Craw v Ramsey
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1823 |
| Date | 01 January 1823 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 124 E.R. 905
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
[185] craw versus ramsey. Ejectment of the manor and rectory of Kingston upon the demise of L. T. and H. W. to the plaintiff the 20th day of January, in the 16th of this King. Upon not guilty pleaded, a special verdict was found. Upon which the case is this : Eobert Eamsey was an alien born in Scotland, before the accession of the Crown of Scotland to England, and had issue four sons, Eobert, Nicholas, John, and George. Robert dyesj leaving issue three daughters, Margaret, Isabel, and Jane, whose issue is alive. Nicholas had issue Patrick born in England, after the accession of the Crown, in May 1618, 15 Jac. In the 4th of July 10 Car. 1, there went out a commission under the Great Seal, to the Lord Wentworth Deputy of Ireland, and I find it an Act for the naturalization of all the Scotch which were antenati before the accession, in the kingdom of Ireland; Nicholas was alive at the making of this Act, and so he is naturalized by Act of Parliament in Ireland. John the third son was naturalized by Act of Parliament at Westminster primo Jac. and afterwards was made Earl of Holderness. He was seised in fee of the tenements in questioti, and by fine and covenant, conveys them to the use of himself for life, then to the use of his wife for life, the remainder to the heirs of his body begotten on the body of his wife, the remainder to his right heirs. George the fourth son was naturalized by Parliament C. P. II.-29* 906 CRAW V. RAMSEY CAREER, 186. at Westminster 17 Jac. and after had issue John Eamsey, father of the defendant John Eamsey. They find John Earl of Holderness dyed without iasue 1 Car. 1. They find an inquisition 7 Car. 1, to search what lands and tenements John Earl of Holdernees was seised of the day of his death. By the inquisition it is found he was seised in fee inter alia of the rectory of Kingston, and his dying without issue, and that the same escheated to the King. King Charles the First in the 10th year of his reign grants the premisses to Murrey in fee-simple; Patrick and Elizabeth his wife anno 1651, by deed and fine sell the premisses to the Earl of Elgin and Sydenham, they sell to Hart, Hart conveys to Pullen and Neal, and then convey it to L. T. and H. W. the lessors of the plaintiff. When John dyes without issue, who shall be bis heir is the question. Whether naturalization by Act of Parliament in Ireland, doth inable the children to inherit lands in England. Maynard Serjeant pro querente. I conceive the naturalization in Ireland shall enable the children of Nicholas to inherit John. We must consider what habitude and relation the two kingdoms have to each other. And How far the Acts of Parliament in one kingdom bind the other. We shall also consider the nature of naturalization and allegiance; and from these considerations I shall build my argument. No doubt but Ireland before the Conquest was governed by Kings, [186] one or more, it ia no matter. And Ireland was governed by the same laws as England. Rot. Parl. 30 H. 3. Rex Henricus mandavit Justiciario suo Hibernise, &c. Quia pro coramuni utilitate terns Hibernise & pro unitate terrarum provisum est, quod omnea Leges qute in regno Angliiu tenentur, in Hibernia teneantur. Ideo volumus quod omnia brevia de communi jure quie currunt in Anglia, similiter currant in Hiberuia. 4 Instit. 349, 350. The commentator doth call this a statute, not a grant or concession of the King only. The words are not only pro communi utilitate, but pro unitate terrarum. There is in the Act unitas legem & terrarum. The two islands are not united geographically, but politically. A political unity hath a political influence. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Redaction Is Not the Answer: The Need to Keep Third Party Minors' Abortion Clinic Medical Records Safe from Discovery
...also addressed the issue of minors‘ right to informational privacy in abortion clinic medical records. In Planned Parenthood of Indiana v. Carter, 185 the Court of Appeals of Indiana addressed whether a state agency‘s attempt to obtain access to minors‘ medical records violated their right ......