| 1372.114 |
1372 |
|
Entry dum fuit infra aetatem |
Dum fuit infra aetatem
Grants
Faits
View
Extinguishment
Coverture & enfancy
Judicium |
| Mich. |
46 |
Edw. 3 |
46 |
33b-34a |
Tauke, William Sjt Tank (for P)
Fyncheden, William de CJCP Finchden
Meres, Roger de (alias Kirkton) JCP Kirton
Fyncheden, William de CJCP Finchden
Meres, Roger de (alias Kirkton) JCP Kirton
Wychyngham, William de JCP Wichingham
Percy, Henry Sjt Persay
Fencotes, John de Sjt Finch or Fyncheden, William de CJCP Finch
Fyncheden, William de CJCP Finchden |
lessor's heir |
|
|
|
Fitzherbert View 60 (not 30 or 113)
Brooke Dum fuit infra etatem (not aetatem) 1
Brooke Grauntes (not Grants) 23
Brooke Faits 83
Brooke View 27
Brooke Extinguishment 7
Brooke Coverture 12
Statham Viewe 12 |
|
the statute = Westminster 2nd (1285), 13 Edw. 1, ch. 48 (no view where plaintiff demands lands that were leased by plaintiff or his ancestor to the defendant, and not his ancestor, on the ground that the lease was made within age) |
| Dum fuit infra aetatem fuit port devers le lessee, que est ore tenant per l'heire celuy que lessa, & le demaund |
29 |
Dum fuit infra aetatem was brought against the lessee, who was now tenant, by the heir of the lessor, and the demand was for land and for rent, and the defendant demanded the view of the land from which the rent was issuing. The plaintiff counterpleaded the view by the statute, which said (Latin begins) that if the lease was made to the tenant, and not to his ancestor (Latin ends), he would not be ignorant (mesconu) of the rent, which was leased to him. Fyncheden CJCP said at the common law he had the view, although the lease was made to himself, but now the statute ousted him, and this was understood of the thing demanded by his writ, of which he supposed the lease, and not of something else, and the defendant demanded the view of the land from which the rent was issuing, and not of the plaintiff's demand, which was the rent, so that it seemed that the view was grantable. Meres JCP said that if one within age, seised of rent, purchased the land from which the rent was issuing, and alienated the land within age, it was at his election whether he would bring a writ to demand the land or the rent, and therefore if he brought his writ for the rent, was it not right (reason) that the tenant of the land would have the view, because there was the same reason (l'encheson) as a writ of Entry de quibus, because he could be tenant of the land and deforcer of the rent indifferently. Fyncheden CJCP said that the statute was general, (Latin begins) In all writs also by which tenements are demanded by reason of a lease that the plaintiff or his ancestor made to the tenant, and not to his ancestor, view is not granted (Latin ends), and the plaintiff supposed by his writ that the lease of his demand was made to the tenant (defendant), and also he would find in a writ of Dower for rent, the view was demanded of the land, and she showed how her husband had leased to her, so she should not be ignorant of the land etc., and she was ousted from the view, and in the event that one were to bring a Quod ei deforceat for rent, he would not have the view of the land. Meres JCP said that if a husband had lordship by reason of his wife, and he had purchased the land, and alienated, and his wife brought a Cui in vita, and supposed the entry of the tenant (defendant) of the rent by the husband, she would have the view. Wychyngham JCP said that he had supposed a lease made of the same thing that he demanded by his writ, but by reason of an entry it would be different, as Meres JCP said, so that it was his opinion that the defendant would be ousted from the view. A serjeant said that he supposed by his writ that he was the taker (pernor) of the rent, so he would not have the view. Another serjeant said that it could be that various rents were leased in one vill. Fyncheden CJCP said that the statute was general, as he had said before, and also, the plaintiff supposed by his writ a lease made of the same thing, and you would not be ignorant of which of the lands your lordship is, and to the view of the writ of Entry de quibus, the land could have come into various hands, so that rescue was made to him by one of the same feoffees, on which the tenant (defendant) could not be apprised, without another defence, and he was ousted from the view, (Latin begins) which note (Latin ends).
The following appears after this report: 'Explicit Annus Quadragesimus sextus & sequitur Annus xlvij. Regis Edwardi tertii' ( the 46th year ends and the 47th year of King Edward III follows). |
|
