Page:The English Reports v77 1907.pdf/389

the Court of the lord the King [2 a] here of giving their judgment of and upon the premises is not yet advised, day thereof is given to the parties aforesaid before the lord the King at Westminster, until Monday next after the morrow of the Ascension of our Lord, to hear their judgment; because the Court of the lord the King here are not yet, &c. And the assize aforesaid remains further to be taken, until the same Monday there, &c.; and the sheriff, as before, to distrain the recognitors of the assize aforesaid, and in the interim to cause a view, &c. At which day, before the lord the King at Westminster, come as well the aforesaid Robert Calvin by his guardians aforesaid, as the aforesaid Richard Smith and Nicholas Smith, by their attorney aforesaid, &c.; and because the Court of the lord the King here, &c.

The question of this case as to matter in law was, whether Robert Calvin the plaintiff (being born in Scotland since the Crown of England descended to His Majesty) be an alien born, and consequently disabled to bring any real or personal action^[1] for any lands within the realm of England. After this case had been argued in the Court of King's Bench, at the Bar, by the counsel learned of either party, the Judges of that Court, upon conference and consideration of the weight and importance thereof, adjourned the same (according to the ancient and ordinary course and order of the law) into the Exchequer Chamber,^[2] to be argued openly there; first by the counsel learned of either party, and then by all the Judges of England; where afterwards the case was argued by Bacon, Solicitor-General, on the part of the plaintiff, and by Laur. Hide for the defendant; and afterward by Hobart, Attorney-General, for the plaintiff, and by Serjeant Hutton for the defendant; and, in Easter term last, the case was argued by Heron, puisne Baron of the Exchequer, and Foster, puisne Judge of the Court of Common Pleas; and, on the second day appointed for this case, by Crook, puisne Judge of the King's Bench, and Altham, Baron of the Exchequer; the third day by Snigge, Baron of the Exchequer, and Williams, one of the Judges of the King's Bench; the fourth day by Daniel, one of the Judges of the Court of Common Pleas, and by Yelverton, one of the Judges of the King's Bench: and, in Trinity term following, by Warburton, one of the Judges of the Common Pleas, and Fenner, one of the Judges of the King's Bench; and after by Walmesley, one of the Judges of the Common Pleas, and Tanfeld, Chief Baron; and, at two several days in the same term, Coke, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, Fleming, Chief Justice of the King's Bench, and Sir Thomas Eggerton, Lord Ellesmere, Lord Chancellor of England, argued the case (the like plea in disability [2 b] of Robert Calvin's person being pleaded mutatis mutandis in the Chancery in a suit there for evidence concerning lands of inheritance: and, by the Lord Chancellor, adjourned also into the Exchequer-Chamber, to the end that one rule might over-rule both the said cases). And first (for that I intend to make as summary a report as I can) I will at the first set down such arguments and objections as were made and drawn out of this short record against the plaintiff by those that argued for the defendants. It was observed, that in this plea there were four nouns, quatuor nomina, which were called nomina operativa, because from them all the said arguments and objections on the part of the defendants were drawn; that is to say—1. Ligeantia (which is twice repeated in the plea; for it is said, infra ligeantiam domini Regis regni sui Scot', et extra ligeantium domini Regis regni sui Angl'). 2. Regnum (which also appeareth to be twice mentioned, viz. regnum Angl', and regnum Scot'). 3. Leges (which are twice alleged, viz. leges Angl', and leges Scot', two several and dis-