HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0924 and id is 1 raw text is: TRIN. 29 CAR. 1I. IN B. R.
himself to be knighted at his own charges, whereby his wife became a lady; yet the
defendant had not paid him. After verdict and judgment upon non assumpsit in Com.
Banc. it was now assigned for error in B. R. that it is not said the plaintiff procured
himself to be knighted at the request of the defendant: it might be he did it of his
own head, and the request here is part of the consideration, executory and traversable,
and by omitting it the plaintiff hath lost his traverse of the request ; and upon non
assumpsit he was not obliged here to prove a request upon evidence, as are the cases
in Hob. 88, 106, and for authority in point, 2 Leon. 53. 3 Leon. 91. Curia contra,
The request shall be intended here to be made at the.time of the promise; scil. that
he then requested him to be made a knight, and promised to give him 20001. and it
shall not be intended that he promised to give him the 20001. if he would procure
himself to be made a knight when he should afterwards request him, and so the
request is not executory, but executed at the time of the promise made: and they
gave rule to affirm the judgment; but at the earnest motion of Jones Attorney-
General, to be farther heard for the plaintiff in error, it was adjourned until next
term, when the judgment was affirmed by the whole Court. Vide 1 Cro. Poynter v.
Poynter, accordingly.
[199] ROBINSON against WOOLLEY.
Archbishop, as guardian of the spiritualties sede vacante Glocestriense, institutes and
sends his mandate to the archdeacon to induct, but induction is not made till after
bishop consecrated; it is void. S. C. 1 Vent. 309, 319. 2 Jon. 78. 3 Keb. 747,
773, 821.
Ejectment, and upon non culp. and a special verdict the case was; The Bishoprick
of Glocester being void, and the Archbishop of Canterbury gardianus spiritualium, a
church became void, and the patron presented to the archbishop, who admitted and
instituted the presentee, and granted a mandate to the archdeacon for his induction,
who according to usage appointed certain ministers to do it, who for three or four
months neglecting to induct him, a new Bishop of Glocester was made and con-
secrated in the mean time : afterward the induction was made by the ministers, and
whether this were a good induction or notl was the question ; which this term and
the next was argued by Weston and Holt jun. for the plaintiff, and by Saunders for
the defendant : for the plaintiff it was urged, that the suffragan authority is derived
out of the authority of the metropolitan, Hob. 185. 11 H. 7, 9, and therefore the
acts of the metropolitan concerning any thing which belongs to the diocesan are not
void, but voidable. 2. He that hath a power of instituting hath also the power of
inducting, Lyndew. 141, (the new edition). In this case the institution is by the
archbishop, and therefore so ought the induction; for authority well commenced
shall be perfected by the same person ; 2 Cro. 73, 83. 1 Cro. Smith vers. Executors of
Pandrell. And the institution here is the judicial act, the induction no more than a
ministerial act, thereupon. 3dly, Induction belongs to the archdeacon jure officii, and
the mandate from the archbishop for induction is not authoritative, but only directive
to certify what person he hath instituted, and when the induction is done, it is by
virtue of a power inherent in the office of archdeacon, and not by the mandate from
the bishop: 11 H. 4, 9 b. Plowd. Com. 529. Hob. 15. Afterwards towards the
end of Mich. term judgment was given by the whole Court that the induction was
void, for though it belongs to the office of archdeacon to induct, yet he does it only
by mandate and authority from the bishop; and they said the case is no more in
effect than if a man makes a letter of attorney to make livery, and dies, and the
attorney makes livery after his death.
[200] THE KING against MERCHANT-TAYLORS OF LONDON.
Custom of London to commit for not accepting the livery. S. C. 1 Vent. 327
2 Danv. 422. 3 Keb. 714, 764, 784, 799, 811. Vid. Sty. 78. Mar. 179.
1 Stra. 560. 5 Com. Dig. 197. 1 Ba. Abr. 681.
Upon a certiorari was returned a custom for the Company of Merchant-Taylors to
choose livery-men, and for refusing to accept of the office to commit the refusers ; and
2 LEV. 199.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0924&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)