William powel alias Hinson Esq; Plaintiff; The Warden and Fellows of All-soules College in Oxford Defendants.  
In the Chancellor's Court of the University of Oxford in a pretended Cause of Damage.  
THis Suit is in the nature of an Action of the Case at the Common Law, and the end of this Action is the same with that of an Action on the case at Law, and that is to have a Reparation by way of damage for a wrong supposed to be done by the Defendants to the Plaintiff.  
The wrong complained of in the present Case is a preterition made by the Defendants of the Plaintiff, in the renewing of a Lease for years of a Mesuage and Lands in Whally in the County of Oxon, which Lease, as the Plaintiff pretends the Defendants have to his damage renewed unto George Herne.  

1. Wherein I do agree first that the Lease hath been so renewed by the Defendants to George Herne.  
2. I do admit that this renewing was to the Plaintiffs damage.   
But as I shall represent the truth of the Case to be; I conceive this damage so much complained of by this Action will fall out to be within the reason of those Cases of the Common Law, that being damnum abs●ue injuria, there is no punishment of such Acts by any re●ópence to be given in way of damage by any action whatsoever.  
And therefore wheresoever a man hath liberty to do any act which no Law of the Land forbids, no Action at Law lieth against him for the doing of such an Act.  
A Schoolmaster teaching School in a Town brought an Action upon the Case against another that afterwards set up a School in the same Town whereby those Scholars that before gave him twenty pence a quarter, 
11 Henry 4. Stat. in accon. sur le Case  now will give him but twelve pence a quarter, and this being damnum absque injuria, it was adjudged that the Action will not lie.  
So in the Case of a new Mill, erected upon the same stream, by a Lord of a Manor, to the prejudice of the Lord of the next Manor, who hath an ancient Mill standing upon the same stream, whereby the suit to the old Mill is lessened and withdrawn, yet this Action lies not, 
22 of H. 6 14. Bacon. jur le case, 57 and 42.  for albeit it be a damage to the Owner of the old Mill, yet it is absque injuria, there being no Law that makes such restraint either in the one case or in the other.  
To apply this to the present Case, there are three Competitors to the Defendants for the renewing of the said Lease at Whately.  

1. The Plaintiff as Executor to Sir Edward powel.  
2. Mr Ba●eman.  
3. Mr George Herne.   
The College being the Defendants, are not only not prohibited, nor under any restraint for the renewing of it, but are rather enabled by the Statute of 18. Eliz. the present Lease being run within three years of expiration, to renew this Lease to whom they please.  
So as this being a power recommended to their own liberty, and being by them executed according to their power to them given by that Law, legis executio non habet injuriam, and no man can be said to do a wrong, qui jure su● ut●tur.  
The Defendants are the more to be justified herein, for that they did not merely as an act of power, nor inconsiderately renew it; but first calling in all parties, and suffering them to interplead before them, and hearing, and examining their reasons, hinc & inde, they did at length upon a full and deliberate consideration declare the right of renewing this Lease to belong to George Herne, and accordingly renewed it to him; wherein I conceive that both in Law and Equity they have done an Act that is most Collegiate, and such as best suits with the honour of their College: and this will the better appear by the Case itself as it stands in judgement upon the series and course of the Leases themselves made by their Predecessors of this Land now in question.  
Richard powel being in the year 1634. possessed of a Lease for years before that time made by All-soules College, does in the said year 1634. without making any actual surrender thereof, accept of a new Lease for years there of from the said College.  
This his acceptance of the said new Lease is in Law an absolute surrender of that old Lease, albeit no actual surrender were by him made of the said old Lease, and the neglect of the then Warden and Scholars of the said College to take in the said old Lease is no hindrance at all to the operation of the said surrender in Law.  
Then doth Richard powel in the year 1638. for 200. li. to him paid by Bateman, affigne this renewed Lease unto Bateman, this is a good assignment of a good Lease, then in being unto Bateman.  
After this Richard powel having still in his hands the said old Lease not actually surrendered, but yet determined by such surrender in Law (ut supra) doth in the year 1639. for 340 li. paid by George Herne amongst other things grant the said old Lease and the Lands thereby demised to the said George Herne, who presently redemised the said Lands unto the said Richard powel at 40. li. rend per annum and powel still retained in his own hands the said old Lease.  
The said Richard powel afterwards in the year 1641. repairs to the College, and concealing from them his said assignment to Bateman, and his said grant to Herne, without the privity or concurrents of the said Bateman and Herne, by their joining with him in their making of an actual surrender of their, or either of their estates to the said College, upon his giving in of the said old Lease made in the year of our Lord, 1626. obtains a new Lease from the said College to begin immediately, which he afterwards mortgaged to Sir Edward powel.  
1. The Lease renewed in 1634. to Richard powel, then being Tenant in possession, and which he afterwards assigned to Bateman, was the only good Lease in the Case.  
2. The grant to Herne of an old Lease than pretended to be in esse, is not good in regard the Lease intended was determined by powel's acceptance of a new Lease in 1634.  
3. The College new Lease to Richard powel in the year 1641. was void, for that the Lease to Bateman was then in being for many years then to come, and that Lease not then surrendered.  
4. Batemen Lease coming afterwards within three years of expiration, the College had then power to let a Lease to whom they pleased.  
And they afterwards making this Lease to George Herne, this is a good execution of their power to them given by the Statute; and albeit a damage of the Plaintiffs expectation to renew, yet no injury at all to the Plaintiff for the reasons before delivered.  
And so no cause of Action to the Plaintiff.  
As to the objection that Richard powel upon such his renewing in 1641. did pay to the College 26. li. 13. s. 4. d. for a Fine.  
It is answered, if any such money were by him paid for such a void Leasethen to him made, and by him afterwards assigned to Sir Edward powel this 26. li. 13. s. 4. d. and the damages for the same if any due to any person, is due in equity to the Executors of the said Richard powel, who in his own wrong departed with that money and cannot at all be due to the Plaintiff as Executor of Sir Edward powel, who as to that payment was and is a mere stranger to the College, nor doth the now Plaintiff by his Libel make any claim thereunto.  
26 Septem. 1656. Charles Holloway for the Defendants.   

William powel Esquire, Plaintiff.  
The Warden and Fellows of All soul's College in Oxon, Defendants, in the Chancellor's Court of the University of Oxon, in a Cause of damages.  
THere is no cause why the Flaintiff should recover damages against the Defendants, for these reasons.  
1. There is neither Law nor equity to compel them to Lease their land to any one; for it was lawful for them to do what they would with their own, observing this rule, sic utere tuo ut alienum non ledas, as here they did, for they did no hurt to Sir Edward powel by making their Lease to Heron, but lest Sir Edward as they found him.  
2 Heron was first deceived, and it was good reason he should be first repaired; Qui prior est tempore poti●r est jure.  
3 But if the College had made the last lease to Sir Edward powel; had not Heron as good equity to have sued the College for damages, as Sir Edward powel's Executors pretends to now? certainly there had been aequale jus, if any there was at all in either side to sue the College.  
4. All the pretence for the Plaintiff, is, because his testator bought the last lease made in 1641. This in truth was no Lease, it being made void by Act of Parliament of 18. Eliz. in which every man's consent was had for him and his heirs, that such Lease should be void because the former was not within three years of expiration, which was unknown to the College, but well known to Richard powel the Lessee, who wittingly deceived himself, that he might cousin Sir Edward powel, the Plaintiffs testator.  
5. If the case were of a body natural, and that the Plaintiff or his testator had sustained damage by it by an act done unawares (as here by making a void Lease) yet ignorantia facti excusat.  
6. No crime can be imputed to a body politic aggregate, and this suit is brought against a body politic, and the charge of this Libel is grounded upon a deceit in making a Lease to a wrong man, which as is supposed, aught to have been made to the Plaintiffs testator. Now deceit is a crime, and a body without a soul (although it be Allsoules) cannot be guilty of a crime, and so not be charged to pay damages, or any way punishable for a crime: And therefore if any suit would have lain, it must have been against some natural persons of that body; but to charge them as a body politic, there is no colour.  
7. As for the fine paid to the College for the void Lease, he paid it of his own wrong; for non decipitur qui scit se decipi, he knew well he paid it for a void Lease, and on purpose to cousin some body with it, As appears by his so speedy putting it to sale to Sir Edward powel. And it is clear this Richard powel (if he were living) could have no remedy against the College to recover back this fine; for if he should, it would give countenance to such fraudulent practices which the Law abhorreth; and by like reason this Richard Powel's Executor, nor any claiming from him can be in better case to recover the fine back again, then Richard powel himself was; for titulus derivativus can be no better than primitivus:  
November 8. 1656. Tym. Tourneur.   

William powel alias Hinson Esquire, Plaintiff. The Warden and Fellows of All-Soules College in Oxford, Defendants.  
In the Chancellor's Court of the University of Oxford, in a pretended Cause of damage.  
1. I Conceive that the Lease being void by an Act of Parliament, no remedy lies against the College, because the Act which makes it void, gives no remedy, it being lawful and valid before.  
2. I conceive no remedy for this void Lease doth lie against the College, because in such cases no remedy was ever given, or damages ever recovered, though many void leases have been made since the Stat. of 13. and 18. Eliz.  
3. The Stat. of 18. Eliz. resolves the question, for that Stat. makes void all Bonds and Covenants entered into for making good such void leases. Now Bonds and Covenants cannot make the Lease valid that is void, but only give a satisfaction by way of damages; But by that Law such securities as sound in satisfaction and damages, are made void; à fortiori, an equity employed is void, for equit as sequitur lege●s.  
4. And in truth, if an equity should be good against the College to make satisfaction for the damages which such persons should sustain for want of an interest in law in the lands, than the Stat. ex obliquo must needs be evaded, and ecclesiastical corporations in succession depauperated (the mischief solely intended to be remedied by the law) for the recovery of damages, being against the corporation, not against the natural individual persons, that made that Lease void, and received the benefit of the Fine, than it doth clearly follow though the corporation in succession enjoies the land and the profits of it, yet if they must yield as much in damages, what is this more in effect, but receiving with one hand, and paying with another? And so the College in succession is deteriorated in the matters provided against by the Parliament.  Frustrapetis qued statim reddere cogeris. 
5. Though the College have collateral security to save them harmless; for what by law shall be recovered against them in such a case, if by law nothing can be recovered against them (though de facto there be an appearance of it) they shall never have any benefit of their collateral security, so the College is the party politic against whom these damages must be effectually recovered, and for a voluntary reimbursement, it is no argument one way or other.  
6. For the Court where this controversy is depending (viz. the University Court of Oxford, which Court cannot have jurisdiction in this cause for two reasons.  
1. Because they have no jurisdiction but by ancient usage or Letters Patents. By usage they can have no jurisdiction in this Cause, because the ground of the question or controversy is upon the Stat. of 13. and 18. Eliz. there being no such case that could come in question before those Statutes. So not by ancient usage, and then not by Letters Patents, for they have no jurisdiction granted by Letters Patents herein since those Statutes.  
And secondly, Because the King cannot create a Court of equity by Charter; and there is no Act of Parliament that doth confirm their jurisdiction herein, whether they will lay the foundation of their jurisdiction herein, either by ancient usage or Letters Patents, because the Act of Parliament by which the jurisdiction of the University Courts of Oxford and Cambridge are confirmed, and which doth confirm their jurisdictions formerly enjoied by usage or Letters Patents, is a Prior act, viz. (13 Eliz.) to the Act of Parliament upon which this question doth properly arise, viz. 18. Eliz.  
7. Admit they have a jurisdiction of the cause, yet they must judge secundum legem terrae according to the Law of the Land, and not according to the civil Law not formerly used in England.  
1. Because no part of the Civil Law is of force in England (not in the Ecclesiastical Courts of England) but what hath been anciently used in England, and is thereby become the Law of England, and in truth so much of the civil Law as hath been anciently used in England, is the common Law of England in those cases.  
2. Though the University Courts of Oxford and Cambridge do in formula juris, that is to say, in the method of their proceedings, seem rather to follow the ecclesiastical Courts, than the common law. Courts & the advocats there are civilians, yet in truth they are no ecclesiastical Courts, but Courts of Law and equity mixed, established by usage, Letters Patents and Acts of Parliament, and their judgements and sentences do bind the person and goods to execution, and are as the Court of the Marshes of Wales that were mixed of law and equity, and so though they have a peculiar jurisdiction in respect of the place, yet in their judgements and sentences they must judge secundum legem terrae, as the superior Courts of Law or equity would do in those cases.  
From all which I conclude that the University Court of Oxford cannot give damages against All-Soules College in this case.  
November 10, 1656. George Starkey.