« AnteriorContinuar »
Convey- The case No. 14 in Trinity Term, notwithstanding matter7of the elaborate arguments which appear in the reports of record. it, is, perhaps, an instance of a conveyance, or of a device to give greater security to a conveyance.1 There is, it is true, nothing in the reports which could suggest such an idea, but there is matter in the corresponding record which is hardly susceptible of any other interpretation.
One Alexander, son of Andrew Luterel, brought an action of Aiel against the Master of the Hospital of Saint Mark, near Bristol, for a certain manor. It was alleged on behalf of the Master that one Gilbert his predecessor had, in the reign of Henry III., brought an assise of Novel Disseisin against Andrew's grandfather, in virtue of whose seisin the action was brought, and had recovered. The demandant, however, replied that the grandfather had been enfeoffed of the manor by one Geoffrey Luterel subsequently to the alleged recovery. The Master rejoined that Gilbert and his successors had always been seised after the recovery absque hoc that Geoffrey was seised, and issue was joined thereon.
So far there is nothing to show that the litigation was not in earnest on both sides, and the points which were argued were of course of the same value for the reporters whether the litigants were in earnest or not. It is, nevertheless, certain that the ultimate intention was not to recover the manor for the demandant, but to secure the title of the Master of the Hospital who was, in right of the Hospital, the tenant. It is possible that when the action was commenced the demandant may have wished to recover, and that some earthly or other consideration may have caused a change in his views; but there cannot be a doubt that in the end he wished to divest himself of any estate which he may
1 As to this, see the Introduction to the volume of Year Books, 12 & 13 Edward III., p. cxiii.
have had in the manor. After issue had been joined ho executed a deed by which he granted, confirmed, and quit-claimed all his right in the manor and in the appendant advowson to the Master and his successors. This deed was produced on the day given in Court, and is set out at full length on the Roll.1 Judgment was given for the Master.
The effect of the action, with the entry on the roll of Apparent the pleadings and of the deed, appears to have been to thTlaw of give an indefeasible estate to the Master, as between Mortmain, him and the demandant. The object of the whole proceedings may have been to evade the law of Mortmain, and, if so, it seems to have been attained, since there was no enquiry as to collusion. The case was, perhaps, managed so as to be just without the Statute of Westminster the Second, c. 32, for it will be observed that there was no default on either side and that the verdict of a jury was intercepted, as it were, by the deed executed after issue joined. The title of the Hospital, if any, was a recovery had previous to the Statute de ReUgiosis (7 Ed. I.) which Alexander Luterel's deed confirmed.
There was a curious function of the monasteries of Corodies in mediaeval England which is illustrated by the case ^Jhfir No. 46 in Trinity Term. A corody was board, lodging, nature and clothing, and all necessaries in a religious House for a numberperson duly nominated by one having the right of nomination. The King had a corody or right of nomination in every religious House of royal foundation, except where the tenure was in frankalmoign.2 Where
the House was a nunnery there was a corody for a female, with regard to which Fitzherbert has written a passage not altogether devoid of humour.1 The most usual kind of corody, however, was for one of the King's "vadlets." It was a very convenient way of providing for a trusty servant or favourite, whose rank was apparently just below that of an esquire, without any drain upon the privy purse or the Exchequer.
It appears that there were, at one time, no less than 113 of these corodies of the King's gift.2 He usually had one only in any particular religious House, in some cases two, but, in early times, not more.3 The second may have been obtained by grant from the religious House itself, where there was already one in right of the foundation.
The King's Neither the Abbey of Creake nor the Abbey of Colclaim sue- chester appears in the Exchequer record in which a list of resisted* *ne King's corodies was kept. But the Abbot of one of where the those Houses (Colchester), if not the Abbots of both, notof royal had a writ de corodio habendo directed to him,4 and foundation. was attached for not having duly received the King's nominee. The writ de corodio habendo followed the usual form, directing the Abbot to receive the nominee into the Abbey and grant him such sustenance as a previous nominee deceased had, while he lived, ad mandatum domini Regis.
The word mandatum was of the utmost importance in this case, because the count or declaration was to the
1 F. N. B., 526 C.
3 F. N. B., 529, where are given, from a record in the Exchequer, the names of all the Religious Houses in which the King had corody or pension.
s There is an Exchequer Book temp. Philip and Mary, in which several corodies, both for males and
females, are mentioned, apparently as being in the same House, but corodies are there frequently coupled with annuities and indistinguishable from them.
4 Below, pp. 308-815; Placita coram Rege, Trin., 14 Ed. III., Bex., R°. 17.
effect that previous nominees of the King and of his ancestors had been admitted to the corody ad mandatum Regis, and -the intention was to show the King's title in this way. The Abbot pleaded that his House was not of royal foundation. The replication for the King was that the House was of the King's patronage or advowson, "de advocations domini Regis" as shown by the alleged admission of nominees to the corody on the King's mandate. The two reports supply some details which are not found in the record and which are, perhaps, more applicable to the Abbey of Creake than to the Abbey of Colchester—that subsequently to the original foundation the founder granted the advowson or patronage to the King's ancestor, that the House was originally founded for secular chaplains, and became an Abbey after the grant to the King's ancestor, and that the Abbot held lands of the King in frankalmoign of the gift of the King's ancestors. The Abbot's rejoinder was that the nominees of the King who had been admitted had not been admitted super aliquo titvXo juris, but per viam rogaminis et ex curialitate, that such admissions ought not to prejudice his House, as the Abbey was not of the foundation of the King or of his ancestors, "nec idem Abbas ali"qua teneat terras vel tenementa pro quibus ad prw"missa faciendum de jure teneatur." The meaning of the last words quoted in Latin is obviously that the lands which the Abbot held of the King were holden in frankalmoign, and were of the nature of dotation made subsequently to the foundation. Either of these reasons appears a sufficient answer to the claim of a corody. The King's Attorney could not dispute the facts, and judgment was given for the Abbot. There are two grounds for the decision stated in the reports —one that the House was not of royal foundation, the other that the lands held by royal gift in frankalmoign were necessarily quit of all earthly service.
A third reason for the judgment is mentioned in one of the reports.1 It was alleged on behalf of the Abbot that there had been a previous writ de corodio luibendo against a predecessor of the Abbot which had been decided in his favour, and the record was found and read.
If there be The distinction drawn between the Tnandatum of
missions to ^e King and his rogatus or rogamen (for both expres
acorody, sions occur in the record) is very clearly brought out.
King's re- The French equivalent for mandutum is in one place
quest alone, mamlement, in another comandement: for roqatus or
where he .... ."
has no rogamen it is in one place request, in another prier.
right, he The distinction between courtesy and obedience is also
does not , * . .
thereby ac- not less plainly shown, and the admission of the nomi
right" nees cx curia^iate, courtesie, is strongly set forth.
The first of the two reports concludes with the commentary that one who has good cause may oppose the King's request, but not the King's command. It would appear to be implied that the King's command must be in accordance with law (as, for instance, in the case of a Prohibition), and, if not, it becomes a mere request. The writ de corodio habendo is in the form of a command, and this was precisely what the Abbot disobeyed and what the Court of King's Bench upheld him in disobeying. It would appear also that, where the right to command does not exist, the act of acceding to the King's request any number of times does not bring such a right into existence.
fixcommu- The case No. 62 in Easter Term illustrates the law thTcanon 01 tne Church as to excommunication and the relations AbHotu10 0f tllC King's Courts t° tne Courts Christian. One tion. John Abel had been excommunicated, and, as he. alleged, had made satisfaction, but could not obtain