This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1846 Excerpt: ...acute of lawyers, Lord Coke, stands thus: that the tithes, under the word "tenths," passed under the word " hereditaments," that they passed by a grant in gross, that the prescription in discharge of the Church and the prescription of the lord's title were distinct, and that the latter, whether good or bad, did not affect the validity of the former. The case of Pigot v. Heron is corroborated by those of Dykes v. Thompson, Wright v. Wright, and Phillips v. Prytherick. Next, as to the fine. It is submitted, that the fine and non-claim, with proclamations, is a good bar, not to the Church, but to the plaintiff. It will not bar the next incumbent, but it will bar the plaintiff; and it is no answer to that to say, that the plaintiff, who was inducted in the year 1819, did not find out his real title until lately, but acted under a misapprehension of his rights. If the defendant received them on an assertion of title in himself--a title on which the plaintiff knew that his predecessor had been acting, and that the defendant had been acting--the effect of that would be to quiet the defendant in his possession, and the fine would be a good bar, if the subject were such as a fine could be applied to. Because, in truth, the object of a fine is to establish doubtful titles and to quiet possession. But, it is said that tithes are things of which a layman could not be possessed, and of which a fine could not possibly be levied. Now, I contend that the power which lay men had before the 18th Edw. 3, to sue for tithes in the temporal Courts, is restored by the 32 Hen. 8, c. 7. Selden, c. 14, s. 5; F. N. B. 38. That statute is not confined to tithes which belonged to the suppressed monasteries, but the effect of it is to revive the old state of the comm...