovery and Execution had of the profits was a sufficient seisin to entitle them to an Assise It was objected that the Plaintiff was never invested into the Office Hales said That an investiture did not make an Officer when he is created by Patent as this is but he is an Officer presently But if he were created an Herald at Arms as in Segars case he must be invested before he can be an Officer a person is an Officer before he is sworn Hales You are the Pernor of the profits and they have recovered them is not this a Seisin against you They shall find it specially but they chose rather to be Non-suit because of the delay by a special Verdict And the Court told them they could not withdraw a Iuror in an Assise for then the Assise would be depending The Roll of the Action sur le case fuit 19 Car. 2. Mich. Rot. 557. Term. Trin. 15 Car. II. 1663. Judge Hide 's Argument in the Exchequer-Chamber Manby versus Scott A Feme Covert departs