be so, it shall be intended to be so; for he is not bound to aver it to be appendant; for upon Oyer every Thing shall be intended to make a Grant good, unless the contrary doth appear. 2 Cro. 679. He need not plead, that it was appendant at the Time of the Grant to the Earl; Concessit is enough: And that tho' in general Words. 35 H. 8. Bro. Pleading, 143. Kelway 43. 1 Roll's Abridg. 405.
What Misrecital or Mistake shall avoid a Grant of the King, or not.—Then suppose it did appear, that this Advowson was not appendant in the 13th Eliz. yet it doth pass: There is but one supposed Falsity, and that is Dr. Wilson's Presentation by Lapse, which is admitted to be pleno jure; First, The Grant is full, express, and large enough, Know ye therefore, &c. All our Right, &c. as full Words as can be used, without any Restriction whatsoever. And as to the Suggestions, there's not any Mistake in them: 'Tis not suggested that 'twas ever appendant; not suggested that it did pass by those Letters Patent; nor that it came to Th. but only that he claimed it; and the Word Claim doth not always import a lawful Claim; [218] for a Man is amerciable pro falso clamore. Here's as much Caution and Care in the penning of these Letters Patent as was possible: Nothing but what is exact.
Suppose a Man doth claim an Advowson by a void Grant, and he brings a Writ, after the King hath presented; and the King says, Let my Clerk have it quietly for his Life, and you shall have a Grant from me, and shall be secure of all my Right for the future. 'Tis not said, that 'twas Sir William's Presentation: But he sued a Writ so describing it.
'Tis admitted by Car. 1. that this Patent might be void, yet it was his Intention that Th. should have it for the future: This Intent is as plain as Words can make it; that he and his Heirs should for ever enjoy it, notwithstanding any Defect in the Patent of Q. Eliz. 'Tis not only to restore an old Title, and make Reparation for the Wrong done by the King's Presentation, but in Case the old Title were Defective, to make and give to him a good one: If it appears that the King's Intention were for passing it, it shall pass, notwithstanding a Mis-recital.
Suppose the Grant had been recited at Large, and no more had been said but the King confirms it, would not that have been good? Then was cited the Earl of Cumberland's Case, 8 Rep. 166. the Word therefore is in that Case too; yet because full Words are superadded, it shall not be qualified by the Deed recited, and that is a much stronger Case than this: Hill. 22 & 23 Car. 2. Sir Robert Atkins versus Holton, 'tis in Ventris. And the Pleading in Vidian's Ent' agreed that King John's Patent was void, and King Edw. must have been deceived in his Grant, and his Intention might be there said to be only to make a Restitution. And a false Inquisition turns a Man as much out of Possession of a Franchise, as the King's Presentation doth out of a Patronage; but held there, that tho' King John's Grant was void, yet that of Edw. was good: Because the Words were full and general, and the King shewed his Intent that the Party should have the Thing. But the other Side have objected, That this is a qualified Intention according to the Tenor of the first Patent. To which it was answer'd, That the King did suppose that Patent to be Defective, and his true Intent was, that Th. should have the Advowson. Besides, tho' it were in Gross, yet it might have the Reputation of being Appendant, and it was the King's Meaning to pass it, 6 Rep. 63. a small Matter will make a Reputation of an Appendancy. If a Man mortgages his Manor, excepting the Advowson thereto belonging, 'tis become in Gross; but when the Condition is performed, and the Deed avoided, 'tis Appendant again: Therefore it might be thought Appendant; it might be some Accident, which did. sever it from the Manor; yet if it had the Reputation of being so, it might be within the King's Intent to pass it, tho' it did not pass by the first: 'Twas intended that some Advowson should pass, and here are express Words to pass this. In Coke's Entries... Quare Impedit, it appears that this Advowson of Bedall was Appendant.
It further appears by History, That this Simon Digby had com-[219]-mitted Treason, before the Church was void; and before Attainder the Queen presented; that made it in Gross: Then the Attainder makes it appendant again. Then tho' it might be possible that the Queen was seized in Gross, yet if it were so, upon Digby's Attainder she was seized of it as Appendant: Now, if any Thing might make it Appendant, 'twill be hard to construe it void, where, for any Thing
