- II: Coke’s Speech and Charge At the Norwich Assizes
- (preface, Written By Robert Prickett)
- The Lord Coke, the Preface to His Charge Given At the Assises Houlden In Norwich, the Fourth of August, 1606.
- ¶ Here Followeth the Words of His Charge In Order.
- III: Excerpts From the Small Treatises
- A. Book of Entries
- The Preface of Sr. Edward Coke, Knight Lord Chiefe Justice of England of Pleas Before the King Himselfe to Be Holden Assigned, and One of the Lords of His Majesties Most Honorable Privie Councell.
- B. the Compleat Copyholder
- Sec. XXXIII.
- C. Little Treatise On Baile and Mainprize
- The Conclusion With Advertisment.
- IV: Excerpts From the Institutes
- A. the First Part of the Institutes
- The Preface.
- Section 1 Fee Simple
- Section 2 Fee Simple
- Section 3 Fee Simple
- Section 4 Fee Simple
- Section 5 Fee Simple
- Section 7 Fee Simple
- Section 8 Fee Simple
- Section 9 Fee Simple
- Section 10 Fee Simple
- Section 11 Fee Simple
- Section 12 Fee Simple
- Section 21 Fee Tail, Part 2
- Section 69 Tenant At Will, Part 2
- Section 80 Tenant By the Verge, Part 3
- Section 96 Escuage, Part 2
- Section 108 Knight’s Service, Part 6
- Section 138 Frankalmoin, Part 5
- Section 170 Tenure In Burgage, Part 9
- Section 199 Villenage, Part 18
- Section 342 Conditional Estates, Part 17
- Section 366 Conditional Estates, Part 41
- Section 372 Conditional Estates, Part 47
- Section 412 Descents, Part 27
- Section 464 Releases, Part 20
- Section 481 Releases, Part 37
- Section 723 Warranty, Part 30
- Section 728 Fee Warranty, Part 35
- B. the Second Part of the Institutes
- Deo, Patriae, Tibi.
- Magna Charta,
- C. The Third Part of the Institutes
- Deo, Patriae, Tibi.
- Cap. I. of High Treason.
- Cap. II. of Petit Treason.
- Cap. III. of Misprision of Treason.
- | Cap. IV. Felony By Compassing Or Conspiring to Kill the King, Or Any Lord Or Other, of the Kings Counsell.
- Cap. V. of Heresie.
- | Cap. VI. of Felony By Conjuration, Witchcraft, Sorcery, Or Inchantment.
- | Cap. Lxii. of Indictments.
- D. The Fourth Part of the Institutes
- Deo, Patriae, Tibi.
- Cap. I. of What Persons This Court Consisteth.
- Cap. VII. the Court of Kings Bench, Coram Rege. 1
fee Warranty, part 35
| Also it is spoken in the end of the said statute of Glou[cester] which speaketh of the alienation with Warrantie made by the tenant by the courtesie in this forme. Also, in the same manner, the heire of the woman after the death of the father and mother shall not bee barred of action, if hee demandeth the heritage or the marriage of his Mother by writ of Entry, that his father aliened in his mothers time, whereof no fine is levied in the Kings Court. And so by force of the same statute, if the husband of the wife alien the heritage or marriage of his wife in fee with Warrantie, &c. by his Deed in the Countrey, it is cleere Law, that this Warranty shall not bar the heire, unlesse he hath Assets by discent.
“whereof no fine is levied in the Kings Court, &c.”
Here are three things worthy of observation concerning the construction of Statutes. First, that (a) it is the most naturall and genuine exposition of a Statute to construe one part of the Statute by another part of the same Statute, for that best expresseth the meaning of the makers. As here the question upon the generall words of the Statute is, whether a fine levied onely by a husband seised in the right of his wife with Warranty shall bar the heire without Assets. And it is well expounded by the former part of the act, whereby it is enacted, that alienation made by Tenant by the curtesie with warranty shall not bar the heire, unlesse assets des-|-cend. And therefore it should be inconvenient to intend the statute in such manner, as that he that hath nothing but in the right of his wife should by his fine levied with warrantie barre the heire without assets. And this exposition is ex visceribus actus.
Secondly, the words of an act of Parliament must bee taken in a lawfull and rightfull sense, as here the words being (whereof no fine is levied in the Kings Court) are to be understood, whereof no fine is lawfully or rightfully levied in the Kings Court. And therefore (b) a fine levied by the husband alone is not within the meaning of the Statute, for that fine should worke a wrong to the wife, but a fine levied by the husband and wife is intended by the Statute, for that fine is lawfull and worketh no wrong. (c) So the Statute of W.2.c.5. saith (Ita quod Episcopus Ecclesiam conferat) is construed, Ita quod Episcopus Ecclesiam legitimeè conferat, and the like in a number of other Cases in our Bookes. And generally the rule is, Quod non praestat impedimentum quod de jure non sortitur effectum.
Thirdly, that construction must bee made of a statute in suppression of the mischiefe, and in advancement of the remedie, as by this case it appeareth. For a fine levied by the husband only, is within the letter of the Law, but the mischiefe was, the heire was barred of the Inheritance of his mother, by the warranty of his father without Assets, and this act intended to apply a remedy, viz. that it should not barre unless there were assets, and therefore, them is chiefe is to be suppressed, and the remedie advanced, Et qui haeret in littera, haeret in cortice, as often before hath beene said.
[Ed.: The basic action to recover lands wrongfully held by another.]
(a) Pl. Com. fo. 75. 7. E. 3. 89.
Vide Bract. lib. 4. f. 321. Fleta. 5. cap. 34.
[Ed.: from the innermost part of the act.]
(b) Pl. Com. 246. b. Seignior Barkleye’s case li. 9. fol. 26. in case del Abbot de Strata mercella.
(c) 11. H. 4. 8o. 9. E. 4. 12. 21. H. 6. 28. 4. E. 4. 31. 12. H. 4. Formedon 15.
[Ed.: Provided that the bishop do consecrate the church.]
[Ed.: Provided that the bishop do lawfully consecrate the church,]
[Ed.: An impediment which in law gains no effect does not stand.]
[Ed.: He who sticks to the letter sticks to (only) the bark of the tree.]