Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/263

and respondents further insisted, that Christopher Stokes the father could only claim to be cestuique trust of the goods after his wife's death, as her administrator, which imported no more than a right to a chose in action, which could not be disposed of by his will; and that a husband was intitled to a wife's estate no otherwise than as before the statute of distributions. (Wm. Cowper.)

Die Jovis, 26 Martii, 1702. After hearing council upon this petition and appeal, praying that so much of the decree as related to the sale of the parsonage of Whitchurch, as also the houshold goods (other than the plate) may be reversed,' it was adjudged by the Lords, that the decree complained of should be reversed, ss to so much thereof as decreed Christopher Stokes the younger to account for the rents and profits of the rectory of Whitchurch in question, since the death of Mary Ayliffe, and to assign the said rectory and premisses to the respondents; and as to all other matters the decree was affirmed. Lords Journ. vol. xvi. p. 83.

The appellant shewed, that he was lord of the manor, and hundred of Lyston, in Devon, and claimed the goods of all felons within the same; and that, 2d May, 1693, Wyke Parker, respondent's brother, had murdered one John Thomas, and was indicted, tried, and convicted; and at the time of the felony, committal, and conviction, was possessed of a large personal estate, and particularly of two bonds or bills, wherein respondent stood bound to pay him 7940l. principal money; and that those bonds were within the appellant's manor and hundred of Lyston at the time of the felony committed, and forfeited by the conviction; and appellant stated the single question to be, Whether this forfeited estate of the felon belonged to appellant, as Lord of the manor and hundred, or to respondent, who claimed it under a grant from the crown, made (pendente lite) but could not produce a single instance from the reign of King John, that the King had seized, or had the goods of any felon within this manor or hundred; but that it appeared on the contrary, that appellant and his ancestors, had all along, during all that time, quietly, and without interruption, held and enjoyed all felons goods within the same; and tho' respondent should object that felons goods were no where granted to appellant, or his ancestors, in express words, and that they could not otherwise pass from the crown; and though in the Earl of Westmoreland's grant of the manor and hundred to appellant's ancestors, or in Queen Elizabeth's grant of confirmation, in the 43d year of her reign, felons goods were not granted by express name; yet appellant insisted that it was a full answer to those objections, that the manor and hundred were granted by Queen Elizabeth to appellant's ancestors, with the same rights, jurisdictions, privileges, pre-eminences, and immunities, and all franchises, liberties, customs, profits, modities, emoluments, and hereditaments whatsoever, and in as full, free, and intire a manner and form as Hervey, then late Earl of Westmoreland, or any other before that time ever had, and enjoyed the manor under [198] any charter, gift, concession, or confirmation of the Queen or her predecessors; or by reason, or under colour of any lawful prescription, use, or custom before that time had or used, and in as free, full, and ample manner as the Queen or her predecesors before that time had, or enjoyed the same; and in as full and ample manner as the said manor and hundred came into, and then were in the Queen's hands: And appellant shewed that, pursuant to and under such grant of confirmation by the Queen, he and his ancestors had quietly, and without interruption, enjoyed the goods of all felons within the manor and hundred to this time; and appellant alleged that he could make out by ancient grants, inquisitions, court-rolls, and other sufficient matters of record, that the Earl of Westmoreland, and divers other Lords of this manor and hundred, had from the time of King John, down to the time of Queen Elizabeth's grant of confirmation, without a single instance to the contrary, enjoyed the goods of all