Earl of Oxfords Case
Earl of Oxfords Case
Earl of Oxfords Case
Earl of Oxfords Case
Earl of Oxfords Case

Earl of Oxfords Case

  • View
    215

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Text of Earl of Oxfords Case

  • 8/10/2019 Earl of Oxfords Case

    1/5

    ~ a g d ~ l e nollege;e,9 H. 8, seised in Fee of the o Chr~st's Church, and

    th e Covent Garden, withou t AIdgate, London, eont seven Acres, demised them

    for seven t~-tw o ears, ren dr ~n g

    40

    per Ann. for the ~ c t o r ~ ,nd

    9

    for

    th e Garden.

    And 17 Elk. (fifty Yeam of the said Lease being expired) th e Queen at th e Sui t of th e

    said Gollege licensed them to alien, w hich the y did, and the n received for th e ~ c t o r y

    525 per Ann. and

    15

    or the Garden. It b e i n g h e r ~ a j e s t y ~ sntent, That the

    College should

    be

    advan~ ed ~ a t ~ yn Profit, by having th e Rectory to them and their

    S u c ~ s s o ~23discharged

    of

    th e Lease for Years, w 5 ch

    in

    Present was worth to them

    but 50

    per

    Ann. the utmost Rent ; he same N ~ S cco rd~ng~yrform ed by a a n -

    veyance to her ~ a j e s t ~ ,n d f r o m h e r ~ a j e s t yo Spinola, a n t he Rectory, from

    Spinola to th e Goliege, after v h ic h Spinola and the Earl of Oxford his Assignee, and

    his ~ n d e r - ~ ~ a n t s ,ave built upon the ~ a r d ~ n30 Houses, and themin ~ t o ~ ~ e

    5 1 0 ,~ 0 0 , hich A s s i ~ e end his ~ n d e r - t e ~ a n ~ave Bonds and ~ e u ~ t ~iven

    or

    the

    ~ a j o y m e n thereof, to the Sum of ~20,000 .

    Note ; The Co~eges hereby advanced 1700 more th an they sh o d d have been,

    if th e fo rmer Lease had conti

    This Conveyance having

    F u r c ~ a s e ~rom a Thing of li

    a g e ~ e r a ~ase wherein Peps

    resting secure on its P a ~ s in ghro'

    The resent ~ a s t e ~f the Col1

    Title both in Law an d ~ q ~ i t y ,

    31

    seded a Leaease thereof for three Years to one ~ a r x e n ,

    who thereupon brought an ~ j e c ~ m e n tgainst one John Sm ith, for Trial of the Title

    in

    R. R.

    whexein

    a

    Special Yer&ct w~bs had

    ;

    nd while tha t d e ~ ~ d e dn A r g ~ i ~ e

    the Lease ended, and so no Possession could be a ~ a r d e dor the ~ l a i n ~ ~ ,or Fru it

    had of h is Su it.

    Yet hc p r o ~ e d ~o have the ~ p i n ~ o nf th e Judges to

    know

    the Law (which

    N&S

    a ~ o ~ u n t a r yct of his),

    0

    the Intent,

    if

    the Law were with

    him,

    he ~ i g ~ tegin a

    new Suit a t Law, and spare to

    ; nd if the Law were against him,

    that then he might proceed in

    the Judges of th at Gourt having de-

    Iivered their ~ p i ~ o n sg a ~ ~ t fore any J ~ d g ~ e n tntred upon the

    lf,

    the Earl and Mr. ~ ~ o d ,or nd their Lessees, p re fe rr ~d heir Bill ia

    ~ h ~ n ~ r ynd then ~ ~ d g m e n t

    m

    entred,

    Q ~ d

    ~ ~ ~ w

    i l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    er

    ~~~~~~

    the ~ o n ~ e ~ a n c eo be

    void

    by the ~ t a t ~ t ef

    13 Eliz.

    and that they evi

    Parcel of the re misses by J u d g ~ e n tt Law ; which Plea and ~ ~ ~ ~ r r eere ~ e e ~ ~

    by

    Order

    to Sir John T i d a l and bfr, ~ o o l ~ d g e ,ho r e ~ ~ d ,41 T hat they t h o ~ g h t

    it fit the Cause should proceed to Wearing, ~ o t ~ t h s t a n d ~ n ghe

    Plea

    and Demurrer

    and ~ t e r w a r d s n ~ e f a ~ l tf an A ~ w e x , n A t t a c h ~ e n t as awarded a ~ n s the

    defend an^, w he re ~ po n hey were attsch'd, and a

    Cq

    C m p return'd, and by

    Order of the 22d of

    Ootob.

    13 Jac. 1116151, they were com mitted to the Reet

    for

    their

    ~ o n t e ~ ~ ~n reusing to ans-lver; and do now stand bound over to answer their

    ~ ~ n t e m p ~ ,hey still refusing to answer:

    of one o he 130Housm, whereof

    To

    which Bill in ~ ~ i a ~ ~ r ~he Defenda~t u t in a Plea and Denm

    ulfi

  • 8/10/2019 Earl of Oxfords Case

    2/5

    486 THE EARL OF OXFORDS CASE I

    CHAN.

    REP.

    5.

    And now this Term it was argued, That the Defendants thu s

    stand in^

    in Contempt,

    1.

    The Law of God speaks

    for

    th e Plaintiff. Deu t. 28.

    2.

    And Equ ity and good Consci~nce

    peak

    wholly for him.

    3. Nor does th e Law of the Land speak against him. B ut that and E q ~ i t yught

    to join H and in Band, in m oderating and restraining

    all

    Extrem ities and Hardships.

    By the

    Law

    of God, He that, builds

    a House

    ought

    to

    dwell in it ; and he th at

    plants a Vineyard ough t to gather the G r q e s thereof nd it w s a Cmse upon the

    Wicked, th at they should build Houses and not dwell in them, and plant Vineyards

    and not gather th e Grapes thereof. Deut.

    28.

    v.

    30.

    [fj] And yet here in this Gase, such is the Conscience of th e Doctor, th e Defendant,

    Th at he would have th e Houses, Gardens and Orchards, which he neither built nor

    planted : But the C h a n c e ~ o ~ave always corrected such corrupt Consciences, and

    caused them to render quid

    pro guo

    or the Common Law

    it

    self will admit no Con-

    tra& to

    be

    good without

    paid

    pro quo, or Land topass without a valuable Consideration,

    and therefore Equity m ust

    see

    that

    a

    p r o ~ r t ~ o n a b l ea ~ ~ ~ a c t i o n

    fx

    As in th e Case of Peterson vers. Bickm anj the Husband made a Lease of the Wifes

    Land, an d th e Lessee being ignoran t

    of

    the de fe ~ ib le itle built upon the Land, and

    was a t great Charge therein he ~ ~ ~ n died, and the M7ife avoided the Lease at

    Law, but was compelled in Equity to yield

    a

    Recornpence for th e Building and Better-

    ing of t he Land.

    For

    it was so much the more worth unto her

    :

    And wheresoe~er

    one hath

    a

    Benefit, the Law will compel h im

    to

    give a Recompence,

    as

    if Cestui

    que

    use sell th e Land

    t o

    one that hath no Notice

    of

    the Use, and dieth

    ;

    by Reason th a t

    he had the Benefit of th e Sale, his Execu tors were ordered to answer th e Value of th e

    Land out of

    his

    &&ate, as a p ~ e a ~ t ~y a J u d g m ~ ~ t - ~ o l ~

    f 34 H.

    6 .

    161

    And (his Lordship) the Plaintiff in this Case only desires to be satisfied

    of

    t h e

    t rue Value of the new 3 u ~ ~ d i n gnd P ~ a n t i ~ gince the C on ve ~~ nc e ,nd ~ n v e n i e n t

    A ~ ~ o ~ a n ~

    or

    th e Purchase.

    And Equity speaks

    as

    th e Law of God speaks. B ut you would silence Equity.

    1st. 3 e ~ ~ eou have

    a

    Judgment

    at

    Law.

    2dly. Because that Judgment is upon

    ;t

    Statute-Law.

    To which I answer,

    Arst, As a Right in Law cannot die, no more can Equity in Chancery die, and

    therefore

    nullus

    receda-at

    a C ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ a - r ~ ~w r ~ ~ ~ ~ oE.

    4,

    11. a.

    Therefore the

    ~ ~ ~ a n c e r ys aIway~ pen, and a ~ ~ h o u g hh e Tsrrn be ~ j o u r ~ e dhe Chancery is

    DO ;

    fo r Conscience and Equity

    i s

    always ready to render to every one their Due, and 9 E.

    4,11, a. The Chancery is only removable at the Will of the King and Ch ancellor;

    and by

    27

    E.

    3

    15.

    The Chancellor must give Account to none but only to th e King

    and ~ ~ r l i a ~ e n t .

    The Cause why there is

    a

    Chancery is, for th a t & ens Actions

    are so

    divers and

    j n ~ n ~ t e ,hat it is impossibl~

    to

    make any general

    Law

    which may aptly meet with

    every particular Act, and not fail in some C i r c ~ s ~ n ~ ~ .

    The

    0 % ~f

    the Chancellor

    is

    to correct

    E73

    Mens Consciences for Frauds , Breach

    of T rusts, ~ r o n g snd Oppre~ions ,

    f

    what Nature soever they

    b

    nd to soften and

    mollify th e Extrem ity of th e Law, which

    is

    called

    ~ ~ ~ r ~w.

    And

    for

    th e Judgm ent, &c,, Law a nd Equ ity are distinct, both in the ir Courts,

    their Judges, and the Rules of Justice

    ;

    and yet they both aim a t one and th e same

    End, which

    is,

    to do R ight

    ;

    as Ju stice and XeJrcy differ in their EEects and Opera-

    tions, yet both join i n t h e ~ a n ~ e s t a t ~ o n

    f

    Gods Glory.

    But

    in

    this Case, upon the Matter there is no Judgment, but only a ~ ~ e o n t i ~ u a n c e

    of th e Suit, which gives no Possession; and altho to prosecute Law and Eq uity to-

    gether be a Veration; yet voluntarily to attempt the Law in a doubtful Case, and

    after

    to

    resort to Equity, is neither strange nor u n r ~ ~ o n a b l e .

    But take it

    M

    a Judgment to all Intents hen answer,

    Th at in this Case there is no O p p ~ ~ t i o no the J u d g ~ e n t e ~ t ~ e r

    ill

    the

    Truth

    ox

    Justice

    of

    the Judgment be examined in this Court , nor any ~ ~ c u m s t a n c eepend-

    ing thereupon; but the

    same

    is justified and approvd; and therefore

    a

    Judgment

    JS

    a o

    Let to exam ~ne t in Equity,

    so a8

    all the Truth

    of

    the J ~ d ~ ~ ~

    c., be not^

    examind.

    [a] No Possession

    is

    e s t a ~ ~ i s ~ ~y t he Kings W rit after th at any

    J ~is

    sought to be i ~ ~ p e ~ h ~ ;

    o r

    when th e P ~ ~ ~