Terrs de un monastery veign as mains le Roy per dissolucion & per le act de
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1665 |
| Date | 01 January 1665 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 123 E.R. 523
DEL COMMON-BANK
[19] XIII. Terrs de un monastery veign as mains le Eoy per diasolucion & per le act de 31 H. 8. sont en mains le Eoy, & devein all Eoigne ore, que fait lees de ceo que eat voide & uncore le party a que le lees fuit fait occupy le terre & paye le Eent que est mencion d'eatre reserve. Et apres le Eoigne per sea letters pattenta, graunt meames lea terres a auter, en quel patent eat conteane come ensua. soil, que omnia premissa a nobis & progenitor: nostria diu ante hac concelata substract. & in juste detent, fuerunt & adhuc aunt, &c. le question sur ceo fuit, si ceo darren. patent aoit voyda ou nemy. Et devant lea duex chief Justices (queux per commaundement fuerunt de oyar ceo) fuit argue, en quel argument fuit dit que eat voyde entant que ill appere que le Eoigne eat deceave : car el ne inteude de doner terre sinou que fuit concele & injuitement detean de luy quel u'est iasint en ceo case : car le terre eat en le actuall & reall possession le Eoigne coment que auter occupy ceo. A prover de quo uo case que fuit inter Vowe plaintiff & Smyth defendant que fuit ajudge (come fuit dit,) P. 21 Bliz. Eo. 32. banco Eegis, & fuit tiel. sell, que Henry que apres fuit Eoy H. 4. & devant que fuit Eoy fuit infeff del raannor de Halloughton a certain use. 524. a anderson, so. quel Boy apres anno 7, de son Eeagn graunt le dit manner a son heyr intaile, quel fuit Bouthe le Dutchie Seale, &c. nient esteant terre parcell dell Duche; quel issint continew tanque 17 Eliz. quel ann le dit niannor fuit passe en un pattent de concele-menta a un John Farnham, en quel patent fuit un proviso come enaua scil. Proviso quod li manerinm predict. & cetera premissa non fuerunt a nobis concelata injuste subatract. vel detent, quod tune diet: litere patent: erunt...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
W. Devis & Sons Ltd (Appellants) v Atkins (Respondent)
...to give way if justice and commonsense were not to be flouted and in the context of the Schedule as a whole the language of paragraphs 17( 2) and 19(3) gave way more easily than that of paragraph 6(8). 5 But if the same construction were placed upon paragraph 6(8) in what is now a different......
-
Agar v Hyde; Agar v Worsley
...Law Quarterly Review 301 at 312. 48 Rootes v Shelton (1967) 116 CLR 383 . 49 See at [126] of these reasons. 50 Hyde — par 1A; Worsley — pars 2 and 19. 51 This may be achieved (as has been done in Rule 20 of the current Laws of the Game of Rugby Football) by a phased engagement of the two op......
-
Agar v Hyde; Agar v Worsley
...Law Quarterly Review 301 at 312. 48 Rootes v Shelton (1967) 116 CLR 383 . 49 See at [126] of these reasons. 50 Hyde — par 1A; Worsley — pars 2 and 19. 51 This may be achieved (as has been done in Rule 20 of the current Laws of the Game of Rugby Football) by a phased engagement of the two op......
-
Yang Cha v Staray Capital Ltd and Another [Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court]
...under its amended Articles of Association to serve the notice of 26 October 2011. Those allegations of fact are challenged in paragraphs 19. 2 and 19.3 of Mr Cha's amended reply and the expert evidence was devoted to establishing whether some, at any rate, of the matters relied upon in the ......