| 1367.014 |
1367 |
Common Pleas |
Annuity |
Annuity
Extinguishment
Double plee
|
| Hil. (not Mich.) |
41 |
Edw. 3 |
14 |
6a-7a |
Cavendish, John de Sjt Candish (for D)
Belknap, Robert de Sjt (for P)
Cavendish, John de Sjt Candish
Fyncheden, William de JCP Finchden
Cavendish, John de Sjt Candish
Thorp, Robert de CJCP Thorpe
Cavendish, John de Sjt Candish
THorp, Robert de CJCP
Cavendish, John de Sjt Candish
Belknap, Robert Sjt
Cavendish, John de Sjt Candish
Thorp, Robert de CJCP Thorpe
Cavendish, John de Sjt Candish |
Bredon |
Master Simon of |
|
|
|
John, Prior of Lewes, defendant's predecessor
W., Prior of Lewes, defendant's predecessor
B., H. of
B., A. |
T., church of |
|
not Fitzherbert Annuity 30
Brooke Annuitie (not Annuity) 7
Brooke Extinguishment 35 (not 36)
Brooke Double plee 20
Statham Annuite 16 |
later proceeding 1367.043 = Mich. 41 Edw. 3, pl. 3, fols. 19b-20a
perhaps 1347.020 = Hil. 21 Edw. 3, pl. 20, fol. 7b (grantee of annuity not required to travel to another place to provide defendant with aid and counsel) |
|
| Master Simon de Bredon port briefe d'annuity vers le Pryour de Lewes de xx. livers, que arrere luy fuerent, & |
68 |
|
Cluniac Priory of St. Pancras in Lewes, Sussex. |
| Master Simon of Bredon brought a writ of Annuity against the Prior of Lewes for 20 pounds which were in arrears to him, and counted that John, predecessor of this prior, had granted him the annuity for the term of his life. The defendant said that the Court saw plainly how the deed proved that it was granted (Latin begins) to have his counsel and aid (Latin ends), and he said that Master Simon was a doctor of medicine (Physick, medical doctor), and one W., his predecessor, successor to the one who had granted the annuity, was sick, and sent one H. of B. to the plaintiff and requested of him his counsel and his aid in the presence of A. B., and he did not want to counsel or aid him, so that the annuity was extinguished; judgment if an action. The plaintiff challenged the doubleness, of this that he had requested his counsel and also his aid, (Latin begins) and this was not allowed (Latin ends), because the one was dependent on the other. Therefore the plaintiff said, since the deed did not say by express words that he should travel for him, but to have his counsel and aid, this would be understood in the place where he could be found (no 'house calls'), and he had not said which malady this was, so that the plaintiff could have counselled him, and also the deed did not prove that the plaintiff should counsel him more in medicine (physick) than in another thing; judgment etc. The defendant said that he had said in fact that the plaintiff was a physician, and that the annuity was granted for that reason, and he himself could not have known the malady, inasmuch as it was a secret matter (unchose privie), which lay solely by inspection of urine, which he himself could not know, so that he could not have certified the plaintiff. And if he granted an annuity to one (Latin begins) for having his counsel and aid (Latin ends), this would be understood of such matter as he knew best to do, because if such annuity were granted to a man of law, he should aid and counsel him in the law, and in no other matter, inasmuch as that was the cause of the grant. Fyncheden JCP said that it had been adjudged that, where the annuity was granted to a man of law, (Latin begins) to have his counsel (Latin ends), that he was not bound to travel, nor to do anything but counsel him where he could be found; therefore it was only to be seen here whether the default was in him, because he had not aided or counselled him, or not, and it did not appear by any words in the deed that there was any default in him, and the defendant had not shown more, because by the deed he was not bound to aid him in another place than where he was found, so that since the prior did not come to him, there was no default in him, and for this reason he could not have his counsel if the prior had not signified to him which malady this was, because if one granted such an annuity to you (Latin begins) to have counsel (Latin ends), if he did not disclose his case to you, you could not counsel him, (Latin begins) nothing more here (Latin ends). The defendant said that in cases of law each one knew how his case stood in fact, so that he could well counsel him, but a malady was so secret that no one could know this except a physician, and he was bound to counsel and aid him, because the party himself could not know the malady, so that he could have certified him thereof, and for that reason also that by reason of his malady he could not travel to have come to him, and for that reason he was bound by force of the annuity to have travelled to him. Thorp CJCP said to the defendant that the deed was (Latin begins) to have counsel and aid etc. (Latin ends), and if he was learned (erudite) in another science than medicine (physick), such as surgery, law, or another similar, the defendant should tell the Justice in which of these he was bound to aid and counsel him. The defendant replied, in this by reason of which the annuity was granted to him, and he had shown outside that this was the cause. Thorp CJCP put the case that the plaintiff did not know how to aid or counsel him, would the annuity be extinguished for that reason? The defendant said, no, truly, because he was not bound to counsel or aid him more than he could and knew how, and when the defendant had said that he was a doctor of medicine (physick), and that this was the cause for which the annuity was granted, that is, (Latin begins) for his counsel and aid to us and our monastery (impenso, & imposterum impendendo) (Latin ends), and that his predecessor had sent to him and had requested him etc., and he did not deny that, it seemed that the annuity was extinguished. The plaintiff said that the defendant had not said that he had certified the plaintiff which malady this was, so that he could have given his counsel to him, and the deed did not say that he was required to travel, so that etc. And the plaintiff said further that, whereas the defendant said that this was granted by reason of medicine (physick), the plaintiff said that the prior had purchased the church of T. to his own use, of which Master Simon had been in possession, and Master Simon of his good will had resigned the church to them, for which reason the prior had granted the 20 pounds to him, and this was the cause for which the annuity was granted; ready etc. The defendant said that the plaintiff would not be received to that, because the deed proved that it was given (Latin begins) for his counsel and aid etc. (Latin ends), and this could not be understood to be for such cause as the plaintiff had alleged, so that since the plaintiff did not deny that he was a doctor of medicine (physick), and he had not shown that this was granted to have counsel or aid in another science than in medicine (physick), judgment how they should depart. Thorp CJCP said that the deed did not prove which counsel or aid the plaintiff should make by force of the annuity, and the defendant had alleged that he was a doctor of medicine (physick), and that the defendant's predecessor had requested him for his counsel, to which he had said that it was granted for another cause, as he had shown. Therefore now it was to be seen whether the Court should hear more from him to see, because he had not denied that the cause for which it was granted was because he was a doctor of medicine (phisique), but he had said that it was granted because he had resigned his church, and this was in aid of the house, and also he could counsel them at all times afterwards of the same thing. Therefore it seemed that the defendant must answer to this point, that is, whether it was granted for that cause or not. The defendant said that it was proven by the deed that it was given to him (Latin begins) to have his good counsel and aid to the aforesaid prior and his monastery (impenso & impendendo) (Latin ends), and the defendant had shown outside that the plaintiff was a physician and still was, and it should be understood that it was granted for that, and the plaintiff did not allege that he was learned (sachant) in any other science, for which it should be granted. And although he now said that it was granted for another cause, as he had surmised before, still this was not a plea if he did not say further, that is, and not for such cause as he had supposed, so that etc. (Latin begins) And it was adjourned. See the rest afterwards Michaelmas term at this sign, 19 (Latin ends). |
|
