Priest v.
Parrot,

2 Ves. 160.

53. A bill was brought for payment of 1007. and an annuity of 401., which was granted by the defendant to the plaintiff, who being a young woman, came to live in the family of the defendant, then a married man, as a companion to his sister. And afterwards occasioned a separation between him and his wife.

Lord Hardwicke said, the case was in some parts new, nor did he remember it had directly come before the Court. The consideration of the grant was plain; for though expressed to be for divers causes and considerations, it was plain, on the evidence, to what it was applied, nor was it disputed. It was plain also to him what this unhappy woman (who had been very criminal also) had submitted to, was from the seduction of the defendant: for her youth, when she came into the family, and good character before, were evidence thereof. And that certainly had been the principal ground of the determinations in that Court, where it had been considered as præmium pudicitiæ, when the young woman submitted to the suggestions of the man, and was guilty of no fault before. But he knew of no case where the Court had given countenance to these sort of bonds in case of a married man, she knowing it: that differed the case, because persons who submitted to a temptation of that sort, were without excuse: they knew absolutely they were doing a wrong which could not be healed, and which occasioned mischiefs to families. That differed it from the cases wherein the Court had gone some lengths, to make a provision for such unfortunate people. The bill was dismissed. 54. It has been stated, that where lands are once are void as to liable to a Crown debt, the lien continues, into whose hands soever they pass; even though conveyed Tit. 1. § 75. by the debtor to a bona fide purchaser for a valuable

All Deeds

Crown

Debts.

consideration. And therefore such conveyances are void as against the King, though good, as against all other persons.

55. Thus it is said in Roll's Ab. that if a man be- Tit. Prerog. comes debtor to the King, being seised of land in B. pl. 1. fee, and after aliens the land, yet it

may

be put

in

execution, though the alienation was before any action commenced. For it relates to the time when he became indebted to the King, and after.

56. Thomas Favell, a collector of the fifteenth and Favell's Case, tenth, being seised of certain lands in fee, die introDyer, 160 a. missionis de collectione, in extremity of illness, aliened 12 Rep. 3. his estate, and died without heir or executor. It was held that process should issue against the terretenants to answer and satisfy the King thereof.

Case,

57. Sir William Cavendish, who was treasurer of the Seintloo's chamber to King Herny VIII., Edward VI., and Queen Dyer, 224 b, Mary, being indebted to the Crown, purchased lands, Plowd. 321, which he afterwards aliened; and of part took an estate to himself and his wife, and part remained in the hands of others; and died without rendering an account. It was debated whether or no these lands could be seised into the hands of the Queen, and be retained by the course of the common law, till an account was made by Cavendish for he was not bound to the Crown in any recognizance or obligation, but the matter of the seisure rested entirely upon the common law.

All the Barons of the Exchequer agreed that the seisure was lawful; for the Crown might have seised the lands in the hands of Cavendish; and by the same reason, in the hands of every one that came in under him; for nullum tempus occurrit regi. And Plowden says, Sir W. Seintloo, who had married Cavendish's widow, having intelligence that the law was against him and his wife, compounded with the

Queen by paying 1,000l. into the Exchequer; and got a release and pardon for the residue and in the pardon it was recited, for the maintenance of the prerogative, that the law was with the Queen.

58. Where a person is an accountant to the Crown, and sells his lands, not being indebted to the Crown at the time of the sale, yet if he afterwards becomes indebted to the Crown, in his situation of accountant, his lands may be seised by the Crown, in consequence Tit. 1. § 74. of the stat. 13 Eliz. in the hands of the purchaser. 59. Sir C. Hatton being remembrancer, and colGodb. 289. lector of the first fruits, for his life, after the death or

Coke's Case,

surrender of one Godfrey, who then held that office in possession; and being seised in fee of divers manors, settled them to the use of himself for life, remainder to his son in tail. He afterwards became indebted to the Crown by reason of his office; and the question was, whether the lands thus settled could be ex10 Rep. 55 b. tended for the debt. It was resolved that although Sir C. Hatton was not indebted to the Crown at the time when he made the settlement, yet having become indebted to the Crown ten years after, the lands comprized in the settlement were liable, by reason of the retrospect of the words in the stat. 13 Eliz. "as if the same treasurer, receiver, &c. had, the day he first became accountant, stood bound by writing obligatory, having the effect of a statute staple to her Majesty, her heirs or successors, for payment of the same."

Coxhead's Case, Moo. 126.

60. An alienation bona fide, prior to the acceptance of an office, which renders the person accepting an accountant to the Crown, is good. And it was said arguendo in a subsequent case, that if a man is a receiver to the King, and not indebted, but clear, 2.Mod. 247. and sells his land, and ceases to be a receiver; and

Átt. Gen.

v. Alston,

afterwards is appointed to be a receiver again, and then a debt is contracted with the Crown, the

former sale is good.

Term at

tendant.

Tit. 8. c. 2.

61. It has been stated that an assignment of a term The Crown for years, by a person indebted to the Crown, before entitled to a any execution awarded, is good. But this doctrine does not apply to terms for years which are attendant on the inheritance; for in that case, if the King extends the inheritance, he will become entitled to Howe, the term.

§ 22. Nichols v.

2 Vern. 389.

Sinith, in

At 596.

62. Colonel Montresor being seised in fee of a Rex v. freehold estate, and there being an old term for years Schach. in the lands outstanding, which was assigned to attend An. 1804. Sugden the inheritance, sold the estate, 1795, to Mr. Smith; Vend. 3d ed. and the term was assigned to a trustee for him. the time of this sale Col. M. was indebted to the Crown, but Smith had no notice of that circumstance when he purchased. The Crown issued an extent against Col. M., and the sheriff seised the lands purchased by Smith. A question arose in the Exchequer, whether the outstanding term, which was held in trust for Smith, should protect him against the claim of the Crown.

The Lord Ch. Baron said, that the case that came nearest to this was that of the Att. General v. Sands, Tit. 12. c. 2. $ 28. where it was resolved, that as the inheritance was not forfeited, the term was not forfeited; for being a term attendant, it was but an accessary to the inheritance. If the converse of this case was considered, it would make it still more clear; if the inheritance had been forfeited, the term must have been forfeited also. In deciding according to the course of the common law, he thought it clear that an outstanding term could not defeat the King's process by extent. In courts of equity, it was said,

a purchaser without notice was a person favoured: perhaps it might be a sufficient answer to say, that in this case they were not in a court of equity. The question was, what ought to be the decision of a court according to the common law? This question could not be decided in a court of equity; they could not sue for a decree. When a court of equity was resorted to, and this was the situation of the parties, Tit. 12. c. 13. the Court did nothing but stand neuter between $34. such parties; and leave them to make the most of it. He thought, on the whole, the land was chargeable that had been in the hands of the King's debtor: and from the cases that had been decided, it was sufficiently clear that the term was; it was the whole interest in the land, whether it was divided or not. Now that being so, it should seem to be the result of what was to be found in the Books, that of the King's common law remedy, it was impossible to doubt, and that remedy was given in every case where the party who was indebted to the Crown had a present beneficial interest, as well as a reversion; both of these were considered as chargeable for the debt of the Crown. The lands of the King's debtor might be extended by the Crown, in whatever hands they were found; and therefore, upon the whole, the judgment must be for the Crown.