| 1367.013 |
1367 |
Common Pleas |
Quare impedit |
Quare impedit
Presentation al Esglise
Prerogativa regis ca. 15
le Roy ad nul favour in restitution
Certificat d'Evesque
Judicium |
| Hil. (not Mich.) |
41 |
Edw. 3 |
13 |
5b-6a |
Cavendish, John de Sjt Candish (for D)
Belknap, Robert Sjt (for P king)
Fyncheden, William de JCP Finchden
Belknap, Robert Sjt
Fyncheden, William de JCP Finchden
Belknap, Robert Sjt
Thorp, Robert de CJCP Thorpe
Chelre, Edmund de Sjt (for P king)
Moubray, John de JCP Mombray |
Rex |
|
|
|
|
L., J. of, Bishop of Salisbury, defendant's predecessor
Holy Father the Pope (nr'e Saint Pere le Pape) |
Salisbury (Sarum), church of Blessed Mary of |
|
Fitzherbert Quare impedit 129 (not 126)
Brooke Presentation al Esglise 3
Brooke Certificat devesque (not d'Evesque) 2
Statham Quare impedit 4 |
prior proceeding 1366.039 = Pasch. (not Hil.) 40 Edw. 3, pl. 7, fols. 17a-17b
Plowden Commentaries 252 |
Praerogative regis, ch. 15 |
| Le Roy port Quare impedit vers W. l'Evesque de Sarum del provendry appell' Minor pars altaris in Ecclesia |
45 |
|
Robert Wyvil was provided as Bishop of Salisbury on 16 Apr. 1330, the temporalities were restored by the king on 10 Jun. 1330, and he was consecrated on 15 Jul. 1330, and he was Bishop of Salisbury until 4 Sep. 1375. His predecessor was Roger Martival, who was Bishop of Salisbury from 11 Jun. 1315 to 14 Mar. 1330. |
| The king brought a Quare impedit against W., Bishop of Salisbury, of the prebend called (Latin begins) the smaller part of the altar in the church of Blessed Mary of Salisbury (Latin ends), and counted that one J. of L., predecessor of this bishop, was seised of the prebend and presented the same one who was now bishop, and J., his predecessor, died, by reason of which the temporalities came into the king's hands, and remained in his hand until this W., against whom this writ was brought, was created a bishop, by which creation the prebend became vacant, so it belonged to the king etc. The defendant said that after the death of his predecessor, the Holy Father the Pope reserved to himself the benefice of the bishopric and gave it to him, and then a month before he was consecrated, the king, reciting by his patent how the Pope had given the bishopric to him, granted the temporalities to him, and a long time afterwards he was consecrated, and he did not understand, since the king had granted him the temporalities a long time before the vacancy of the prebend, that he could assign wrong in his person. The king's counsel said, judgment, since the defendant had acknowledged that the Pope had presented him as bishop, by which presentment all of his other benefices were vacant, and at that time, the temporalities were in the king's hand, and thereby the defendant had acknowledged that it belonged to the king to present; therefore the king's counsel demanded judgment and prayed a writ to the bishop. Fyncheden JCP said that if one was elected a bishop, his benefices were not vacant until he was consecrated, and if the king granted his temporalities to him, and the benefices became vacant, afterwards by his creation the king would not have the presentment. The king's counsel said that the Justice said the truth, but it was not similar, because although he was elected, he had to be confirmed by the Pope, and it could be that the Pope would refuse him for incapacity (non ability) or otherwise, but when the Pope himself had given, he could not be refused afterwards. Fyncheden JCP said that although the Pope had given the benefice of the bishop, nevertheless it was at the will of the one to whom he had given this at all times until he was consecrated, whether he would accept it or not, but when he was consecrated, then he could not refuse this, so that it seemed that as long as he was in such condition (plite) that he could refuse the benefice, his other benefices would not be vacant. The king's counsel said that nevertheless, upon the matter shown, it seemed that the king would have a writ to the bishop, because the defendant himself had supposed that, at the time when the king granted the temporalities to him, he was not bishop, but as another strange person, and the patent did not show by express words that the king had granted fees and advowsons to him, and thereby the king was always in possession of the fees and advowsons at the time that the prebend became vacant, and although he granted the temporalities, still they remained with the king, so that etc. Thorp CJCP said that if the king granted certain lands or manors to a man, if he did not make express mention of fees and advowsons, they did not pass, but if the king surrendered (rende suis) to an infant, when he was of full age, or to a bishop or another parson, his lands or his temporalities, although mention was not made of fees and advowsons, all passed, and still his other benefices were not vacant. The king's counsel said that, because he was confirmed by the Pope, and his temporalities were delivered to him, he had everything that a bishop should have, and because he had his temporalities and his spiritualties, all his other benefices became vacant, and if he had died before he was consecrated, the king would have the temporalities of the vacancy by his death, and it belonged to a bishop to be consecrated, as it belonged to a parson to be presented. Moubray JCP said that he was not bishop before he was consecrated, and because the king had taken his title, because the prebend became vacant by the creation of the present bishop, and the defendant had said that the Pope had reserved to himself the benefices of the bishop and gave them to him, and the king by his patent reciting the gift of the Pope had granted his temporalities to him a long time before he was consecrated, and his other benefices were not vacant, because he was consecrated, therefore the Justice told the defendant to go away (alles a Dieu). |
|
