Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	keeper_n	lord_n	seal_n	5,051	5	8.9948	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47714	Reports and cases of law, argued and adjudged in the courts at Westminster, in the times of the late Queen Elizabeth, and King James in four parts / collected by ... William Leonard, Esq. ...; with alphabetical tables of the names of the cases, and of the matter contained in each part ; published by William Hughes ...; Reports and cases of law argued and adjudged in the courts at Westminster Part 1	Leonard, William.; Hughes, William, of Gray's Inn.	1687 (1687)	Wing L1104; ESTC R19612	463,091	356

until Michaelmas Term by the Plaintiff himself And Leonard custos Brevium said That the words of the Statute of Westminster 2 cap. 27. Postquam aliquis posuerit se in aliquem inquisitionem ad proximum diem allocet ei esson Imports That the Essoin shall not be taken at the return of the Process against the Iury although the Iury be ready at the Bar. Anderson was of opinion That the awarding of the Nisi Prius ut supra is but a misawarding of the Process and then relieved by the Statute And afterwards the case being moved at another day 1 Cro. 367. the Court was clear of opinion That no Nisi Prius ought to issue forth in this case because that the Plaintiff himself by the adjorning of the Essoin cast by the Defendant until Michaelmas Term had barred himself of all Proceedings in the mean time But afterwards it was surmised to the Court on the Plaintiffs part that he the Defendant was not essoined for the name of the Defendant is Edward Hazel and it appeared upon the tryal that Edward Russel was essoined Amendment but no Edward Hazel and then if no Essoin no adjornment and then the Plaintiff is at large c. and may proceed c. But the Remembrance of the Clark was Edward Hazel as it ought to be and yet it was holden of no effect being in another Term And afterwards the Counsel of the Defendant prayed that the Roll in hac parte be amended according to the Remembrance of the Clark But the Court utterly denied that for no Statute gives amendment but in the affirmance of Iudgments and Verdicts and not in defeazance of Iudgments or Verdicts and afterwards it was resolved by the whole Court That Iudgment be entred for the Plaintiff CLXXXV Sir Henry Goodiers Case Hill. 32 Eliz. Intratur M. 29 30. Eliz. Rot. 2116. IN an Ejectione firmae the Case was Sir Ralph Rowlet possessed of certain Lands for years made his Will and ordained Sir Nicholas Bacon Renouncing of an Executorship Owen 44. Office of Executors 54. 1 Cro. 92. 9 Co. 37. Keeper of the great Seal of England Sir Robert Catline Lord Chief Iustice of England Iustice Southcote and Gerrard Attorney General his Executors and died And afterwards the said persons named Executors sent their Letters to the Chief Officer of the Prerogative Court as followeth Whereas our Loving friend Sir Ralph Rowlet Knight lately deceased made and ordained us Executors of his last Will and whereas our business is so great that we cannot attend the execution of the said Will Therefore we have thought good to move the bearer hereof Mr. Henry Goodier one of the Co-heirs of the said Sir Ralph to take upon him the execution of the said Will. And therefore we pray you to grant Letters of Administration in as ample manner as the justice of the cause doth require and afterwards an Entry was made in this manner in the same Court Executores Testamenti praedict executionem inde super se assumere distulerant adhuc distarent And upon that the said Goodier obtained Letters of Administration and granted a Lease to A. for years of which the said Sir Ralph Rowlet died possessed And afterwards Sir Robert Catline claiming as Executor granted the same Term to another c. and all the matter of difficulty was If this Letter written by the Executors be a sufficient Renunciation of the Executorship in Law so as the Executors cannot afterwards claim or use the said authority c. 2. If the Entry of the said Renuntiation be sufficient and effectual And it was argued by Ford one of the Doctors of the Civil Law That as well the Renunciation as the Entry of it is good and sufficient in Law so that none of the Executors could not after entermeddle And he said That in their Law there is not any certain form of Renuntiation but if the meaning and intention of the Renouncer appeareth it is sufficient without any formal Terms of Renunciation And he put many rules and Maximes in their Law to the same purpose Ego dico me nolle esse haeredem are sufficient words to such intent Non vult haeres esse quin ad aliam transferre debet haereditatem Qui semel repudiavit haereditatem non potest eam repetere Quod semel placuit post displicere non potest Variatio non permittitur in contractibus So that after the Executors have signified to the Officer of their Court their pleasure to renounce the Execution of the Will they cannot afterwards entermeddle nam interest reipublicae ut dominia rerum sint in certo And as to the Entry of the said Renunciation inter acta Curiae distulerint et adhuc distarent that was the error of the Clark. And it is Rule in our Law veritas rerum gestarum non vitiatur Errore factorum And the Lord Anderson demanded of the said Doctor how far those words haeres et haereditas did extend in their Law who answered That haereditas comprehends all Chattels as well real as personal Inheritance as well as Chattels for by their Law Haereditas nihilaliud est quam successio in universum jus quod defunctus habuit tempore mortis suae And afterwards the Court gave day to the other party to hear an Argument of their side but the case was so clear That no Professor of the Civil Law would be retained to argue to the contrary And afterwards Iudgment was given That the said Renunciation and the entry of it was sufficient CLXXXVI Littleton and Pernes Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Debt LIttleton brought Debt upon an Obligation against Humphry Pernes who pleaded that the said Obligation was endorced with this condition for the performance of certain Articles and Covenants contained in certain Indentures by which Indentures the Plaintiff first covenanted that Edward brother of Humphry should enjoy such Land until the Feast of Michaelmas next following rendring such Rent at the end of the said Term and the said Humphry covenanted that the said Edward at the Feast aforesaid should surrender quietly and peaceably the said Lands to the Plaintiff and that the said Plaintiff to such of the said Lands as by the Custom of the Country tunc jacebant frisca should have in the mean time free ingress egress c. at his will and pleasure with his servants ploughs c. And as to that Covenant the Defendant pleaded Quod permisit querentem habere intrationem exitum c. in tales terras quales tunc jacebant secundum consuetudinem patriae c. And Exception was taken to this plea because he hath not shewed in certain which Lands they were which then then did lie Frecy according to the custom of the Country which Anderson allowed of but Walmsly strongly insisted to the contrary And he confessed that where an Act is to be done according to a Covenant he who pleads the performance of it ought to

one of them dieth her Heir within age and in Ward to the King The Church voideth and the King is disturbed in his presentment he shall have a Scire facias upon such composition notwithstanding that he be a stranger to it See F.N.B. 34 H. And by all the Iustices if one recover in Debt upon a simple contract and before execution the Plaintiff is out-lawed in an Action personal the King shall sue execution And see 37 H. 6. 26. Where in Debt upon an Obligation it was surmised to the Court that the Plaintiff was out-lawed And the Kings Attorney prayed delivery of the Obligation c. LXXXV Moile and the Earl of Warwicks Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In Communi Banco Quare Impedit A Quare Impedit was brought by Walter Moile against Ambrose Earl of Warwick and the Archbishop of Canterbury And now came the Serjeanes of the Queen and shewed an Office to entitle the Queen to have a Writ to the Bishop containing such matter viz. That one Guilford was seised of the Manor of D. to which the Advowson of the Church was appendant and that Manor was holden in chief by Knights service and that Guilford and his Wife levied a Fine thereof to the use of themselves for their lives the remainder over in tail to their eldest Son and that Guilford is dead but who is his next Heir ignorant And it was shewed by the Council of the other side that the truth of the Case was that the said Guilford was seised of the said Manor in the right of his Wife and so levied the Fine in which Case the said coveyance is not within the Statute of 32 H. 8. for it was for the advancement of the Husband not of the Wife which Anderson granted Vide Dyer 19 Eliz. 354. Caverlies Case but that is not in the Office And it was moved at the Bar that the Office is imperfect because no Heir is found But Anderson the Office is sufficient for the King to seise although it be insufficient for the Heir c. And it was agreed by the whole Court Office trove that the Court ought not to receive the Office although one would affirm upon oath that it is the very Office but it ought to be brought in under the Great Seal of England and also the Court shall not receive it without a Writ and yet Nelson Prothonotary said that the Statute of Huy and Cry of Winchester was brought into the Court without a Writ under the great Seal A Record not to be brought into Court without a Writ 63. and that was out of the Tower And in that Case also the Iustices held that if a Record be pleaded in the same Court where it abides the other party against whom it is pleaded may plead Nul tiel Record as if the said Record had bin remaining in another Court which all the Prothonotaries denied that always it had been used to the contrary At another day the Case was moved again The Plaintiff in the Quare Impedit counted that Richard Guilford was seised of the said Manor c. in the right of Bennet his Wife and so seised they both levied a Fine thereof to a stranger Sur Conusans de droit come ceo who rendred it to the Husband and Wife for their lives the remainder to the Heirs of the body of the Husband the remainder to the right Heirs of the Husband and they so being seised the Husband alone levied a Fine to a stranger Sur Conusans de droit come ceo c. and by the same Fine the Conusee rendred to the Husband and Wife in tail the remainder to the Heirs of the body of the Husband the remainder to the right Heirs of the Husband the Husband died seised the Wife entred and leased the said Manor to the Plaintiff and then the Church did become void And now the Queens Serjeants came and shewed unto the Court an Office which came in by Mittimus In which Writ the perclose is Mandamus vobis quod inspectis c. pro nobis fieri faciatis quod secundum leges consuetudinem Regni nostri Angliae faciend Statuetis And the Office did purport that the said Richard was seised of the said Manor and held the same of the Queen as of her Castle of Dover by Knights service in chief and levied the Fine ut supra and that the said Richard died sed quis sit propinquior haeres dict Ric. penitus ignorant and upon that Office prayed a Writ to the Bishop for the Queen And two Exceptions were taken to the Office First because it is not found by the said Office that the said Richard died seised 1 Cro. 895. in which Case it may be for any thing that appeareth in the Office that the said Richard after the said Fine had conveyed his estate in the said Lands unto others or that he was disseised c. See 3 H. 6. 5. If it be not found of what estate the Tenant of the King died seised the Office is insufficient But see there by Martin that such an Office is good enough for the King but not for the Heir to sue his Livery upon it And by Anderson Periam and Rhodes that defect in the Office is supplyed by the Count for there it is expressly alledged that the said Richard died seised Secondly because no Heir is found by the said Office. To which it was said by the Lord Anderson that peradventure at the Common Law the same had been a material Exception But we ought to respect the Statutes of 32 and 34 H. 8. of Wills. And therefore as to the Wife the Queen is entitled to Primer seisin because the conveyance was made for her advancement And by Windham the Queen in this Cale shall not have Primer seisin for by the Statute the Queen shall not have Primer seisin but in such Case where if no conveyance had been made the Queen should have had Primer seisin but in this Case for any thing that appears before us if this conveyance had not been made the Queen should not have had Primer seisin forasmuch as no Heir is found and if he died without Heir there is no Primer seisin because there is not any in rerum natura to sue livery Rhodes Periam and Anderson contrary Admitting that Richard died withou Heir the Queen shall have Primer seisin against the Wife of Richard notwithstanding the escheat Walmesley Serjeant If the Tenant of the King by Knights service in chief dieth seised of other Lands holden of a common person by Knights service without Heirs the King shall not have Primer seisin of such Lands holden of a Subject which Windham granted But by Anderson the Lord is put to sue an Ouster le mayne of the Land holden of him And afterward Exception was taken to the Count because the Plaintiff hath not averred the life of the Tenant in tail that is of Bennet the Wife of Richard to whom