sister of the purchaser's grandmother, viz. the mother of the purchaser's father, shall be preferred before the brother or sister of the purchaser's great-grandmother, viz. the mother of the purchaser's father's father, because they are equally worthy in blood, (for such heirs come from the blood of the female sex, from which the purchaser's father issued) and where they are all equally worthy, the next of blood shall always be preferred as heir. (c) But on the other hand, if the purchaser dies without issue, and the brother of the purchaser's grandmother on the part of the father, that is to say, the brother of the mother of the purchaser's father, claims the land as heir to the purchaser, and the brother or sister of the purchaser's great-grandfather, that is to say, the brother or sister of the father of the purchaser's father's father, also claims the land as heir to the purchaser, there the brother or sister of the purchaser's greatgrandfather shall be preferred as heir before the other, and yet the other is nearer in blood, but he is less worthy in blood. For although he is of the blood on the part of the purchaser's father, yet that blood is accrued by a female, but the blood of the brother or sister of the purchaser's great-grandfather is accrued by male blood throughout, for such brother or sister was son or daughter to the purchaser's great-great-grandfather, and therefore an heir of them shall exceed the heir of the other in dignity of blood. So here in the principal case the heir on the part of the mother of Walter Hadden the father of Clere Hadden the purchaser, whose blood is conveyed to the purchaser by a male, viz. by his father, is to be preferred before the heir of the purchaser's mother, although he is nearer in blood, for as he is nearer in blood to Clere Hadden, so he is less worthy in blood, because his blood accrues immediately by a female only, and therefore the plaintiff here shall not be heir to Clere Hadden. And of this opinion was the whole Court. Wherefore the last day of Easter term, 15 Elizabeth, the Court gave judgment against the plaintiff, which judgment was as follows.

The rest of the record. Judgment.-At which day here came as well the aforesaid Edward Clere as the aforesaid Henry and Anne by their attornies aforesaid. And thereupon the premisses being seen, and by the justices here more fully understood, it seems to the same justices here that the plea of the aforesaid Henry and Anne above in bar pleaded, and the matter in the same plea contained, is lawful and sufficient in law to preclude the aforesaid Edward Clere from having his action aforesaid against the aforesaid Henry and Anne. Therefore it is considered that the aforesaid Edward Clere take nothing by his writ aforesaid, but be in mercy for his false claim therein: and that the aforesaid Henry and Anne go thereof without day, &c.

Nota bene by the reporter.-[451] Note, in the case before put, where the purchaser in fee dies without issue, and the brother of the grandmother on the part of the father claims the land as heir, and the brother of the great grandmother, on the part of the father, also claims the land as heir, many were of opinion that, because there was no nearer heir of the male line, the brother of the grandmother should not be preferred (as Justice Manwood had said) but that blood of the former was conveyed to the purchaser by a male, which the blood of the latter was not and though here the case put by Manwood so far differs in terminis from the principal case, that the blood of the one competitor and of the other, viz. of the grandmother's and the great-grandmother's brother, is conveyed to the purchaser by males, more or less, yet in fact the true decision of both cases stands pretty much upon the same legal reason, viz. the preference of the male blood, and therefore it seems more regular, and agreeable to the great principal in the Law of Descents, to decide in favour of the brother of the great-grandmother here, in whom there is more male blood than there is in the brother of the grandmother. And by such construction the uniformity of the course of descents will be preserved, and the authority of the judgment in the principal case unimpeached. So that it does not seem to hold universally true, that proximity of blood is the pole-star by which we are to direct the succession in cases where all the claimants are equally worthy in blood. Law of Inheritance 30, 38, 61, 62, 66. Blackstone of Descents 64, 65, where this doctrine is clearly and ingeniously discussed, and most weighty reasons given against the position here laid down by Manwood.

See

(c) S. P. Hale's Hist. Com. Law. 243, 244. the 3d rule there. See ante 445, the 1 point there agreed, and the note in the margin at (*).

A FIGURE OR TREE OF CONSANGUINITY,

As it is laid down by BRACTON.

See this tree deline-
ated in Hale's Hist.
Com. Law, 248. And

see the names of
the several branches
hereof in English.
ibid. 234.

the brother of the great grandmother should be adjudged heir, for his blood is derived to the purchaser by two males, viz. by his father and grandfather, whereas the blood of the brother of the grandmother is derived to the purchaser but by one male, and the grandfather was not of the blood of the brother of the grandmother, but he was of the blood of the brother of the great grandmother, and therefore such blood is more worthy. And upon this I put the question again to Manwood, in the presence of Harper, another of the Justices of the Common Bench, both of whom held clearly that the brother of the grandmother should be heir to the purchaser, and not the brother of the great grandmother, because the former is nearer in blood to the purchaser on the part of his father, which proximity holds place on the part of females conjoined by marriage to males, where such blood is once derived by a male to the first purchaser. And at another day I put the same question to Mounson, puisne Justice of the same Bench, and he was of the same opinion with the other justices, for the same cause. And at another time, afterwards, I put the same question to the Lord Dyer, who was of the same opinion also. So that all the Justices of the Common Bench unanimously agreed in the said case, that the brother of the purchaser's grandmother, on the part of the father, should be preferred before the brother of the purchaser's great grandmother, on the part of the father.

And note that Bracton and Britton also make mention that they had drawn out in their books a tree of parentage, by which it would plainly appear how the degrees of consanguinity are to be accounted. For Bracton says, * Et qualiter gradus cognationis computentur, et quo gradu, et quis distat ab alio in linea descendente vel ascendente, in figura superiùs in arbore ante principium libri pictâ manifestiùs quasi ad oculum apparebit, which figure or tree is not printed in either of their books, and therefore I have here drawn it out in the line direct descending and ascending, according to the notion of Bracton, (as far as I was able to collect from his book), which is agreeable with the civil law.

[452] A Report of a Judgment given by the Barons of the Exchequer, in Trinity Term, in the 15th Year of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, upon a Petition made to the Court of Exchequer by SIR THOMAS WROTH, Knight, to be paid the Arrears of an Annuity of £20 per Ann. granted to him for his Life by King Henry 8. by Patent, bearing Date the 13th Day of October, in the 38th Year of his Reign, for the Exercise of the Office of Usher of the Privy-Chamber to Prince Edward his Son, to which Office the King had appointed him, and the Petition was for the Payment of all the Arrears due to him since the Date of the Patent. And the Record was entered in the Remembrances of the Exchequer, amongst the Records of Easter Term, 14 Elizabeth, Roll on the Side of the Treasurer's Remembrancer.

And was as follows:

[See Thomas v. R. 1874, 4 R. 10 Q. B. 35.]

England.

Be it remembered, that Thomas Wroth, Knight, came here before the Barons of this Exchequer, the 14th day of May, in this term, in his own proper person, and exhibited to the Court here certain letters-patent of Lord Henry the Eighth, late King of England, bearing date at Westminster, the 13th day of October, in the 38th year of the reign of the same late King, made to the same Thomas Wroth, by the name of Thomas Wroth, Esq. gentleman-usher of the Privy-Chamber, to Edward then Prince, the most dear and well-beloved son of the same late King Henry the Eighth, for the giving and granting an annuity or annual rent of £20 sterling, for the exercise of the same office and place, to have and annually to perceive to the aforesaid Thomas Wroth, from the Feast of the Annunciation of the blessed Mary then last past, before the making of the said letters-patent, during the natural life of the said Thomas, by the hands of the Treasurer of the Court of the aforesaid late King Henry the Eighth, of Augmentations of the Revenues of the Crown of the same late King for the time being, out of such Treasury of the said late King of the same revenues as should remain in the hands of the same treasurer, at two terms of the year, viz. at the Feasts of St.

* Bract. 68. b.

Michael the Archangel, and of the Annunciation of the blessed Virgin Mary, by equal portions, and also for the payment of so much money, by the hands of the treasurer aforesaid, out of the Treasury aforesaid, as the aforesaid annuity or annual rent of £20 should amount unto from the Feast of the Annunciation of the blessed Mary, in the 36th year of the said late King, unto the making of the said letters-patent. And the same Thomas Wroth, Knight, prays that the same letters-patent of record here may be enrolled, which said letters-patent the Barons here received, and commanded them to be read, and in the order of the words in the same letters-patent contained to be enrolled. And the tenor of the same letters-patent follows in these words: "Henry the Eighth, by the grace of God King of England, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, and of the Church of England, and also of Ireland, in earth the supreme head. To all people to whom these presents shall come, be seen, read, or heard, greeting. Know ye, that where we have appointed our trusty and well-beloved Thomas Wroth, Esq. to be gentleman usher of the Privy Chamber to our most dear and well-beloved son Edward the Prince, we have given and granted, and by these presents do give and grant to the same Thomas, for the exercise of the same office and room, one annuity or annual rent of £20 sterling, to be had and yearly perceived to the said Thomas Wroth from the Feast of the Annunciation of our blessed Lady the Virgin last past, during his natural life, by the hands of the Treasurer of our Court, of the Augmentations of the Revenues of our Crown for the time being, of such our Treasury of the same revenues as shall remain in the hands of the same treasurer, at two times in the year, that is to say, at the Feasts of St. Michael the Archangel, and the Annunciation of our blessed Lady the Virgin, by even portions. And for that the said Thomas Wroth hath served our said most dear and well-beloved son the prince from the Feast of the Annunciation of our blessed Lady the Virgin, in the 36th year of our reign hitherto, and hath as yet received no allowance for the same, we let you wit that we have given and granted, and by these presents do give and grant to him, for his attendance by all that time, as much money as the same annuity of £20 from the said Feast of the Annunciation of our blessed Lady in the said 36th year of our reign hitherto doth amount unto, to be paid to him by the hands of our said Treasurer of our said Court of the Augmentations, of such our Treasury of the same revenues as remaineth in his hands accordingly. And these our letters-patent shall be to our said treasurer, and all others to whom in case it shall appertain, sufficient warrant and discharge in that behalf, although express mention be not made in these presents of the true yearly value, or of the certainty of the premisses, or of any other gifts or grants by us to the said Thomas Wroth heretofore [453] made, or any statute, act, ordinance, provision, or restraint to the contrary thereof heretofore had, made, set forth, ordained, or provided, or any other thing, cause, or matter whatsoever to the contrary thereof notwithstanding, In witness whereof we have caused these our letters to be made patent, and sealed with the Great Seal of our said Court of the Augmentations. Given at Westminster, the 13th day of October, in the 38th year of our reign."

Which said letters-patent being read, the aforesaid Thomas Wroth, Knight, says, that afterwards the aforesaid late King Henry the Eighth, the 28th day of January, in the 38th year of his reign, died. And that he the same Thomas Wroth, after the aforesaid making of the said letters-patent to him in form aforesaid made, the office and place aforesaid to the aforesaid Edward the Sixth, King of England, during the life of the said King Edward the Sixth, exercised. And that afterwards, he the same Thomas Wroth the office and place aforesaid so exercising, the aforesaid King Edward the Sixth, the 7th day of July, in the 7th year of his reign, died. And the aforesaid Thomas Wroth, Knight, further says, that afterwards, by a certain Act made in the second and last session of a Parliament, holden by prorogation, at Westminster, the 24th day of October, in the 1st year of the reign of the late Queen Mary, and there continued and held until the dissolution of the same, happening the 6th day of December then next following, touching the alteration, change, union, transposition, dissolution, or determination of all or any Court, commonly called the Court of Augmentations of the Revenues of the Crown, the Court of First-Fruits and Tenths, the Court of the King's Wards, the Court of General Supervisors of the King's Lands, and the Court of the Duchy of Lancaster, it was published, provided, and enacted by

the authority of the same Parliament, amongst other things, that that Act, or any thing in the same Act contained, should not in anywise extend, or be construed to take away, extinguish, or determine, from any person or persons, their heirs, successors, or assigns, or from any of them, any fees, annuities, pensions, stipends, or annual payments of any sums of money, which they or any of them of right might or ought lawfully to have by any letters-patent or any sufficient writing, under the seal of the said late Court of Augmentations of the Revenues of the King's Crown, before the 7th day of July then last past, before the making of the Act aforesaid made, but that all and singular person and persons, their heirs, successors, executors, and assigns, and every of them, who at the said time of making the Act aforesaid of right had, or ought to have, or thence afterwards should have, any fee, annuity, stipend, pension, or annual payment of any sum or sums of money under the said seal of the said late Court of Augmentations, or in the same Court, being lawfully allowed and paid, the same should and might perceive, accept and receive, according to the tenor of the same grant, and annually thereof should be paid out of the Treasury of the aforesaid late Queen, her heirs and successors, at the days and times in such letters-patent or other writing contained, in any such Court or Courts to which the same Court, wherein the aforesaid annuities or annual sums of money were paid, should be so united and annexed, or in any such Court or Courts, which by the authority of the aforesaid Parliament should be newly erected and made in the place of any of the aforesaid Courts, so being dissolved, as long as the same Court should remain and have any being, and afterwards, in such Court or Courts as it should please the Queen newly to erect, by the hands of such officer of the same Court, and for default thereof, in any of the Queen's Courts in which there should be sufficient revenue to answer the same, out of the Treasury of the Queen there, by the hands of the officer of the same Court, in such manner and form as the same person and persons, their heirs, executors, and assigns, or any of them, could or might have done or have been paid in any other place or Court, if the aforesaid Act of Parliament had never been made nor enacted; any thing in the same Act contained, or any other thing from thence afterwards to be done by colour or authority of the same Act, to the contrary thereof notwithstanding, as by the aforesaid Act of Parliament, amongst other things, more fully appears. And the aforesaid Thomas Wroth further says, that he of the aforesaid annuity or annual rent of £20, from the aforesaid Feast of the Annunciation of the blessed Mary the Virgin in the aforesaid 36th year of the reign of the aforesaid late King Henry the Eighth, unto the Feast of the Annunciation of the blessed Mary the Virgin last past in the 14th year of the reign of the aforesaid lady the Queen now, and for the same feast, is unpaid. And he prays that the aforesaid letters-patent of the aforesaid late King Henry the Eighth, according to the tenor and effect of the Act of Parliament aforesaid, and of the aforesaid provision of the same Act above recited, by the Court here may be allowed. And that all and singular sums of money of the aforesaid annuity or annual rent of £20, from the aforesaid Feast of the Annunciation of the blessed Mary the Virgin in the aforesaid 36th year of the reign of the aforesaid late King Henry the Eighth, unto the aforesaid Feast of the Annunciation of the blessed Mary the Virgin last past in the aforesaid 14th year of the reign of the aforesaid lady the Queen now, and for the same Feast of the Annunciation of the blessed Mary in the same 14th year, being in arrear and unpaid, to him the same Thomas Wroth may be paid; and also that the aforesaid annuity or annual rent of £20, from the aforesaid Feast of the Annunciation of the blessed [454] Mary in the aforesaid 14th year of the said lady the Queen now, to him the same Thomas Wroth, Knight, at the aforesaid feasts in the aforesaid letters-patent above specified, during the life of him the said Thomas annually may be paid.

The case.

King Henry 8. grants to one an annuity for the exercise of the office of usher of the Privy Chamber to Prince Edward his son, in this case if the service is not done, the annuity shall cease as well as it should if the service was to be done to King Henry 8. himself, and though by the death of King Henry 8. and the prince's accession to the Crown, the patentee was discharged by law from doing the service any longer to Edward when King, and by the death of King Edward he was