The Case of Sutton's Hospital
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1616 |
| Date | 01 January 1616 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 77 E.R. 937
IN THE KING'S BENCH.
See Colchester v. Kewney, 1866-67, L. R. 1 Ex. 376; 2 Ex. 253; Riche v. Ashbury Railway Company, 1874-75, L. R. 9 Ex. 262; 7 H. L. 653; Wenlock v. River Dee Company, 1883-85, 36 Ch. D. 685 n.; 10 App. Cas. 354; Attorney-General v. London County Council [1902], A. C. 165.
The TENTH PART of the REPORTS of SIR EDWARD COKE, Kut, Lord Chief Justice of England of the Pleas assigned to be held before the King Himself, and of the Privy Council of State, of clivers RESOLUTIONS and JUDGMENTS given upon solemn Arguments, and with great Deliberation and Conference of the reverend Judges and Sages of the Law, of CASES IN LAW which were never Resolved or Adjudged before: and the REASONS and CAUSES of the said Resolutions and Judgments. Published in the Eleventh Year of the Most High and Most Illustrious JAMES, King of England, France, arid Ireland, and of Scotland the XLVII., the Fountain of all Piety and Justice, and the Life of the Law. With NOTES and REFERENCES, by JOHN FARQUHAR ERASER, Esq., of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law. [1 a] the case op sutton's hospital. Mich 10 Jac. 1. Rot. 574. In the King's Bench. [See Colchester v. Kewney, 1866-67, L. R. 1 Ex. 376; 2 Ex. 253; Rifhe v. Ashbury Railway Company, 1874-75, L. R. 9 Ex. 262 ; 7 H. L. 653; Wenlock v. River Dee Company, 1883-85, 36 Ch. D. 685 n.; 10 App. Gas. 354 ; Attorney-General v. London County Council [1902], A. C. 165.] Midd. ss. Be it remembered that heretofore, that is to say in the term of the Holy Trinity last past, before the lord the King at Westminster came Simon Baxter, gent, by George Cuppledick, his attorney, and brought here into the Court of the said lord the King, then being there his certain bill against Richard Sutton, Esq. and K. B. vi.-30* 'J-w 938 PLEADINGS IN THE CASE OF SUTTON's HOSPITAL 10 CO. HEP. Ib. John Law, gent, in the custody of the marshal, &c. of a plea of trespass, and there are pledges of prosecuting to wit, John Doe and Richard Eoe, which said bill followeth in these words, ss. Middlesex, ss. Simon Baxter, gent, complaineth of Richard Sutton and John Law in the custody of the marshal of the Marshalsea, of the lord the King, being before the King himself, of that, that they, on the 30th day of May, in the 10th year of the reign of the Lord James, now King of England, with force and arms, &c. the close and house of him the said Simon, that ig to say, a capital messuage, with the appurtenances, called the late dissolved Charter-house besides Smithfield, in the parish of St. Sepulchre, in the county aforesaid, they brake and entered, and other wrongs to him did, against the peace of the said lord the now King, to the damage of the said Simon of 401. and thereof he bringeth suit, &c. And now here at this day, that is to say, Friday next after eight clays of Saint Michael in this same term ; until which day, the aforesaid Richard and John had licence to imparl to the said bill, and then to answer, &c. before the lord the King at Westminster, come as well the aforesaid Simon Baxter by his attorney aforesaid, as the said Richard and John by Thomas Hayward their attorney ; and the said Richard and John [1 b] come and defend the force and injury, when, &c.-And say that they are not thereof guilty; and of this put themselves upon the country ; and the said Simon Baxter likewise ; therefore let a jury come thereof before the lord the King at Westminster, on Saturday next after eight days of Saint Hilary, and who neither, &c. to recognize, &c. because as well, &c. the same day is given to the parties there, &c. from which day the jury aforesaid, between the parties aforesaid, of the plea aforesaid (by jurors thereof put between them) was respited, before the lord the King at Westminster, until Monday next after the morrow of the Purification of the blessed Mary then next following (unless, &c. shall before come), for default of jurors, &c. At which day before the lord the King at Westminster, come as well the aforesaid Simon Baxter, as the aforesaid John Sutton and John Law, by their attornies aforesaid ; and the said jurors being likewise called, come, who to say the truth of the premises, being chosen, tried, and sworn, say upon their oath, that one Thomas Sutton, Esq. long before the time when the trespass aforesaid is above supposed to be done, was seised of and in all those manors and lordships of Southminster, Norton, Little Hallingbury, otherwise Hallingbury Bowchers, and Much-Stanbridge, in the county of Essex, with all and singular its rights, members and appurtenances whatsoever; as also of and in all those manors and lordships of Bustingthorp, otherwise Buslingthorp, and Dunnesby in the county of Lincoln, with their rights, members and appurtenances whatsoever; and of and in all those manors of Salthorp, otherwise Saltrop, otherwise Halthrop, Chilton, and Blackgrove, in the county of Wilts, with their rights, members and appurtenances; and of and in all those lands, and pastures called Black-grove, containing by estimation 200 acres of pasture, with the appurtenances in Black-grove, and Wroughton, in the county of Wilts; and of and in all those manors of Michenden, otherwise Missenden, otherwise called the manors of Mussenden, in the pariah of Wroughton, Lydeyard, and Tregose, in the said county of Wilts, with all and singular their rights, members and appurtenances ; and of all that manor of Elcomb, and the park called Elcomb-park, with the appurtenances in the said county of Wilts; and of and in all that manor of Wattlescote, otherwise Wigglescote, otherwise Wigglescete, with the appurtenances in the said county of Wilts ; and of and in all that manor of Wescot, otherwise Wescet, with the appurtenances in the said county of Wilts; and also of and in all those lands and pastures, containing by estimation 100 acres of land, and 60 acres of pasture, with the appurtenances in Wigglescot and Wroughton, in the said county of Wilts; and of and in all that manor of Uffcot, with the appurtenances in the said county of Wilts; and also of and in all those two messuages, and [2 a] 1000 acres of land, 2000 acres of pasture, 300 acres of meadow, and 300 acres of wood, with the appurtenances in Broad-Hinton, in the said county of Wilts; and also of and in all those manors and lordships of Campes, otherwise Campes-Castle, otherwise called Castle-Camps with the appurtenances, situate, lying, being, and extending into the counties of Cambridge and Essex or either of them, or elsewhere in the kingdom of England ; and also of and in all that manor of Balsham in the county of Cambridge, with all and singular the rights, members and appurtenances whatsoever; and ulso of and in all and singular those messuages and lands, situate, and being' in the parish of Hackney, and Tottenham, in 10 CO. HBP. 2 b. PLEADINGS IN THE CASE OF BUTTON'S HOSPITAL 939 the county of Middlesex, with their rights, members and appurtenances whatsoever, which messuages were lately purchased of W. Bower, Kt. and the said lands iti Tottenham now or late were in the tenure or occupation of William Banning, yeoman ; arid of and in all and singular the manors, lordships, messuages, lands, tenements, reversions, services, feedings, pastures, woods, advowsons, patronages of churches, and hereditaments of the aforesaid Thomas Sutton, whatsoever, situate, lying, and being in the said counties of Essex, Lincoln, Wilts, Cambridge, and Middlesex, or any of them, with all and singular their rights, members, and appurtenances whatsoever in his demesne as of fee. And the said jurors further say upon their oath aforesaid, that the said Thomas Sutton so thereof being seised, before the said time when, &c. that is to say, at the fourth session of Parliament begun and holden by prorogation at Westminster, in the county of Middlesex, on the 9th day of February, in the seventh year of the reign of our Lord James by the grace of God of England, France, and Ireland King, defender of the faith, &c. and of Scotland the 43d, and there continued until the 24th day of July then next following, and then prorogued until the IGth day of October then next following, amongst other things, it was enacted and established by the authority of the same Parliament, as followeth in these words : " An Act to confirm and enable the Erection and Establishment of an Hospital, a free Grammar-School, and sundry other Godly and charitable Acts and Uses, done and intended to be done and performed by Thomas Sutton, Esq." " [2 b] Humbly beseecheth your Majesty, your loyal and dutiful subject, Thomas Sutton of Balsharn, in the county of Cambridge, Esq. that it may please your most excellent Majesty, and the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, to enact, ordain, and establish; and be it enacted, ordained, and established by the authority aforesaid, that in the town of Hallingbury, otherwise called Hallingbury Bouchers in the county of Essex, there may be builded .and erected (at the costs and charges of your suppliant) otie meet, fit, and convenient house, buildings, and rooms for the abiding and dwelling of such number of poor people, men and children, as your suppliant shall name, limit and appoint to be lodged, harboured, abide, and be relieved there, and for the abiding, dwelling, and necessary use of one schoolmaster and usher to instruct the said children in reading, writing, and Latin and Greek grammar, and of one divine arid godly preacher to instruct and teach all the rest of the same house in the knowledge of God and his word, and of one master to govern all these persons of, in, or belonging unto the same house, and that the same shall and may be called and named the hospital of King -James, founded in Hallingbury in the county of Essex, at the humble petition and at the only coats and charges of Thomas Sutton, and that the Right Reverend Father in God Richard, now...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hazell v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council and Others
...ratepayers. This argument strikes me as being not so much arcane as absurd. 79The arguments starts with the year 1612 and the report of Sutton's Hospital Case 10 Co.Rep. 1. That report, although largely incomprehensible in 1990, has been accepted as "express authority" that at common law i......
-
ADM International SARL v Grain House International S.A. (Formerly known as Compagnie Agricole De Commercialisation Et De Conditionnement Des Cereales Et De Legumeineuses S.A.)
...their members: see for example Blackstone's Commentaries at Book 1 467–8, 475; and The Case of Sutton's Hospital [1610] Co Rep 1, 27a, 32b, 77 ER 937, 964–5, 973. Salomon v Salomon simply involved the application of an accepted background of separate legal personality for companies to the p......
-
Masri v Consolidated Contractors (Oil and Gas) Company SAL
... ... that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the claimant's claim against them and in each case for an order setting aside service of the claim form. Permission to appeal was refused by the judge ... ...
-
Haugesund Kommune v Depfa ACS Bank
...Head v Aegon [1972] 1 WLR 680 at 688–689 per Brightman J. See also the cases referred to in footnote 18 above. 33 Sutton's Hospital Case 10 Co.Rep 1 (1572–1616); Riche v Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Co Ltd (1874) LR 9 Ex 224 at 265 per Blackburn J; Baroness Wenlock v River Dee Co (188......
-
Parcels
...interest and the rent was fixed 63 Coke, Sir Edward, Complete Copyholder (E Flesher et al, 1630) s 62. French’s Case (1576) 4 Co Rep 31a, 77 ER 960. 134 The Law of the Manor during the term. His successor would not have to pay an entry fine (the copyhold equivalent of a relief) unless it wa......
-
Legal and Reputed
...6 Mod 150, 87 ER 909, 1Salk 358; Delacherois v Delacherois (1862) 11 HL Cas 62, 11 ER 1254: see 7.5. 47 French’s Case (1576) 4 Co Rep 31a, 77 ER 960: see 5.6; 7.10. 48 Morris v Dimes (1834)1 Ad & E 654, 110 ER 1357: see 12.3; Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal Navigation v Bradley [1910......
-
Royal Demesne
...the Trent Bridge and the Markham Bridge; and when part of the 36 Law of Property Act 1925, s 185. 37 French’s Case (1576) 4 CoRep 31a, 77 ER 960. 38 Pemble v Stern (1668) 2 Keb 213, 84 ER 133. 39 (1704) 6 Mod 150, 87 ER 909, 1 Salk 358. demesnes were sold it was necessary to pass the Newark......
-
Contract formation
...as one-and-the-same: see, eg, Wing Hing Engineering Investment Ltd v Foric Ltd [2008] HKCFI 1013 at [3], per Mr Recorder B Yu SC. 295 (1612) 10 Co Rep 23 [77 ER 960]. 296 (1612) 10 Co Rep. 23 at 32b [77 ER 960 at 973]. 86 ContraCt ForMation 2.96 one of the advantages of a business (such as ......