Selected quad for the lemma: law_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
law_n	england_n	king_n	people_n	13,931	5	5.0853	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

I do Allow of the Reprinting of These Four Parts of Leonards Reports Febr. 20. 1685 / 6. EDWARD HERBERT 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 The Second Impression carefully Corrected with the Addition of Many Thousand of References never before Printed Collected by a Learned Professor of the LAW WILLIAM LEONARD Esquire Then of the Honourable Society of GRAYS-INN Published by William Hughes of Grays-Inn Esquire With Alphabetical TABLES of the Names of the Cases and of the Matter contained in each Part. LONDON Printed by William Rawlins Samuel Roycroft and Miles Flesher Assigns of Richard and Edward Atkins Esquires For H. Twyford H. Herringman T. Basset R. Chiswell B. Griffin C. Harper T. Sawbridge J. Place and S. Keble MDCLXXXVII Academiae Cantabrigiensis Liber TO THE READER Courteous Reader THese Cases were Collected and taken in the French Tongue by William Leonard Esquire sometimes of the Honourable Society of Grays-Inn a Learned Professor and Practiser of the Common Law in the time of the Reign of the late Queen Elizabeth One Copy of some of these Cases many years past came into the hands of Sir Robert Hitcham Knight afterwards Serjeant at Law Another Copy of other of these Cases came then into the hands of Humphry Davenport Serjeant at Law afterwards Sir Humpry Davenport Knight late Lord chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer Both which said learned persons approved of them and made use of them in the course of their several Practice Some other Copies of some of these Cases are now dispersed abroad and are in the hands of divers Practisers and Students of the Law who make the like use of them The Originals themselves of all these Cases amongst many others of the said Mr. Leonards collecting all of them under his own hand-writing are now in my hands having been delivered to me by a worthy Gent. of the said Society of Grays-Inn who had them out of the Library somtimes belonging to the said Mr. Leonard These Cases having been lately truly and carefully Translated by me out of the Original French Copy into English have since the Translation thereof been perused and approved of by many Eminent Professors of the Law. Wherefore I finding that the same do contain many excellent Matters and Points of Law which have not heretofore been Printed or published do here offer the same unto thy Judgment upon a serious consideration hoping they may be of some use and benefit to thee in the like course of thy study and practice of LAW From my Study at Grays-Inn Novemb. 20th 1658. Will. Hughes The Names of the Learned Lawyers Serjeants at Law and Judges of the several Courts at Westminster who argued the cases and were Judges of the several Courts where the Cases were argued viz. A. ANderson Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. Anger Altham afterwards one of the Barons of the Exchequer Atkinson Ayliffe Justice of the Kings Bench. B. BEamount Serjeant at law afterwards Judge of the Common Pleas. Bromley Lord Chancellor of England Barkley C. COok after Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. Clench one of the Judges of the Kings Bench. Cooper Serjeant at Law. Clark Baron of the Exchequer D. DAniel Serjeant at Law after Judge of the Common Pleas. Drew Serjeant at Law. Dyer Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. E. EGerton Solicitor of the Queen after Lord Chancellor F. FLeetwood Serjeant at Law Recorder of London Fuller Fenner Serjeant at Law after Judge of the Kings Bench. G. GAwdy Judge of the Kings Bench. Golding Serjeant at Law. Glanvile Serjeant at Law after Judge of the Common Pleas. Gent Baron of the Exchequer Godfrey H. HAughton Serjeant at Law after Judge of the Common Pleas. Hammon Serjant at Law. Harris Serjeant at Law. Heale Serjeant at Law. Hobart K. KIngsmil Judge of the Kings Bench. L. LAiton M. MEad Serjeant at Law after Judge of the Common Pleas. Morgan Manwood Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer Mounson Justice of the Common Pleas. O. OWen Serjeant at Law after Baron of the Exchequer P. POpham Attorney General of the Queen after Lord Chief Justice of B. R. Periam Judge of the Common Pleas. Pepper Attorney of the Court of Wards Plowden Puckering the Queens Serjeant at Law. R. RHodes Judge of the Common Pleas. S. SNag Serjeant at Law. Shuit Judge of the Kings Bench. Shuttleworth Serjeant at Law. TAnfield Serjeant at law after Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer Topham W. WRay Lord Chief Justice of the Kings Bench. Windham Judge of the Common Pleas. Walmesley Serjeant at Law after Judge of the Common Pleas. Y. YElverton Serjeant at Law after Judge of the Kings Bench. The Names of the Cases Note 1. P. stand for Principal Case 2. B. stand for a Vouched Case A. Sect. ALlington and Bails Case 34 p Albany and Bishop of Saints Asaphs Case 39 p Ashpool and Inhabitants of Everinghams Case 72 p Arden and Gents Case 75 p Arundel and Morris case 98 p Allen and Palmers case 133 p Atkinson and Rolfs case 141 p Atkins and Hales case 192 p Askew and Earl of Lincolns Case 196 p Ashegel and Dennis case 272 p Arundel and Bishop of Gloucesters case 278 p Alexander and Greshams case 306 p Askew and Fuliambs case 310 p Austin and Smiths case 441 p Lord Abergavennies case 469 p Anonimus 2 p 8 p 15 p 17 p 38 p 40 p 45 p 61 p 73 p 75 p 81 p 83 p 86 p 94 p 104 p 108 p 109 p 116 p 132 p 145 p 150 p 157 p 173 p 220 p 221 p 222 p 224 p 226 p 266 p 285 p 290 p 296 p 308 p 335 p 349 p 350 351 252 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 365 371 386 390 392 393 396 397 400 401 408 418 443 444 451. B. Bornford and Packingtons case 1 p Benicomb and Parkers case 31 p Bedows case 32 p Braybrooks case 51 p Bullers case 64 p Bishop of York and Mortons case 69 p Bunny and Wright and Staffords case 77 p Bonefant and Sir Richard Greenfields case 78 p Beverleys and Cornwallis case 84 p Bracebridge Baskarviles case 87 p Barker and Pigets case 89 p Blaunchstower and Friars case 91 p Basset and Kerns case 92 p Bret and Auders case 95 p Brook and Kings case 99 p Baldwin and Cocks case 101 p Bret and Shepherds case 114 p Baxter and Bales case 115 p Butler and Ayres case 118 p Bushies case 122 p Birds case 125 p Branchers case 139 p Bear and Underwoods case 142 p Beverley and Bawds case 148 p Beares case 154 p Bronker and Robothams case 162 p Brook and Doughties case 173 p Bilford and Foxes case 189 p Burgesses of Southamptons case 199 p Lord Buckhurst and Bishop of Winchesters case 213 p Brookesley and Wickams case 232 p Bow●y and Popes case 234 p Bedel and Moors case 238 p

in pleading of a Fine it needs not to shew any engrossing of it and so are many Presidents vide Plowd Com. Smith and Stapletons Case 15 Eliz. 428. Where a Fine was pleaded Quaedam finalis concordia facta fuit in Octav. Sancti Hillarii 35 H. 8. postea a die Pasch in quindecem dies 36 H 8. concessa recordata c. Super quem finem proclam secundum formam Statuti factae fuer viz. prima proclam 7. Maii. Term. Pasch 36 H. 8. without any mention of the engrossing of it And see the Case betwixt Stowel and the Lord Zouch where the Fine is pleaded as it is pleaded in the Case at Bar quiquidem finis in forma praedict levatus and that fine was levyed Pasch 30 H. 8. ingrossatus fuit postea in Curia praedict secundum formam Stattui c. lectus proclamatus fuit viz. prim proclam Term. Pasch 30 H. 8. And so upon the matter it is sufficient to shew that the Fine was engrossed the same term in which it was levyed for the Fine is pleaded to be levyed Term. Pasch qui quidem Finis ingrossatus fuit postea proclam viz. prim proclam Termino Pasch which was the same Term it was levyed And so admit that in pleading it ought to be shewed that the Fine was ingrossed in the same Term in which it was levyed c. Now it appears here to us by necessary consequence that the Fine was ingrossed accordingly And also the Ingrossment is pleaded as the Statute is penned for the words of the Statute of 4 H. 7. are after the engrossing of every Fine the same Fine to be openly read and proclaimed in the same Court the same Term and so the words of our plea here pursue the words of the Statute for the said Statute doth not require by express words that the Fine be engrossed the same Term but the same is to be conceived by matter of construction and implication and according to such manner of speech this plea is pleaded And of the same opinion was Windham and upon the same reason Anderson conceived that the Tenant in pleading of the Fine ought to shew in express words that the Fine was engrossed the same Term in which it was levyed for whosoever in pleading a plea will take the benefit of the Statute ought precisely to follow the Statute in all points and it is clear that if the Fine be not engrossed according to the Statute that then it is not any bar by the Statute and therefore it ought to be expresly alledged according to the Statute and not by implication only Another Exception was taken to the Bar as was remembred by Windham i. pro ut per finem hic in Curia de recordo remanen-plenius apparet without saying per proclamation inde c. But that Exception was disallowed by Periam and Windham for the Fine had been good and well pleaded without any such conclusion pro ut c. And also the proclamations are endorsed upon the Fine and then they appear upon the Fine according to the words of the said conclusion And so by Windham are many Presidents and so in the said Case between Stowel and the Lord Zouch cited before pro ut per finem illum hic de record remanen plane liquet And See 1 Eliz. Plowden 224. between Willion and Barkly a Fine pleaded without any pro ut c. Anderson took an Exception to the Bar at the beginning of it i. Quod medietas 60 Messuagiorum c. parcel medietatis 70 Messuag praedict that that is no good pleading for one moyety cannot be parcel of another moyety for every moyety is entire Rhodes took Exception to the Replication because the Demandant in avoidance of the Fine that at the time of the Fine levyed Bamfield was seised semper postea hucusque c. of the moyety in Demesn and doth not traverse the seisin of the Conusor at the time of the Fine levyed for here two contrary pleas stand before us in equity of truth aeque vera aeque falsa aeque dubia and a traverse would have made an end of all and reduced the matter to certainty And by Periam the Bar is not answered for every Bar ought to be traversed confessed or avoided See 6 H. 7. 5 and 6. where it is said by Hussey and Fairfax where matter in fact is alledged by way of Bar it ought to be traversed if it be not for the mischeif of tryal as in case of Basterdy where a thing is alledged to be done beyond the sea or to leave the matter in Law to the Court without putting the same to the Iudgment of the lay-Lay-people c. See also 5 H. 7. 12. Where it is holden that a thing material alledged in the Bar ought to be directly traversed or confessed or avoided in fact or in Law or conclude the other party by matter of estoppel And that two affirmatives cannot make a good issue But the matter alledged in the Replication scil that Bamfield was seised at the time of the Fine levyed shall be holden for void and the matter alledged in the Bar scil that the Counsor was seised as not answered for it shall be taken true until it shall be avoided and destroyed by matter in Law traverse c. Vide Librum So he in default of traverse the Bar is not answered but argumentative scil Bamfield was seised ergo the Conusor was not seised And it is a common learning that in every Replication there ought to be certainty as to that See the Case betwixt Fulmerston and Steward 2 Ma. 103. that a Bar ought not to be answered by argument And as to the certainty which is requisite in a Replication See the Case betwixt Wimbish and Talboies Plow Com. 4 E. 6. 42. where the Plaintiff shewed in his Replication his title as Heir but because he did not shew how heir for want of such certainty in the Replication the Plaintiff could never have Iudgment although the Iustices for the matter in Law then in question were clearly resolved for the Plaintiff and here in this Replication the incertainty is such that the Court doth not know to which to give credit to the Plaintiff or to the Def. and the bare matter of the Replication is not sufficient For in avoidance of a Fine to say that a stranger to the Fine at the time of the Fine levyed was seised was never received but that partes Finis nihil habuerunt that was the ordinary plea. Windham to the same intent that which the Demandant hath alledged in avoydance of the Fine is but matter of Argument and implication And we ought in this Case first to be insured of the matter of fact scil Whether Zouch or Bamfield were seised and the Court doth not know to which to give credit 39 H. 6. 49. in Debt by an Executor the Defendant pleaded that the Testator made the Plaintiff

Executor of an Administrator 1 Cro. 121. Yel 20. 9 Co. 87. Administratrix of Joan Webb and declared of a Contract without specialty The Defendant pleaded That she had fully administred and it was found against her And now it was moved for the Defendant That upon the matter an action of Debt doth not lye against the Executor or Administratrix which was granted by the Court. But the doubt was If now forasmuch as the Defendant by pleading the plea above hath admitted the action she shall now take advantage of the Law in that point For the reason why this action doth not lye against an Executor or Administrator is because the Testator himself might have waged his Law if he had been impleaded upon it and by intendment of Law the Executor or Administrator cannot have notice of such a Debt or of the discharge of it But now by answering to the Declaration as above the Defendant hath taken notice of the Debt and in manner confessed it And by Rhodes and Anderson Iudgment shall be given against the the Plaintiff because it is apparent to the Court that the action doth not lye And by Anderson If Iudgment be entred against the Administratrix in such an action upon Nihil dicit the Court ex officio shall give judgment against the Plaintiff Periam and Windham doubted at the first that the Defendant by her plea had admitted the whole matter upon the specially administred pleaded and had taken notice of the Debt 41 E. 3. 13. 46 E. 3. 10 11. 13 E. 4. 25. 13 H. 8. Fitz. Execut. 21. And afterwards Anderson ex assensu of the other Iudges caused to be entred Querens capiat nihil per breve CCXXX Hambleden and Hambledens Case Mich. 30 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Intrat Mich. 29. 30 Eliz Devises 1 Cro. 163. 1 And. 381. THe case was William Hambleden the Father of the Plaintiff and the. Defendant was seised of the Lands c. And by his Will devised to his Eldest Son Black Acre to his second Son White Acre and to his third Green Acre in tail And by his said Will further willed That in Case any of my said Sons do dye without issue that then the Survivor be each others heir The Eldest son dieth without issue c It was moved by Gawdy Serjeant That the second Son shall have Black Acre in tail and he cited the Case 30 E. 3. 28. propinquioribus haeredibus de sanguine puerorum for the construction of such devises Walmesley argued That both the surviving Brothers should have the said Black Acre for the words of the devise are quilibet supervivens which amounts to uterque and the Court was in great doubt of this point And they conceived That the estate limited in Remainder to the Survivor c. is a fee-simple by reason of the words Each others heir And also they conceived That both the Survivors should not have the Land for the same is contrary to the express words of the devise The Survivor shall be each others heir in the singular number see 7 E. 6. Br. Devise 38. A man seised of Land hath issue three Sons and deviseth part of his Lands to his second Son in tail Heb. 75. and the residue to his third son in tail and willeth That none of them shall sell the Land but that each shall be heir to the other The second son dieth without issue the same Land shall not revert to the eldest Son but shall remain to the third son 1 Len. 261. notwithstanding the words each shall be heir to the other CCXXXI Slywright and Pages Case Mich. 30 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Maintenance More 266. 1 And. 201. Golds 101 102. AN Information was in the Common Pleas by John Slywright against Page upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. of Maintenance and declared that the Defendant took a Lease of one Joan Wade of certain Lands whereas the said Joan was not seised nor possessed thereof according to the Statute and upon Not guilty the Iury found this special matter That Edmund Wade was seised and made a Feoffment in fee thereof unto the use of himself and of the said Joan who he then intended to marry and the heirs of the said Edmund The marriage took effect Edmund enfeoffed a Stranger who entred Edmund died Joan not having had possession of the said Land after the death of Ed. her husband nor bing now in possession by Indenture demised the said Land to the Defendant for years without any Entry or delivery of the Indenture upon the Land The said Defendant knowing the said Joan never had been in possession of the said Land and also the Defendant being Brother of the half blood to the said Joan. The first Question was If the Lease being made by one out of possession and not sealed or delivered upon the Land and so not good in Law as to pass any interest be within the Statute aforesaid And the whole Court was clear of opinion that it was for by colour of this pretended Lease such might be undertaken advanced to the trouble disquiet of the possession for amongst the vulgar people it is a Lease it is a Lease by Reputation Another matter was moved because that the entry of the wife is now made lawful by 32 H. 8. and then she might well dispose of the Land. But as to that It was said by the whole Court That the meaning of the Statute was to repress the practises of many That when they thought they had title or right unto any Land they for the furtherance of their pretended Right conveyed their interest in some part thereof to great persons and with their countenance did oppress the possessors And although here the Lease was made by the said Joan to her Brother of the half blood yet by the clear opinion of the Court the Lease is within the danger of the Statute and yet in some Case the Son may maintain his Father the Kinsman his Kinsman And note in this case it was holden by the Iustices That of necessity it ought to be found by verdict That the Defendant knowing that the Lessor never had been in possession And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCXXXII Brokesby against Wickham and the Bishop of Lincoln Mich. 30 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Quare Impedit the Plaintiff counted Quare Impedit 3 Len. 256. 1 Cro. 173. Owen 85 86. Popham 189. That Robert Brokesby was seise of the Advowson and granted the next Avoidance to the Plaintiff and Humphrey Brokesby and that afterwards the Church became void and after during the avoidance Humphrey released to the Plaintiff and so it belongs to him to present And upon this count the Defendant did demar in Law. For it appeareth upon the Plaintiffs own shewing that Humphrey ought to have joined with the Plaintiff in the action for the Release being made after the Church became void