Duncombe against The University of Oxford
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1657 |
| Date | 01 January 1657 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 124 E.R. 10
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
buncombe against the university of oxford. Hill. 18 Jac. In a qu. impedit, in which Buncombe and others were plantiffs, who were grantees of the King, against the University of Oxford: and the case was, that Sir Richard Weston was seised of an advowson in grosse, inter alia and was convict of rescusancy, and a commission issued, to seise two parts of his land, and goods, and they seised this advowsou, inter alia, and the King granted the advowson to the plantiffs, and the church became void, and they presented, and were disturbed by the University of Oxford, and their dark, upon which they brought a qu. impedit, upon which a demurrer was joyued: and Serjeant lories argued for the plantiff, and there was two points in the case, first, whether an advowson in grosse, is given to the King by the Statute of the 28 of Eliz. and the Statute is, that the Kitig shall seise the lands, tenements, & hereditaments, of such a recusant convict, and whether by the same statute an advowson in grosse, shall be seised, and he held that it shall, for though perchance the word lands, and tenements, will not carry that, being an advowson iu grosse, yet this word hereditament, will carry it to the King by force of the statute, for it appears by Byer, 350, that if the King grant an advowson, by the name of an hereditament, that in this case this will pass the advowson, and for that Coke, 10, Whistleis case, the King by [12] the grant of an hereditament, grants an advowson, by such words to a common person then by the same reason a common person may grant, that to the King by the same words: but it may be objected, that because an advowson in grosse; is not valuable, therefore it is not given to the King; and upon this doubt upon the Statute of Wills, 3 H. 8, the question was, whether an advowaou was devisable; by the name de bonis et cattallis fellon. Butler, and Bakers case, that they are not devisable, for it is not valuable, but the 4th lac. between Taverncr and Oooch, which case may be seen in the new Book of Entries, that an advowson was devisable: before the Statute 5 H. 7, 37, it shall be assets, 9 H. 6, 55, recovery in value lyes of that; but admit that this is only a thing of pleasure, for the advancement of a friend, yet that shall be given by the statute to the King. But the second objection is, that though it is given to the King, yet it is not extendable upon the...
To continue reading
Request your trial