[an error occurred while processing this directive]

Court of Requests (PRO REQ2/271/76 Jn Stockbridge et al v Wm Adhams and Simon Ive)

13.6.36Eliz1 (Thursday 13 June 1594)

document 19700170

demurrer of Simon Ive gentleman Wm Adhams and Joshua Damyon defendants of the bill of complaint of Jn Stockbridge Jonas Hill and Jn Goody complainants say that it is alleged by the complainants and it does appear on their own showing that if there were any such commission awarded by the earl of Oxford awarded in the bill mentioned to Wm Lewen doctor of law Roger Harlakenden and Wm Tiffin sufficiently to authorize them to displace and place from time to time the schoolmasters for the teaching of the school in the bill and to demise and let out by their discretion the lands and tenements in the bill appointed for the maintenance of the school for years or lives and to improve the rents thereof and to employ the rents and revenues for the maintenance of the school and to do other the acts concerning the school as in the bill alleged then is there no just cause of complaint nor the matters mentioned in the bill are fit to be examined in the court first for that it does not appear that the commission was revocable countermandable at the will and pleasure of the earl of Oxford of any schoolmaster or schoolmasters of the school by the said commission by colour of the commission there does not appear that they the commissioners had power to grant any patent to any person to be schoolmaster there during his life but that he was displaceable at all times at their discretion which authority notwithstanding that any person were placed by them in the office of schoolmaster yet when the commission was countermanded their authority was determined and the earl thereby had power to displace and place any schoolmaster there at his pleasure and that the commission was countermanded by the earl as appeareth manifestly by their own showing that they do allege that the earl has granted a patent to Wm Adhams one of the defendants to exercise the office of schoolmaster during his life which is a superseded revocation of the supposed authority that the persons in the bill of complaint claimed and executed in placing the schoolmaster and as touching the leases said to be made by the commissioners by colour of the commission the defendant says that if the commissioners according to the rule of their commission did make any such lease or leases as are mentioned in the bill then are they good and any lease in law against the earl and his assigns so as no lease or leases supposed to be made afterwards by the earl to the defendant Simon Ive though the commission were countermanded could impeach or encumber the former leases that if they were or should be afterwards ejected or molested by any such leases made by the earl yet has the same former leases good remedy for any trespass or ejectment by the ordinary course of common law and not in this honourable court and if the supposed leases made by colour of the commission were not made by the due rule of the commission or if the commissioners had not sufficient authority by virtue of the commission to make any such lease or leases then be not the imperfections of the same supposed lease or leases remediable in this honourable court nor else there in regard the same were done directly against the common law of the realm and without any sufficient lawful warrant and ought not to bind or conclude the earl or his assigns and therefore touching Jn Stockbridge one of the complainants forasmuch by his own showing he was lawfully displaced by the earl and Wm Adhams lawfully placed by the earl in office of schoolmaster and so Jn Stockbridge is concluded with all manner of intermeddling with the premises and also for there is no sufficient matter touching the displacing of Jn Stockbridge laid to the charge of the defendants examinable in this court therefore and for other causes they do demur upon bill and do demand of this court whether they shall be compelled to make any further answer thereto and pray to be dismissed