Fitzherbert Briefe 104
Brooke Brief 20 (not 22), Compris 2, Scire facias 7, Court Baron 15, Variance 84 (not in margin, not fol. 1) |
13 or 14 Edw. 3
Trin. 20 (Edw. 3 or Hen. 6) in a Scire facias |
|
| En un Scire facias per T.G. sur un fine a aver execution d' un manor, & d' un Hundred, des queux le fine fuit |
7 |
Plaintiff brought Scire facias to have execution of a fine for a manor of for a hundred.
Tenant (defendant) pleaded that the hundred was and is part of the manor, so plaintiff demanded a thing twice.
The writ was awarded good |
yet the writ was awarded good and the reason (cause) was because it could not vary from the fine, that if his entry was tolled he would be without remedy if there had not been this writ by this means (voie)
and it is not the same for a recovery: because there afterwards he could take a new suit if he mistook at first, but in this case the party cannot have another fine, if the other would not levy the first fine, and so he would be without remedy
and so the writ was awarded good
the same thing 13 or 14 Edw. 3, |
|
|
Fitzherbert Briefe 104 also dated this Mich. 26 Hen. 6
Brooke Variance 84, fol. 307r, identified manor and hundred of D. and attributed a speech to Sjt Pole: judgment of the writ, because the hundred is part (parcel) of the manor, and because the fine was as above, and he could not vary from the fine, the writ was awarded good, and thus see it was admitted that a hundred could be part of a manor, yet it is seen that it (the hundred) could be appurtenant to a manor but not part (parcel) |
|
Scire Facias
Fine
Execution
Manor
Hundred
Leving
Parcel
Judgment
Demand
Twice
Demand Twice
Double Demand
Award
Good Writ
Cause
Variance
Entry
Tolling
Remedy
Without Remedy
Way (voie)
Recovery
Suit
New Suit
Mistake
Case
Party |
|
