is such a Record mentioned to have been seen by Fenner, where the Lord upon Petition to him had for certain Errors in the Proceedings reversed such Judgment given in his own Court, 1 Roll's Abridg. 600. Kitchin 80. 1 Roll's Abridg. 539. Lanc. 98. Edward's Case, Hill. 8 Jac. 1. by all which, it appears, that this is an allowed and the only Remedy. [68] Then it was argued, That in all Cases where any Party having a Right to any Freehold Estate is barred by Judgment, Recovery, or Fine, such Party of common Right may have a Writ of Error, if the same be in a Court of Record: And a Writ of false Judgment, if in a Court-Baron or County-Court, and reverse such Judgment, Recovery or Fine for Error or Defect. And there can be no Reason assigned why a Copyholder (especially considering the great Quantity of Land of that Tenure in England) should be without Remedy, when a false Judgment is given. And the rather, for that in Real Actions (as this was) the Proceedings in the Lord's Courts are according to those in Westminster-hall. And now tho' a Common Recovery be a Common Assurance, yet it was never pretended that a Writ of Error to reverse it was refused upon that Pretence. And if the Lord of a Manor deny to do his Duty, the Chancery hath such a Superior Jurisdiction as to enjoin him thereto. 'Tis the Business of Equity to see that Right be done to all Suitors in Copyhold Courts, Fitz. Abridg. Subpoena, 21. 2 Cro. 368. 2 Bulst. 336. 1 Roll's Abr. 373. If an erroneous Judgment be given in such Court of a common Person, in an Action in the Nature of a Formedon, a Bill may be in Chancery in Nature of a false Judgment to reverse it. And Lanc. 38. Tanfield says that he was of Counsel in the Case of Patteshall, and that it was so decreed: Which is much more than what is here contended for. And tho' Common Recoveries are favoured, and have been supported by several Acts of Parliament; yet no Parliament ever thought fit to deprive the Parties bound by such Recoveries of the Benefit of a Writ of Error.
Argument for Respondent. Decree of Dismission confirmed.—On the other Side 'twas urged in Defence of the Dismission, That the Person who suffered this Recovery had a Power over the Estate. That she might both by Law and Conscience, upon a Recovery, dispose of it, as she should think fit. That she hath suffered a Recovery. And that it was suffered according to the Custom of the Manor, tho' not according to the Form of those suffered in Westminster-hall. That the Suffering of Recoveries in any Court, and the Methods of proceeding in them, are rather notional than real Things: And in the Common Law Courts they are taken Notice of, not as adversary Suits, but as Common Assurances. So that even there, few Mistakes are deemed so great, but what are remedied by the Statute of Jeofails, or will be amended by the Assistance of the Court. And if it be so in the Courts at Westminster, where the Proceedings are more solemn, and the Judges are Persons of Learning and Sagacity, how much rather ought this to stand, which was suffered in 1652. during the Times of Disorder, and most Proceedings informal and in the English Tongue, in such a mean Court where are few Precedents to guide them; where the Parties themselves are not impowered to draw up their own Proceedings as here above; but the whole is left to the Steward, who is a Stranger to the Person concerned: And there-[69]-fore 'tis hard and unreasonable, that Mens Purchases. should be prejudiced by the Ignorance, Unskilfulness, or Dishonesty of a Steward or his Clerks. That there is scarce one Customary Recovery in England, which is exactly agreeable to the Rules of the Common Law. That the Questioning of this may in Consequence endanger Multitudes of Titles which have been honestly Purchased: Especially since there can be no Aid from the Statutes of Jeofailes; for they do not extend to Courts Baron. 'Twas further urged, That there was no Precedent to enforce Lords of Manors to do as this Bill desired. That the Lords of Manors are the ultimate Judges of the Regularity or Errors in such Proceedings. That there's no Equity in the Prayer of this Plaintiff. That if the Lord had received such Petition, and were about to proceed to the Reversal of such Recovery, Equity ought then to interpose and quiet the Possession under those Recoveries. That Chancery ought rather to supply a Defect in a common Conveyance (if any shall happen) and decree the Execution of what each Party meant and intended by it, much rather, than to assist the Annulling of a solemn Agreement, executed according to Usage, tho' not strictly conformable to the Rules of Law. For which
47
