Selected quad for the lemma: duty_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
duty_n	good_a	king_n	subject_n	2,457	5	6.6055	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A49392	Reports in the Court of Exchequer, beginning in the third, and ending in the ninth year of the raign of the late King James by the Honourable Richard Lane ... ; being the first collections in that court hitherto extant ; containing severall cases of informations upon intrusion, touching the King's prerogative, revenue and government, with divers incident resolutions of publique concernment in points of law ; with two exact alphabeticall tables, the one of the names of the cases, the other of the principall matters contained in this book.	Lane, Richard, Sir, 1584-1650.; England and Wales. Court of Exchequer.	1657 (1657)	Wing L340; ESTC R6274	190,222	134

land by Tort and Covin is void which cases and many other you may see in Farmors case Cook lib. 3. and the 12. Eliz. Dyer fo 294. and as it is said in Twines Case Cook lib. 3. all frauds are covered with trust expressed or implyed and here is an express trust and he vouched also Cook lib. 5. Gooches Case and also Englefields case and Pauncefoots case cited in Twines case Cook l. 3. fo 83. also he said that this conveyance being void by reason of the fraud by the Law it is more clear that it shall be decreed to be void here the Deed being in court and course of equity and therefore he said that it hath been decreed in this Court for equity that if a man outlawed taketh bonds in the name of another that they shall be forfeited to the King also it hath been decreed in Venables Case that where a widdow upon good devotion bad devised great summes of money for the relief and sustenance of poor silenced Ministers and Preachers for not subcribing to the Commons c. to be ordered and paid to them by the discretion of the Executors that the money should be disposed for the maintenance of poor conformable Ministers by the discretion of the Executors and not to them who retused to subscribe for when a thing is disposed to maintain contempt and disobedience in any this ought to be ordered and disposed by the Court to a contrary end and use and so in the principal case in so much that the conveyance was made by Sir Robert Dudley for the maintenance of himself in contempt and for the maintenance of his wife and other uses this by the rules of equity shall be decreed to be void and in regard the King is offended by the contempt he ought to have means to punish It and so he prayed that it may be decreed for the King Hutton Serjeant the same day to the contrary and he argued first that this confidence is as an use at the Common Law which was not forfeitable and secondly admit that this conveyance be fraudulent yet it is not now to be avoided and these are the grounds whereupon he would insist in the maintenance of his conveyance against the King but first as to that which hath been said that at the Common Law a man could not go beyond the Sea without the Kings licence he said that he thought the contrary for it appears plainly by the book 12. Eliz. Dyer fo 296. and F. N. B. cited accordingly that any man may go beyond the Sea to travail except there be a proclamation or a writ of ne exeas Regnum to restrain him so that he agreed that every man was prohibitable before his going or after by recalling but without a prohibition or recalling his departure was no offence but he agreed that if a man be prohibited or recalled that for this contempt his lands ought to be seised and that the King hath interest to dispose of them as it is proved by the president of John de Britanies case in the 19. E. 2. and vouched in the 2. Ma. Dyer 128. and this is also proved by other presidents and authorities as 39. Assise pla 1. where it appears that for a contempt of the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury for not executing of the Kings writ that the King seised his lands and held them during the life of the Arch-Bishop and also Englefields case in Cook lib. 7. proveth that the King hath power to seise and dispose for such a contempt and therefore he would not argue what interest the King should have by such seisure but for the matters which he intended First he thought clearly that this confidence betwixt the Bargainor and the Bargainee was as an use at the Common Law and that cestuy que use should not forfeit this use at the Common Law is directly proved by 11. H. 4. fo 52. where without an express Statute an use was not forfeited as he said and he vouched accordingly 5. E. 4. fo 7. where it appeareth that cestuy que use shall not forfeit the land at the Common Law and the reason is because that it is subject to the forfeiture of the Donees and it is inconvenient that the same land should be subject to several forfeitures at the same time by several men viz. the Bargainor and the Bargainees and he said although that these uses were begotten by fraud as it appears in our books see Chudleys case Cook lib. 1. yet in so much that without an express Statute they were not forfeitable by the same reason a trust or confidence is not forfeitable although they are begotten by fraud without a special Act of Parliament also in out case there are not any Badges of fraud but only as a trust betwixt the Bargainees and that a bargain and trust may be without fraud although the Bargainor continue possession against his Bargainee which is another argument that there is no fraud in the case and the estates after made to the Tenants now in possession viz. Sir Robert Lee c. for the Bargaines were not made by the appointment of the Bargainor but of their own head also he said that if here be any fraud it is matter of fact whereof the Iurors ought to have inquired and the Iury here have found no fraud and to prove that the fraud ought to be found by the Iury he vouched Wardenfords case 2. 3. of Eliz. Dyer 193. 267. where it is also said that although a fraud he found by the Iury yet if it be found specially not to defraud the King but the Creditors then the conveyance shall be good against the King and so he concluded the first point Secondly admit that it was found that this conveyance was fraudulent yet it is not void against the King for it seemed to him it shall be avoided by fraud only by those who have an antient right or antient duty and if in this case there were any fraud this was long time before any title or right accrewed to the King for that was two years after this conveyance and to prove it he vouched Upton and Bassets case cited in Twins case in Cook lib. 3. there it is said expresly that a conveyance by fraud is void only in respect of an antient title see 22. Assise pla 72. accordingly but the Statute of 27. Eliz. makes such a conveyance void to those who have a present right if there were a valuable consideration as is not in our case and therefore we are out of this Statute and also he said that he agreed the case cited of the other part if a man outlawed purchase goods or takes an obligation in trust the King shall have them for this is by the Statute of the 3. H. 7. cap 4. but this concerus not land and therefore we are at the Common Law and as a Statute was requisite to be made to make an use forfeitable which was not forfeitable at the

Common Law it is also to make an obligation in the name of another to be forfeitable although it was not at the Common Law so if we will have a confidence or a trust to be forfeited we ought to have a Statute made to this purpose and as to Pauncefoots case he said that the King had a title by the indictment of recusancy before the conveyance made by Pauncefoots but so it is not in our case whereby appeareth a plain difference betwixt the cases see the 14. H. 8. fo 8. the Attorney general to the contrary at another day and first he spake to the quality of the offence viz. the contempt and this offence as he said is aggravated by these circumstances First the command of the King himself came and not of any inferiour officer as Sheriff c. and it is immediately directed to the partie himself Secondly the command is that he shall return upon his faith and allegeance which is the strongest compulsion that can be used Thirdly the thing required by the King is the principal dutie of a subject viz. to be at the command of the King for service and not as the common summons in Law is to answer at the suit of I. S. and he said that this contempt is to be accompted in quality of a contempt from the very time when the privy Seal came to his hands for the words quod indilate c. and it hath been in all ages the course and use to punish contempts of this kinde by seising their lands and he vouched in proof thereof the presidents of John de Brittons case in 19. E. 2. and of Edward de woodstock in the time of E. 2. and the case in 2. Ma. Dyer fo 128. 2. Eliz. Dyer Barners case fo 176. and 23. Eliz Dyer 375. and Englefields case Cook lib. 7. moreover he argued in so much it is clear that the King shall seise his lands for this contempt it is to be considered what estate or interest the King shall gain by this seisure and as to that he thought that the King hath an estate at the least for the life of the effendor and that he conceived is proved by the presidents for these words are used in the seisure c. donec aliter duxerimus ordinandum c. and he said that this is proved by Englefields case and also by the way and manner of the seisure and disposing of the land for such contempt in 23. Eliz. Dyer 375. by the Statute of 13. and 14 Eliz made against fugitives also he used this reason to prove that the King had an estate for life viz. because the offender by this contempt had impliedly deserted his land and left it to the Kings dispose and then it is all one as if he granted the land to the King to hold and use as long as he pleaseth and such an express grant will create an estate for life in the King as is proved by 35. H. 6. where it is agreed that if I give land to A. as long as he will this is an estate for life and so here by this implied Art c. also as to that that may be pretended in this case that the King granted licence in this case to Sir Robert Dudley to travel for a time certain which time is not yet expired and therefore the contempt qualified or satisfied by reason of this licence to that he said that notwithstanding that was the case yet the contempt is all one as if he had no licence at all in regard it is countermanded by the privy Seal which injoyns him to return and to prove that this licence is alwayes countermandable by the King he said that besides the common usage and obedience of countermands of this kinde he said that it was to be proved by reason also and authority of our books for although here be a licence indeed yet there is great adversitie between a licence indeed which giveth interest and a licence indeed which giveth only an authoritie or dispensation as in our case for the one is not to be countermanded but the other is as appeareth by 5. H. 7. and 1. Ma. Dyer 92 and admit that after this licence and before the departure of Sir Robert Dudley the King had said unto him you shall not go this had been a good countermand as seemed to him and he vouched 9. E. 4.4 and 8. E. 4. if I licence A. to stay in my house for three dayes yet I may put him out in the mean time but otherwise it is if I licence A. to hold my land for 3. dayes because there an interest passeth and the reason wherefore this licence in our case is countermandable is because all licences of this kinde have tacite conditions annexed to them for no Act or licence wil. free a subject from his allegeance as appeareth by Doctor Stories case in the 13. Eliz. Dyer fo 300. and no man can put off or be dismissed of duties which belong to a subject no more then he can put off his subjection and this is the reason that an honor or dignitie intailed ought to be forfeited although it be intailed for the honor which is given by the King hath a tacit condition in Law annexed unto it and it ought not to continue in him who committeth Treason nor in his posteritie although that the partie had but an estate tail therein see Nevels case Cook lib. 7. and so had the King his licence which is but a dispensation for the time and countermandable by the King and he said that the Book in 2. Eliz. Dyer fo 176. makes it a doubt but he thought it clear for the reasons aforesaid and as to the material point viz. if this land shall be priviledged from seisure by reason of this bargain or not and he said that it shall not be priviledged for this conveyance which is revokable at the will of the Bargainor is meerly fraudulent against any interest of forfeiture for otherwise the Kings subjects are but as ferae naturae which when they are out of their pale the King had no means to reduce them within the Park again for in this case had no means directly to punish this offence upon the body of the offender but by the depriving him of the means of his maintenance and although there be no fraud here in the parties Bargainees yet the fraud in the Bargainor makes the conveyance void against the King for as it appeareth by our books the King cannot be an instrument of fraud although he may be party thereunto see 17. and 21. E. 3. so in the case of an infant cited before by Mountague all which and many others to this purpose of fraud are cited in Farmors case Cook lib. 3. fo 48. and whereas it was objected that here can be no fraud intended in the offender in regard he had a licence to travel and it cannot be intended that he presupposed any countermand of this licence and