Selected quad for the lemma: law_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
law_n	father_n	king_n	son_n	7,892	5	5.4436	4	false

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

they ought to joyn in every action to which the wife is intitled before marriage but otherwise it is here as he thought and as to that which hath been said that the declaration ought to have been special viz. per quod consortium amisit uxoris suae it seems that shall be necessarily intended without shewing of it in the declaration but in the case put by Altham if a man bring an action of false imprisonment of his servant he need not shew whereby he lost his service c. because peradventure he had no imployment for him this is good Law by him but otherwise it is in the case of a wife but yet he would be advised thereof as of a thing not mentioned before Altham Baron it may be intended that the husband was also imprisoned with his wife and so did not lose her company except it be shewed to the contrary aswel as it may be intended the Master had no imployment for his servant and after at the next Term Tanfield and Altham Barons agreed that the Declaration ought to be special as Altham Baron conceived or otherwise the wife ought to have joyned in the action which had been better for they said that in all cases where the action is brought for such a matter for which the wife by possibility might have an action after the death of her husband there they ought to joyn and for this false imprisonment the wife may have an action after the death of her husband and therefore they ought to joyn here Snig and Bromley Barons seemed prima facie that the action lies well enough when they joyn or when the husband alone bringeth it and they vouched and Doillies Councel said that they have heard it to be adjudged in the Kings Benth 28. Eliz. in one Cholmlies case and 35. Eliz. in the Common Pleas that an action lieth for the husband alone for a battery made to his wife and so they conceived it good if they joyn or sever in the action and therefore it was appointed that the next Term the presidents should be shewed and the case to be argued as to this point Note that Doillie perceiving the Law against him for this last point or matter because his wife did not joyn commenced his action of new in this Court and this was in Trespas for the beating and imprisoning his wife and in this case the husband and wife joyned and declared to the damage of the husband and wife and the like Plea was pleaded in Bar as was in the other action and the record thereof was read in Court Termino Pasch 9. Iac. and then adjourned and after it was adjudged for the Plantiff Wikes by English Bill in the Exchequer Chamber Trin. 7. Jac. IN the Exchequer Chamber by English Bill this case was depending and argued before all the Barons at Serjeants Inne in Fleetstreet viz. the King exhibited an Information against Wikes for entering into divers parcels of land and Wikes prétending that he had good equitie prayed his relief by English Bill in the Exchequer Chamber and the case upon the said Bill was this Graunt made a lease for years to one Somerfield and Iohn Wintor in Trust and for the benefit of the wife and Children of the lessor rendring rent and after Wintor one of the Lessees and also Graunt who was the Lessor were attainted of the Gunpowder Treason and Wikes married the wife of the Lessor and entred and upon this information he prayed relief in behalf of his wife and Children by this English Bill and first it was agreed by all the Barons that the King by the course of the Common Law had the moitie of the land and no more by the attainder of Wintor and that Somerfield the other Lessee shall be Tenant in common with the King but what remedy he should have if the King took all the profits they agreed not Secondly they agreed by the admittance of Wikes his Councel that the King as to the moity which came to him shall not be ordered in equity to perform the trust reposed in Wintor for the wife of the Lessor for the King cannot be seised to another mans use no more can his estate be subject to any trust at this day as the Attorney general had said clearly which the Court granted but Brock of Councel with Wikes seemed not to be satisfied but that the King ought to execute such trust by equity but Tanfield chief Baron said that before me at another day you were content to be concluded as to this point that there is no equity against the King Thirdly it was debated if in this case the King should have the other moity which was in Somerfield by equity for clearly if the lease had been made in trust for the benefit of the Lessor himself the King should have it by his attainder and then what difference it being made for the benefit of the wife of the person attainted for her husband might have disposed of it being a trust only of a Chattel as he might have done of a Chattel whereof the wife was possessed and he might have wholly released this trust and by consiquence he might forfeit it by his attainder whereunto Snig and Altham Barons agreed and by Bromley his release shall binde but during his life the Attorney general said that he might release all Brock it should be mischievous that his release of this trust should bar the wife of her trust after her husbands death for admit that a man make a lease to A. to the use of his wife for 100. years if she shall so long live and this for a joynture for his wife can her husband prejudice her of this joynture by release of the trust as if he should say no and then à fortiori in the case here for the trust is for the wife and children and the trust for the children cannot be released by the father and consequently not forfeited by him by the Court there is no such Bill depending before us which demands any thing for the King and the Bill which is here exhibited by Wikes prayes nothing but one moity of the term viz. that which in Law belongs to Somerfield which moity by the Common Law we cannot take from him and therefore we will leave you to sue in the office of Pleas according to the course of the Common Law in the name of Somerfield and therefore they gave no resolution if by equity the husband shall forfeit a trust which he had for years in the right of his wife Sir Thomas Overburyes case was opened to be this viz. Robert Wintor was seised in see of six Bullaries at Wich and he covenanted to levy a fine of all his Bullaries and that for 4. of the said Bullaries this should be to the use of John Wintor in tail and for the other to the use of himself in fee with power of revocation and after the said Wintor levied a fine sur connizance de droit

false the Patent is void although it hath these words Ex certa scientia et mero motu and so is 18. Eliz. Dyer 352. where the Patent was ex certa scientia et mero motu c. but there Dyer held that this falsitie in the matter of Recital did avoid the Patent notwithstanding the words ex mero motu c. but he held it otherwise if it were in a consideration which is faise for at that time the point of falsitie in matter of consideration for 100 l. to be paid although it be much contraverted in our Books and it seems in what place soever of the patent it appears that the King is mis-informed deceived in any matter material or concerning his own estate in the thing to be granted that that will dictate the Patent and therefore 17. Eliz. the Queen seised of the Mannor of D. grants all her purpartie of the Mannor of D. if in this case a Common person had granted by such words the Mannor had passed but in the Queens case it will be a void grant because a thing which she intended to pass cannot pass in such plight as she conceived it viz. as a purpartie and 36. Eliz. the Queen granted all her portion of Tithes c. although she had a Parsonage there yet it doth not p●●s for this manner of Appellation implies that the Queen was mis-informed and not well instructed of the thing to be granted and therefore void see Cook lib. 4. in Bozuns case Ex certa scientia et mero motu c. doth not help it also if the King recite that whereas he had such land by the attainder of I. S. where in truth he had it not by his attainder now although that he grants this land Ex certa scientia et mero motu yet this will not pass but if the King be not deceived in the point of intitling himself but in the deducing of his title that will not prejudice the Patent as if the King recite that whereas I. S. had land by descent from his father and he grants it to the King and the King doth re-grant the same to I. S. this grant is good notwithstanding that I. S. had it not by descent from his father see the Lord Lovels case in Plowden that if the King be deceived only in the point of mis-conveyance the Law will not avoid the Patent as if be grant to one and his heirs born at D. the last words are void and the grant is good Pasch 42. Eliz. it was agreed that if the King be Tenant for life or years and makes a lease for one and twenty years this lease is void to all intents against the King because it appears not in the grant what estate the King had and by that lease the King conceived that he had power by his estate to make an absolute lease whereas legally his lease ought to determine by his death so by implication it is manifest that the King was not well instructed of his estate 39. Eliz. the Queen leased for twenty one years to begin whensoever the land should fall in possession by the expiration of any former lease then in being if in that case there were no precedent lease then in being this lease will be void for these words implie that the Queen conceived her former lease to be in being and so impliedly she is deceived in her intent in like manner in the principal case the Queen was deceived in her intention for the recital is that all the estate which Potter had is come to the Queen by surrender and in truth all the estate is not come unto her in respect of a mean estate to Wilkinson c. as to the second point it seems the consideration being that he did assume to new build implies asmuch as if he had said he faithfully promised and then it is all one as if it had been for that that he shall build for it is a consideration executory and is of value and then the not performance thereof vitiates the Patent and the estate was as if it had been by a limitation to cease and these words that he did assume upon himself cannot be construed to any other intent but unto an executory consideration because the King hath no remedy by way of Action for the breach of this promise and it cannot be conceived that the Covenant is satisfied in giving securitie for it is observable that the Covenant is but the ordinary Covenant viz. to repair and keep repaired and so a Trivial reparation will satisfie that but it appears that the Queens intent was not to make the lease for such a petty consideration because the Lessee had undertaken at his own charges to new build the Mills but the express Covenant doth not binde him to the new building of them and in 6. Eliz. the like lease was made of the Mannor of Lidlescourt to Customer Smith and the lease was for that that he assumed that he at his costs would c. and he avoided his lease upon a former lease made to A. of the premises and in truth the lease formerly made to A. was meerly void upon the making of this lease though perad venture the condition may be good and the consideration performed but the Queen was not well instructed of her title also in this case the lease to Hitchmore is not determined by a condition as it hath been objected but it ceaseth and is determined by a limitation and this may well enough revest in the Queen without entrie or office because it was but a Term and such words purporting an executory consideration in the Queens case implies as much as if in case of a Common person it had been said expresly to cease upon an act not performed for in the Kings case the Law speaketh and if so then the lease for years is void and the Patentee may enter without office and all considerations executory in leases made by the King amount to a conditional limitation and then he who will have benefit by such a lease ought to aver the performance of the consideration as if a man declare upon a lease made unto him c. if I. S. should so long live he ought to aver his life in the Declaration because it determines by limitation at his death but otherwise it is upon a condition if a Parson make a lease for years the Lessee must aver the life of the Parson because by his death the lease ends by a limitation implied but otherwise it should if it were upon condition for the performance of that needs not be averred but that ought to be shewed on the other part and so it seemeth that as wel for the point of falsitie in the recital as also in the not performing of the consideration that the lease is void and the Plantiffe should have judgement which was entred accordingly Snig Baron was of opmion against all the other Barons and he held that

declares the use to be to himself for life and after to T. B. with power of revocation and to limit new uses and if he revoke and not declare then the use shall be to the use of himself for life and after to Henry Becket with power in that indenture also to revoke and limit new uses and that then the fine shall be to such new uses and no other and after 42. Eliz. by a third Indenture he revoked the second Indenture and declared the use of the fine to be to the use of himself for life and after to Hen. Becket in taile the remainder to I. B. c. R. B. dies and T. B. his brother and heire is found a Recusant and the lands seised and thereupon comes H. B. and shews the matter as above and upon that the Kings Atturney demurreth Bromley and Altham Barons that the Declaration of the uses made by the third Indenture was good and he having power by the first to declare new uses may declare them with power of Revocation for it is not meerly a power but conjoyned with an interest and therefore may be executed with a power of Revocation and then when he by the third Indenture revokes the former uses now it is as if new uses had been declared and then he may declare uses at any time after the Fine as it appears by 4. Mar. Dyer 136. and Coke lib. 9. Downhams case and in this case they did rely upon Diggs case Cooke lib. 1. where it is said that upon such a Power he can revoke but once for that part unlesse he had a new power of Revocation of Vses newly to be limited whereby it is implyed that if he had a new power to appoint new uses he may revoke them also Snig Baron to the contrary and said that he had not power to declare 3. severall uses by the first contract which ought to Authorise all the Declarations upon that Fine and then the Revocation by the third Indenture is good and the limitation void and then it shall be to the use of R. B. and his heirs and so by the death of R. B. it doth descend to T. B. the Recusant and also he said that such an Indenture to declare uses upon uses was never made and it would be mischievous to declare infinite uses upon uses Tanfield held that the uses in the second Indenture stand unrevoked and the new uses in the third Indenture are void and then H. B. ought to have the Land again out of the Kings hands The power in the second Indenture is that he may revoke and limit new uses and that the Fine shall be to those new uses and no others and then if there be a Revocation and no punctuall limitation he had not pursued his Authority for he ought to revoke and limit and he cannot doe the one without the other Also he said that after such Revocation and limitation the fine shall be to such new uses and no other then if there be no new uses well limited in the third Indenture the former uses shall stand void Nota it seemeth that if a man make a Feoffement and declare uses and reserve a power to revoke them without saying moe he cannot revoke them and limit new for the use of the Fine being once declared by the Indenture no other use can be averred or declared which is not warranted thereby for he cannot declare the fine to be to new uses when it was once declared before Cook lib. 2.76 That no other use can be averred then that in the conveyauce Cooke lib. 9 10 11. Although that the first uses are determined as if a man declare the use of a Fine to be to one and his Heires upon condition that he shall pay 40. l. c. or untill he do such an Act if the first use be determined the Fine cannot be otherwise declared to be to new uses And therefore it seemes that all the uses which shall rise out of the Fine ought to spring from the first Indenture which testifieth the certain intention of the parties in the leaving thereof and then in the Case above the second Indenture and the limitation of new uses thereby are well warranted by the first Indenture and in respect that this is not a naked power only I conceive that they may be upon condition or upon a power of Revocation to determine them But the power to limit the third uses by a third indenture after revocation of the second uses in the second indenture hath not any Warrant from the first Indenture and without such Warrant there can be no Declaration of such new uses which were not declared or authorised by the first Indenture which Note for it seems to be good Law FINIS AN EXACT TABLE of the Principall Matters contained in this BOOKE A. AN Action of false impriprisonment for taking his wife in execution she appearing as a Feme sole 48 52 An Action upon the Case for conspiring to outlaw a man in a wrong County 49 Amerciament for a By-law 55 An Action upon the Case where against a Servant for breach of trust much good matter 65 66 67 68 Amerciament where well levied by the Sheriff 74 Action by an Executor against a Sheriff in the debet and de●●net where good 80 81 Authority in fact and authority in Law abused a difference 90 Action for these words against I. S. spoken of the Plaintifs wife she would have out her husbands throat and did attempt to doe it 98 C. Custome for Pirates goods if payable 15 Coppy hold surrendred to the use of a younger Sonne he can have no Action before admittance 20 Churchwardens if elected by Vestry-men where good and capable to purchase Lands 21 Conspiracy see Action Collector of a fifteenth leviable upon one Township 65 Commissioners of inquiry and their power 83 84 D. DEbt against the Sheriff for an escape a good Case 20 Distresse for a By-law upon the Kings Tenant he must bring his Action in the Exchequer 55 Devise to the wife until the issue accomplish 18. years endeth not by death of the issue before 56 57 Decree where execution thereof may be stayed 68 69 E. ERror a Writ directed to an inferiour Court ought to be executed without fee paid or tendered 16 Elegit the party who sued it dieth no scire facias for the Heire 16 Equity where releviable in the Exchequer 54 Estreats where they may be discharged for insufficiency in the Indictment or not mentioning the offence 55 Estoppell in the Kings case 65 Exception in a Grant 69 Escape a difference where caused by a rescous and where by the Sherif or Bailif 70 71 Executor see Action 80 81 Erroneous judgement given in the Kings Mannor reversed in the Exchequer by Petition 98 F. A Feoffement to the use of the Husband and Wife for their lives and after to the heirs of the body of the wife begotten by the Husband what estate 17 First fruits ought