The heads of the judges arguments for the deceased Duke of Norfolk, in the case between him and his brother Mr. Charles Howard, with some observations on the Lord Chancellor Nottingham's arguments. England and Wales. Court of Chancery. 1685 Approx. 11 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 1 1-bit group-IV TIFF page image. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2005-03 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A43190 Wing H1296 ESTC R218624 99830201 99830201 34651 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A43190) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 34651) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English Books, 1641-1700 ; 1778:27) The heads of the judges arguments for the deceased Duke of Norfolk, in the case between him and his brother Mr. Charles Howard, with some observations on the Lord Chancellor Nottingham's arguments. England and Wales. Court of Chancery. Nottingham, Heneage Finch, Earl of, 1621-1682. Howard, Charles, d. 1713. Norfolk, Henry Howard, Duke of, 1628-1684. 1 sheet ([1] p.) s.n., [London : 1685] Imprint from Wing. Reproduction of the original at the British Library. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Future interests -- England -- Early works to 1800. Remainders (Estates) -- England -- Early works to 1800. Law -- England -- Early works to 1800. Estates (Law) -- England -- Cases -- Early works to 1800. 2004-09 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2004-09 Aptara Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2004-10 Judith Siefring Sampled and proofread 2004-10 Judith Siefring Text and markup reviewed and edited 2005-01 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion The Heads of the Judges Arguments for the Deceased Duke of Norfolk , in the Case between him and his Brother Mr. Charles Howard , with some Observations on the Lord Chancellor Nottingham's Arguments . THE Judges all agreed that the Limitation to Charles Howard was a void Limitation of the Trust ; and that the Bill ought to be dismissed , grounding their opinions on the following Reasons . 1. All the Trust of the whole Term was vested in Henry by the Limitation of it to him and the Heirs Males of his Body , which in Law is a Disposition of the whole Interest : such a Trust being indeed greater in its nature , than a Term of years is capable of , in regard it cannot go to Heirs Males , but therefore hath been often resolved to contain the whole Interest . And where a term for years is under such a Limitation that will admit no Remainder , there can be no Contingent Remainder limited of such a Term ; and to make that Limitation which could not be effectual by the Rules of Law , as a Remainder to take effect by calling it a springing use , is but a Quibble too light to have the countenance of the Law. 2. It 's contrary to the Rules of Law , to limit an Interest either in Law or Equity of a Term , to take effect after any ones dying without Issue of his Body , and of a dangerous Consequence ; for it would tend to make Perpetuities and fetter Estates : inasmuch as it is allowed of all hands , that if there can be such a Limitation by Law , allowed after a dying without Issue Male , there is no possibility of docking or destroying the Interests that are under such Limitations ; so that such Estates can never be sold or parted with , no Recoveries reaching them , nor no Method in the Law nor possibility to do it , which would make Estates stagnate in a Family , and discourage all Ingenuity and Industry , which the Law perfectly abhors — And this the Lord Chancellor allows in his Arguments in this Case in his third Conclusion . And it mends not the matter , to say that this is under a Limitation of Thomas his dying without Issue in the Life of Henry ; for 3. This is a stretch farther than ever before was endeavoured , the Judges have gone as far as is fit in indulging mens dispositions of Terms to take effects by Limitations after Lives — If this Limitation should be admitted ( if Thomas dye without Issue in the Life of Henry , then the next strain would be to limit a Term over upon ones dying without Issue during the Lives of two or three , and then of twenty men : and then if he should dye without Issue within seven years , for that is equal to a Life , and then within twenty years , then why not within a hundred years , and then why not within a thousand , or during the term , &c. for all these are less Interests in the eye of the Law , than a Freehold , and where should we end or stop ; for it must be confessed that there is the same reason for all these , as it was by experience found upon the Judgment of Mathew Manning's Case , when it was once allowed that a term for years might be limited to one , and if he died within the term then to another ; it was soon found that there was the same reason to allow a Limitation of it after two as twenty Lives , which hath been the occasion of Fettering Estates exceedingly by such Limitations of terms to take effect after Lives , and made the Judges often repine at that Judgment , and declare that if it were now a new Case , since they have seen the Inconveniencies of it ) it would never have been so adjudged . So Bridgeman in the Case of Grigg and Hopkins . Siderfin's Report fo . 37. 4. It 's agreed on all hands that there is the same reason and ground of allowing Limitations of terms for years at Law , as there is for allowing Limitations of trusts of terms for years in Equity and no other : Now there hath never been any Judgment that the Limitation of a Term to one , after anothers dying without Issue was good — It hath been often endeavoured , and ( if it could have gained the Precedent of such a solemn Resolution ) would no doubt of it , be too often practiced . But it hath always been disallowed , and many Judgments against it — Leventhorp and Ashby Pasc. 11 Car. 1. in B. Reg. Rolles 611. Sanders and Cornish Rolles 611 , 612. Rolles 2. Rep. 1 Cro. Backhurst and Bellinghams Case . Mod. Rep. 115. and Burgis Case there reported . And Child and Bayley's Case Trin. 15. Jac. Rot. 183. in Banc. Reg. which is a Judgment in the very Point — William Heath being possessed of a term for 76. years , by his Will devised it to his Wife , and afterwards to William his Son , provided that if William his Son should dye without Issue of his body then living at the time of his death , then Thomas his eldest Son should have the term ; William did dye without Issue , living Thomas , yet Thomas could not have the term , because the whole Court of Kings-Bench adjudged that the Limitation to Thomas after the death of William without Issue ( tho this Contingent was confin'd to a Life , as here it is ) was void , for the reason before mentioned . And this Judgment afterwards affirmed in a Writ of Error in the Exchequer Chamber , by all the Judges of the Common Pleas and Barons of the Exchequer , so that it was a solemn Judgment of all the Judges of England , and which alone were enough to rule the Case in question . Yet the Lord Chancellor Decreed this Limitation to Charles to be a good Limitation , and that he should hold the Barony during the residue of the term , and have an account of the Profits thereof from the death of Duke Thomas . Declaring his reasons to be as followeth . 1. Some men have no Estates but Terms of years ; and he that hath a term of years , hath as much right to dispose of it , as he that hath a Fee-Simple . 2. Unless these words ( if Thomas dye without Issue in the Life of Henry ) have the effect of excepting this out of the common Cases of limitting terms over upon ones dying without Issue — The words are idle and of no effect . 3. This might have been done in another way ( viz. by making the first term to cease upon this Contingency , and limitting a new one to Charles ) and therefore shall be taken to be good this way . 4. That the meanness of a Term for years or Chattel Interest , is not to be regarded in Limitations of it . — It was at first disputed , whether it might be limited over , after a Life , and some opinions against it : but that afterwards obtained ; and though the Judges would not allow a Limitation of it over after a dying without Issue ; but he saw no Reason why it might not be allowed after a dying without Issue in such a ones Life ; for that is but equal to a Limitation after a Life . Then the Lord Chancellor seeks to evade the Case of Child and Baylie , by making several distinctions between that and the Case in question , which it's plain that he himself look'd upon but as frivolous , and saw there was no real difference between them ; and therefore to fortifie his own Resolution , he is driven at last in plain downright terms to deny it to be Law , calling it a single Resolution , that never had any like it before or since . And he opposes to this Resolution in Child and Baylie's Case , two other Cases ; the one of Heath and Cotton , ( which is nothing to the purpose , there being no Limitation after a dying without Issue , but only after a Death ) the other of Wood and Sanders ; where a Term is limited to the Father for his Life ; then to the Mother for hers ; then if John survive his Father and Mother , to him ; and if he die in their Lives , and leave Issue , to his Issue ; if he die without Issue in their Lives time , then to Edward his Brother ; he died in their Lives time without Issue , and holdeth that the Limitation to Edward was good . Nevertheless the Lord Chancellor made such a Decree , That Charles should hold the Land during the residue of the term ; urging further for his so doing , that it was the Will of Hen. Frederick , Father of the Plaintiff and Defendant , who was owner of the Estate ; and therefore that it was equitable and just to decree that it should go accordingly ; not allowing that mens Wills and Intentions are to be bounded by the Rules of Law , and no farther to prevail , than the Methods and Rules of Law warrant them . There being afterwards a Bill of Review brought upon this Decree , before the now Lord Keeper ; and his Lordship finding the said Decree grounded upon great Mistakes , and likely to be a ground it self of great Inconveniency , did reverse the said Decree , as being erroneous , and against Law , and dismissed the said Charles Howard's Bill . Whereupon the Appeal is now brought in the Lords House . Notes, typically marginal, from the original text Notes for div A43190-e10 3. Note , the Lord Chancellor ( finding himself pincht with this Reason , in his Argument indeavours to answer it by saying , he would stop any where when he should find an Inconvenience by allowing such a Limitation , which is a poor Evasion , and the Judges conceived would be too late when it should have gained the Countenance of such a solemn Precedent and Resolution , and conceived it more agreeable to the Prudence and Policy of the Law , to prevent such Inconveniences when foreseen , than to distinguish ones self out of them , or retract opinions by a ( non putarem . ) 1. Note this is true , but it doth not follow that he may dispose them contrary to the Rule of Law. 2. Note this hath no weight , for many words are oft inserted in Settlements that are idle ; and operate nothing , and these are not the only words in this that are idle , for the Lord Chancellor allows here , that the Limitation to Edward and all after him are void . 3. This is so weak a Reason , that it requires no answer . 4. This answered in the Judges third Reason supr . Note , this Case of Child and Bayly was adjudged by all the Judges of England , First in the King's Bench , and then in the Exchequer Chamber , and hath been approved and cited by many Judges in many Cases since , and made the ground of several Judgments , and never denied for Law , as in Love and Windham , and Grigg and Hopkins , and other Cases , till now by the Lord Chancellor , being thus hard put to it to maintain this opinion of his . Note , this touches not this Case of the Duke of Norfolk , for there John never had any Limitation took effect at all , for it was to commence upon condition , which never happened ; so it was all one , as if there had been no Limitation at all .