Consideration of Blood Covenants with B. his brother to stand seised to the use of himself for life and after the use of B. in tail the remainder to the right Heirs of B. Provided that if A. by himself or by any other during his Natural life tender to B. a Gold ring to the intent to make void the said use that then the said uses should be void Afterwards A. 26 Eliz. is attainted of Treason and Outlawed for it and the King makes a Lease of the Lands to C. and D. for 40 years The attainder is confirmed by Act of Parliament and Enacted That the said Act shall not extend to make any Lease void made by the K. after the said Treason Also Enacted that all persons which claim an estate or interest in Land not enrolled since 18 Eliz. shall within 2. years after the Session of that Parliament shew and bring into the Court of Exchequer his or their Grant or assurance to be void The King reciting the Proviso and benefit thereof given him by Act of Parliament authorizeth E. to deliver the Gold ring to B. to the Intent to make void the uses he reads the Patent to B. and makes a tender to him which he refuseth to accept of E. certifies the same into the Exchequer This Case was very largely and Learnedly Argued by all the Serjeants and others at the â—arre which vide in the Book at Large afterwards it was argued by all the Barons in the Exchequer and there amongst other things it was Resolved by them That the Condition in the principal Case viz. the tender of the Gold ring was not annexed to â—he person of A. but that any one might make the tender and thaâ— it was given to the King by the Act of Parliament and when a Statute gives a Condition to the King the performance of it which is the substance and which is not inseparably annexed to the person is given to the King 2. That the Tender and Certificate of it was good without Office found 3. That presently by the tender the uses were determined and the Land vested in the King by force of the Act of Parliament The Earl of Northumberlands Case 434. A. 15 June 22 Eliz. bargained and sold the Mannor of D. to the Earl of Northumberland and his Heirs who because the Land was holden in Capite 3. Sept. the same year purchased a License of Alienation in Octob. the same year a Fine was Levyed for further assurance and in Novemb. the same year the Deed was enrolled The Queen seised the Lands for a Fine for Alienation without License It was adjudged the Queens hands should be removed from the Land because the bargainee was now in by the Fine and not by the bargaines and sale and also because the Licence did precede the Fine the Alienation was not made without License Yardley and Prestwood and others Case 435. In a Quare Impedit It was holden by the Justices in this Case That a double usurpation upon the Queen did put her out of possession of Advowson and put her to her Writ of Right of Advowson But the Law hath been taken since that time and so adjudged that a double usurpation did not put the Queen out of possession of her Advowson Vide 33 Eliz. Hassies Case Tr. 4. Jac. The King and Champians Case accordingly Isabell Mordants Case 436. An Enfant Levyed a Fine to the Queen The Queen granted the Lands to Bowes Treasurer of Barwick Error brought to reverse the Fine Bowes pleaded in Barre the Statute of 18 Eliz. It was Resolved that notwithstanding that Statute the Writ of Error did lye for that Statute did not extend to make grants good of such persons who could not make grants by the Common Law as Enfants persons of Non sane Memorie c. Sir Mayle Finch and Hen. Finches Case 437. The Mother of Sir Moyle Finch and the Defendant in her Widdowhood levyed a Fine to the use of her self for life and after her death to the use of her Executors for 5. years and after to Sir Moyle in Tail with divers remainders over and afterwards she maried I. S. and she with I. S. granted the Terme of 5. years to Sir Moyle and after that she and her Husband levyed a Fine to Sir Moyle and I. D. and after that the Wife with her Husbands assent made her Will and made the Defendant her sole Excecutor and dyed the Defendant entred It was agreed by the Justices 1. That the use limited to the Excecutors was good 2. That the Wife could not grant it in her life time 3. That it was extinguishable in the Wife by a Fine come ceo c. but not by a Release 4. That the Fine sur Conusans de droit c. had extinguished the Terme and the said Fine had made such a disturbance of the possession that the use being future at the instant of her death in the Excecutors could never rise 5. That a Feme Covert with the assent of her Husband might make a Will but not thereby to dispose of Legacies 6. It was adjudged for the Plaintiff because the Wife who had the estate for her life had levyed a fine sur Conusans de Droit c. 438. Action upon Indebitatus Assumpsit solvere It was Resolved the Plaintiff could not give in evidence matter of specialty to prove his debt but he might give in Evidence matter of Contract Fitzherberts Case 439. He was Arrested in Execution by the Sheriff of Derby the 3. day of Feb. at 7. of the Clock in the Morning and the same day at 10. of the Clock he was elected a Burgesse of Parliament for the Borrough of New Castle It was agreed in Parliament because he was arrested before he was chosen Burgesse he could not have the Priviledge of the House Hunger and Freys Case 440. A man had recovered in Debt and had Judgment and an Elegit and had an extent delivered him and Nihil as to goods Afterwards he suggested the Defendant had more Lands goods and chattells in the same County and had a New Elegit and upon that he had a Lease for years in Execution and no other Land was found It was adjudged that the sale of the Lease for years by the Sheriff and delivery in Execution was good Townsend and Walleys Case 441. A man had 6 l. Land in possession and Lands in Peversion upon an estate for life and by his Will he deviseth all his Lands to his Excecutors for 10. years to pay his Debts and perform his Will and after the 10. years ended that his Executors or one of them or the Executors of his Excecutors or any of them should sell his Lands and he made diverse Excecutors and gave 40 l. Legacies by his Will and dyed After the 10. years 2. of the Executors sold the Land 1. Resolved that the Land in reversion might be sold as well as the Land in possession 2. That the sale by the 2. Executors was
and Stermons Case 1120. Resolved that an Action upon the Statute of 2 E. 6. for not setting forth of Tythes lieth by the husband and wife in the Temporal Court and so it was adjudged in Wentworth and Crispes case which vide there Stebs and Goodtriks Case 1221. The custom of L. in the County of B. was alledged that the Parson ought to have the Tenth Land of corn beginning at such Land which was next to the Church the Occupiers of the Land to defraud the Parson by Covin did not sowe their Tenth Land nor manure it The Parson sued for Ththe in Kinde to have the tenth Cock for Tythe of the Corn sowed and a Prohibition awarded notwithstanding the Covin because he had remedy at the common Law for the Fraud and a Prohibition was awarded Quarles and Spartings Case 1222. The Temples were dissolved and their Possessions and Priviledges by Act of Parliament 17 E. 2. transferred to St Johns of Jerusalem and their Possessions by Act of Parliament 32 H. 8. cap. 24. given to the King It was Resolved that the King and his Patentees should pay Tythes of those Lands although the Lands propriis sumptibus excolantur because the Priviledge to be discharged of Tythes is proper to Sipritual persons and ceaseth when the person Spiritual is removed And the Statute of 31 H. 8. of Dissolution did not extend to such Lands as came to the King by special Act of Parliament as these Lands of St. Johns of Jerusalem did Bakers and Rogers Case 1223. The Church being void B. contracted with the Patron for 180 l. to have the Presentation and thereupon presented W. his Brother who knew nothing of the Symonaical contract till after his Induction notwithstanding he was deprived in the Spiritual Court because he was Symoniace promotus and it was holden in this case That if a Usurper present by Symonie the Clerk is punishable in the Spiritual Court for the Symonie although the Patron doth recover the Advowson and the Presentation Sir Richard Chapman and Hills Case 1224. Debt brought upon the Statute of 2 E. 6. for not setting forth of Tythes and declated upon two Leases one of the Parson who had two parts and another of the Viccar who had the third part The Defendant pleaded Not Guilty which was found against him It was moved in stay of Judgment that Not Guilty was no Plea but Nihil debet ought to be pleaded and that the Plaintiff ought to have brought several Actions being several Demises both Exceptions over-ruled by the Court. 1. That Not Guilty was a good Plea 2. for that the Suit was for the wrong aswell as upon the Title Day and Peckvells Case 1225. It was Resolved in this case upon the Statute of 2 Ed. 6. that the Statute giving Treble Damages the Jury cannot give other damages 2. That the Jury cannot give Costs 3. That two Farmors may joyn in one Action upon this Statute 4. That a Farmor shall have an Action upon the Statute although the Statute doth not give him an Action by Equity of the Statute because he hath the right to the Tythes and the agreement with one Farmer shall bind his Companion The Queen and Blanches Case 1226. Resolved that the Certificate of the Bishop that the Incumbent refused to pay his Tenths is not Peremptory but Traversable and that the demand of the Tenths must be at the house of the Incumbent and the refusal there Kelley and Walkers Case 1227. Suit was in the Spiritual Court for laying violent hands upon a Clerk It was surmised there that the Clerk assaulted the Plaintiffs Servant for which the Plaintiff peaceably laid his hands upon the Clerk which allegation they would not allow of there and a Prohibition was awarded notwithstanding the Statute de Articulis Cleri Sir Robert Lane and Pigotts Case 1228. It was Resolved in this case that if Lessee for years be sued in the Spiritual Court for Tythes he in the Reversion may have a Prohibition Smith and Sherburnes Case 1229. The Incumbent being sick the Father contracted for 100 l. in the presence of his Son for the next Avoidance and after the Incumbent died and the Father presented his Son after Induction he was sued in the Spiritual Court to be deprived he pleaded the General Pardon of 35 Eliz. in which Symonie was not excepted It was the opinion of the Justices that notwithstanding he was deprivable there and in this case it was adjudged that the Presentment of the Father of the Son was Symonie Reynolds Case 1230. The Church-warden and Parson that all those who had the house wherein the said Reynolds did dwell had used to find meat and drink for them and the Parson going in Procession in Rogation week at his house and because he did not find them meat and drink he sued them in the Spiritual Court and a Prohibition was awarded because the custom was a custom against the Law Dorringtons Case 3231. He sued in the Admiralty because his Ship called the S. lying upon the Thames at Râ—driff at anchor was there broken by the Ship called the Aeneas by the negligence of the Officers thereof and a Prohibition was awarded because the Thames is Infra corpus Comitatus and not within the Jurisdiction of the Admiralty Saccars Case 1232. Resolved that a Prohibition is awardable against any who wasts the Houses of the Parson the Incumbent or cuts down the Trees or doth other waste Lanes Case 1233. Resolved Tythes shall not be paid of Wood under 20. years growth which is imployed in hedg-poles for repairing of the Coppices Biggs Case 1234. Resolved where a Prohibition is awarded upon a Suggestion of a Modus Decimandi and a consultation awarded for not proving the Suggestion within six months there a new Prohibition shall not be awarded upon an Appeal in the same Suit Babingtons Case 1235. Resolved If one be sued in the Spiritual Court ex officio or by Libel and he demands the Copy of the Libell which is denied that a Prohibition lieth in such case vide Statute 2 H. 4. Lloyd and Maddox Case 1236. An Executor was sued in the Spiritual Court for a Legacy who pleaded a Recovery in debt against him at the common Law ultra which to satisfie he had no assetts The Plaintiff there said the Recovery was by Covin and that the Plaintiff who recovered the Debt offered to discharge the Judgment and the Defendant would not do it Resolved that the Covin was properlie examinable in the Spiritual Court because the Lgatee could not sue for the Legacy at the common Law and therefore a Prohibition in this case was denied Barnard and Bridgmans Case 1237. Resolved in this case that if the Master of a Ship gage a Ship in Spain for 50 l. and for that the Ship is attached in the Thames at its return the Owner of the Ship shall have a Prohibition otherwise if the Ship be engaged for necessary Tacle the Owner shall pay it FINIS The TABLE
of the moyety of her Companion if he should live so long which is but a possibility and not grantable and it was Resolved if one Joynt Tenant Covenant to stand seised of the moyety of his Companion it is a void Covenant although he survive Baxter Wâ—odyard and others Case 1016. Action upon deceit for deceiving the Plaintiff at Cards at the game of Mountsant by bringing in a Card called the Bum-card by which they devised that the Plaintiff should have but such games as they pleased by which Cosenage they deceived the Plaintiff of 16 l. Upon Noâ— guilty it was found for the Plaintiff and damages Assessed It was said the Action did not lye no more then for false Dâ—ce Buâ— Resolved the Action did lye and so it was said it was adjudged in one Richmons Case who recovered 100. damages upon such a Cosenage Waltâ—â—m and Mulgars Case 1017. The Case was the Owner of a Ship in the time of Queen Eliz. furnished it to Sea with Letters of Marque to take the goods of the Spaniards the Queens Enemies The Mariners and souldiers without his directions took a French Ship and the goods in it the Frenchmen being then in Peace with the Queen The point was if the Owner of the Ship should answer for those goods It was said by Popham Chief Justice That where the Master sends his Servant to do an unlawfull act there the Master shall answer for the Servant not where he sends his Servant to do a Lawfull act as here the taking of the goods of the Queens enemies there although he mistakes and takes the goods of the Queens Friends the Master shall not answer for the goods Quaere for that the Civil Law is that the Master shall answer in all publike Cases Closes Case 1018. The Case was a man who was presented by Simony Libelled in the Spiritual Court for Tythes The Question was whether the Simony should be tryed in the Spiritual Court or by the Common Law The point is not Resolved Note there Simony is defined to be Studiosa volupt as emendi vel vendendi Spiritualia vel Spiritualibus annexa and it is either Mentalis or Conventuâ—lis of both which the Spiritual Law may Judge but the Temporal Court only of Coventual Simony Talentiâ—e and Dentons Case 1019. The Bishop of Caâ—lisâ—e was seised in Fee of Tythes in the right of his Bishoprick and he made a Lease of them for three lives rendring the Ancient Rent the Tythes having been usually demised for the same Rent It was Resolved that the Lease was not good against his successor because he had not remedy for the Rent by distresse or action of Debt otherwise it had been only a Lease for years for there debt lyeth for the Rent The Lord Sâ—râ—tton and the Lord Mordanes Case 1020. The said Lords by Writ under the Great Seal were commanded upon their Faith and Allegiance that quacunque causa excusatione cessante to come to the Parliament and there to attend the Affairs of the Parliament which are ardua Regni they made divers frivolous excuses It was presumed that they had notice by some of the Gun-powder Traitors they being of their Kindred and Alliance to absent themselves and therefore to avoid the danger of their persons they absented themselves which if they knew of any Danger they ought to have made the same known to the King or his Council and upon Presumption also because they were very conversant with some of the Gunpowder Traitors and were often in their company and divers Papists in their houses and for this their contempt in not coming to the Parliament they were Sentenced and Fined in the Star-chamber and it was said in this case that for the disobeying of the Kings Commands under his Privy Seal several persons Lands and Estates by Commission have been seised into the Kâ—ngr Hands as the Earl of Cornwalls case 4 H. 3. The Bishop of Winchester case 3 E 3. and Sir Francis Eglesfields Case Stockwith and Norths Case 1021. It was Resolved by the Justices that the setting to Farm and sale of Offices was not malum prohibitum against the Statute of 4 H. 4. c. 5. but malum in sese and therefore because the Sheriff of Nottingham took mony for the Goaleâ—ship and the Bayliwick of the said County for one year he was fined in the Star-chamb Bâ—rd and Smiths Case 1022. S. was deprived by the High Commissioners for not conforming to the Canons of the Church it was general quia refactarius but no particular Canon mentioned The King by reason of the said Deprivation presented B who was induced but S. would not yield up the possession of the Parsonage-house A Writ of Vi laica issued out of the Chancery the Sheriff came to the House but could not apprehend the parties B. finding the House empty entâ—ed peaceably S. made an Affidavit in B. R. that he was ousted by the Sheriff with force and B. put into possession the Court of B. R. thereupon granted a Writ of Restitution he having an Appeal depending of the Deprivation In this case these points were Resolved 1. That the Writ de vi laica removenda is not returnable unless the Sheriff find the force 2. That the Kings Bench cannot award Restitution upon an Affidavit but there ought to be a Return of the Writ of vi laica c. in the Chancery and upon Affidavit made there that the Sheriff by vertue of the Writ hath removed one and put another in possession Restitution is awardable 3. Resolved That upon a Deprivation by the High Commissioners no appeal lieth because the Commission is ground upon the Prerogative of the King in the Ecclesiastical Government and therefore the Commissioners being immediate from the King and possessing his person no Appeal lieth 4. Resolved that the Canons of the Church made by the Convocation and the King without Parliament shall bind in all matters Ecclesiastical as well as an Act of Parliament In the principal case it was adjudged untill the Deprivation was repealed and adjudged it stood good and so B. had good Title to the Church Sydenham and Caps Case 1023. Tenant in Tail made a Lease for Life to a Feme Covert the Husband surrendred and then Tenant in Tail made a Lease for three Lives and died the wife after the death of her Husband entred It was adjudged that it was a good Lease for three Lives within the Statute of 32 H. 8. and the issue in Tail should not avoid it Crosâ— and Evetts Case 1024. The case was A. A Popish Recusant intending to disinherit the Plaintiff his Heir being a Protestant and to confer the Profits of the Lands upon such persons as were of his own Religion by Indenture conveyed the Lands to divers persons being Popish Recusants and their heirs upon hope trust and confidence and to the intent they should and would after the decease of him and Jaâ—e his wife yearly for ever give bestow and imploy all the
a Libell or false Rumor although he produceth his Author yet he is fineable Damuâ—'s Case 1038. The Case was I. S. was indebted to M. 1800 l. upon a Statute who dyed Intestare A. his Wife took Administration of his goods and married B. and during her Coverture made her Will by which she appoinâ—ed to her Kindred 400 l. in Charitable uses Proviso if any crosse in Law or losse of the said Debt of 1000. should arise it should fall upon the last 900 l. mentioned befor the Proviso of which 900 l. the 408 l. the Charitable use was the last A. dyed Administration de bonis non c. of M. was committed to D. which had of the Debts 2000. besides the 1800 l. upon a Commission upon the Statute of 43 Eliz. of Charitable uses against D. it was Decreed for the Charitable uses to which Exceptions was taken 1. That A. had not power to make a Will of this Debt 2. That the 2000 l. were desperate debts 3. That there was a crosse in this Debt there being a Suit by the next of Kin to revoke the Administration committed to D. Vpon the exceptions it was Decreed in Chancery with the Assistance of the Judges 1. That though the Will of A. was void in Law yet it would serve by the Statute if there was assers of that estate or of the estate of A. her self to support the Charitable use For the goods in the hands of Administrators are all to Charitable uses and it is the Office of the Administrator so to imploy them and the Children or Kinred have no property in them but under the Title of Charity 2. Because it appeared that at the time of the making of the Decree that the estate would bear both the Legacies and the Charitable use also with an Overplus and if any of the debts of the 2000 l. became desperate it was by the negligence of the Administrators and should not retard the Charitable use The King and Howards Case 1049. In this Case these points were Resolved by the Justices 1. A man makes a Feoffment of Lands in 5. Counties with a Condition of Re-assurance a Re-assurance is made of Lands in 5. Counties It is a breach of the Condition but only for the Lands in one County and a good performance for the other 2. Tenant in Tail Remainder in Tail Remainder in Fee he who hath the Remainder in Fee grants it to the first Tenant in Tail this acceptance of the Deed is an Attornement which shall bind those in the Remainder â— If an Act of Parliament be certified into the Chancery no averment shall be against it that it was not an act of Parliament because the Commons did not assent to it but with a Proviso which is lost but if it appeaâ—eth in the body of the Act that the Commons did not assent the Act is void The Case of the Commissioners of Sewers 1050. Upon complaints against diveâ—s ill disposed persons of Suits and vexations by them against the Commissiâ—ners of Sewers and their Officers for the counties of Northamoâ—â—â— Huntingdoâ— Cambridge and Lincoln It was holden by the Lords of the Council the Commissioners of Sewers may make new works as well to stop the fury of the waters as to repaire the old when necessity requires it 2. That for the safety of the Country they may lay a Tax or Rate upon any Hundreds Towns or Inhabitaâ—ts thereof in general who are interessed in the Benefit or Loss without attending a particular Survey or Admeasurement of Acres when the Service is to have a speedy and suddain execution 3. That they have sufficient power to imprison Refractory and Disobâ—dient persons to their Orders Warrants and Decrees and that Actions of Trespass False Imprisonment c. brought against the Commissioners or their Officers for extremity of their Order or Warranty are not maintainable nor will lie Goodson and Dâ—ffâ—â—dâ— Case 1051. Error of a Judgment in a Court of Pipowders in Rochestâ—r The case was A. dwelling in the Town was bound to pay B. 150 l. the first day of May at the House of B. in Rochâ—ster the Bond was sued there 24. September in the Court of Pipowders the Defendant pleaded payment at the House Issue upon it It was found for the Plaintiff Error brought and assigned that the Prescription was alledged to hold a Court of Pipowders before the Mayâ—r and two Citizens and by the Plea it appeareth it was holden before the Deputy of the Mayor and two Citizens The Court held the same to be Error 2. Error The Issue was misjoyned for the payment is alledged at the House of the Plaintiff in Rochester and it ought to have been pleaded apud Rochester in domo mansionali of the Plaintiff This the Court conceived to be Error and the Judgment was reversed Billingsby and Hercys Case 1052. A Demise was made of Lands in D. for years by the word Demise and to Farm let the Mannor and also all Timber Trees growing upon the same with an exception of six Oaks during the Term the Term was assigned to a Feme Sole who took Husband the Plaintiff and they assigned all their Interest to the Defendant reserving the Wood and Trees the Husband died his Executors cut down the Trees the Wife brought Trespass It was adjudged the Action did not lie because no propriety in the Trees passed by the words Demise Grant and to Farm Let though there was Liberty to Fell and Sell. Price and Almeries Case 1053. A possessed of a Term for Forty years devised the same to his Wife if she should live so long the remainder to I. his Son and the Heirs of his Body and made his Wife his Executor who entred and claimed the Term as a Legacy the Son died in the Life of the Wife the Wife died the Executor of the Son entred Adjudged his Entry was not lawful because the Son had not any Interest but a possibility Edwards and Dentons Case 1054. A man seised in Fee of the Mannor of D. and of an house called W. in D. and also of a Lease for years in D. by Deed did grant bargaine and sell the Mannor of D. and all his Lands and Tenements in â— to I. S. and his Heirs It was adjudged that the Term for years did not pass for the intent appears that nothing shall pass but that which the Heir might take for that the Habendum was to him and his Heirs Sir William Waller and Hangers Case 1055. The case was King Ed. 3. reciting that he had of every 10. Tun of Wine imported a tun and of every 20. Tun two Tuns one before the Mast and another behind the Mast granted to the citizens ef London that Nulla prisagia sint soluta de vinibus civium liberorum hominum London The Husband of the Defendant a Freeman and citizen of London having Wines in the Port and others upon the Sea died and made his wife his Executrix An Information was against her
passed against the Plantiff who thereupon brought an Attaint and alledged that the Jurors to the Attaint had not the view of the Tenements in demand It was the opinion of the Court that after the Verdict given it cannot be alledged that the Jurours had not the View and Judgement was given without the View 177. In Dower the Defendant pleaded That the Husband of the demandant did not dye seised so that she could not have damages and because there were Woods upon the Lands she prayed a Writ of Estrepment Quaere if it doth Lie It was not Resolved Griffiths Case 178. Lessee for years suffered the Banks of the River of Trent which ran by the Lands let to be unrepaired so as the Water brake the Banks and drowned the Lands Adjudged That River was not so violent but that the Lessee by his Industry might repair the Banks and to make the water run in its Current and therefore adjudged it was Wast 179. Debt was against Executors upon an Obligation which was that if the Testator or his Executors at Mich. every year during the life of the Obligee delivered to the Obligee a Load of Dung that then the Defendants pleaded that they and their Testator had performed not shewing how which was found against them It was adjudged that for this false plea of the Executors Judgment should be against them de bonis propriis 180. One was named in the Original in Debt A. B. of C. in the County of Denbigh He appeared upon the Cepi Corpus and said that he was dwelling at D. at the time of the Action brought It was holden it was No plea that he was not dwelling at C. at the time of the Action brought unlesse he say Ne unque puis 181. Lands in London which by the Custom were deviseable came to the King by Escheat who granted them over to I. S. to hold by Knights service It was holden That notwithstanding the Statute the devise of the whole Land was good as it was by the Custome which is not taken away by the Statute 182. The King by his Letters Patents gave authority to his Surveyour to make Leases of certain Lands for life reserving the antient Rent He by Indenture between the King of the one part and I. S. of the other part Quod Dominus Rex dimisit c. and the Surveyour put his own Seal to the Deed. It was adjudged a void Lease for he ought not to have put his Seal to it but the Seal of the King and it cannot be the Lease of the King without his Seal 183. Grandfather Father and Sonne The Grandfather is Tenant for life the Remainder to the Son in tayl the Remainder to the right Heirs of the Grandfather The Grandfather suffers a Recovery and levyes a Fine with Proclamation to I. S. and after the Statute of 27 H. 8. is made and the Grandfather enfeoffeth the Sonne of the Land and dyeth Resolved that the entry of the Father upon the Son was lawful and he shall not be estopped by the warranty of the Grandfather for that the Warranty was gone by the reprisal of the estate and it was holden That although the 5. years were past in the life of the Grandfather yet when the Grandfather dyes the Father shall have other 5. years to make his Entry or clayme and that by the Statute of 4 H. 7. 184. Lessee for years rendering Rent upon Condition if the Rent be behind the Lessor to Reenter a Recovery in Debt is had against the Lessor and the Reversion and Rent extended by Elegit and given in Execution It is a good Execution and the Condition suspended so as if the Rent be behinde the Lessor cannot enter into the other moety 185. Two Tenants in Common of a Wood one Leaseth his part for years who cuts Trees and commits Wast he shall be punished for the moety of the Wast and the Lessor Recover the moety of the Land Wasted 186. The Dean and Canons of Windsor were Incorporated by Act of Parliament by the Name of the Dean and Canons of the Kings Free Chapel of his Castle of Windsor and they made a Lease by the Name of the Dean and Canons of the Kings Majesties Free Chapel of of the Castle of Windsor in the County of Berks. Resolved the Lease was good for although the King in the Act of Parliament call it his Castle yet when another speaks of it it is more apt to call it the Castle and therefore such variance shall not avoid the Lease Newdigates Case 187. Lessee for life and he in the Reversion joyned in a Lease for years Lessee for life dyed the Lessee committed Wast Resolved that during the life of the Lessee for life it was her Lease and the Confirmation of him in the Reversion But when the Tenant for life dyed then it was the Lease of him in the Reversion and that he should have an Action of Wast ex divisione propria 188. A man hath 3. daughters and Covenants with I. S. that he shall have the disposition in marriage of one of them the Election is in the Father of which of the daughters the other shall have the Mariage and he is not to deliver the daughter till request but upon request he is to deliver the daughter to I. S. otherwise he cannot have the effect of the Covenant 189. In a Writ of False Judgment the Sheriff returned Quod accept is secum 4. legalibus Militibus de Com. suo accessint c. Et recordum illud habeo c. coram c. sub sigillo meo sigillis praedict Militum It was adjudged to be no good return nor the Record removed but it ought to be sub sigillis ex his qui Recordo illo intersuerant and not of the 4. Knights 190. It was holden by the Justices that if upon the Exigent the Defendant hath a supersedeas but doth not deliver the same before the 5th County so as he is returned Outlawed yet because the Supersedeas was upon Record the Justices held the Outlawry to be void 191. A Writ of Wast was Quod secit vastationem in the Land and assigned the Wast in cutting down of Trees It was holden that was not good but if he had assigned the Wast in digging of Clay or such other things it had been otherwise for that is Wast in the Land 192. A man devised his Lands to his eldest Son in Tail the remainder to his youngest Son in Tail the remainder to his Daughter in Tail and if they all dyed without Issue that then the Land should be sold by his Executors the eldest entred and dyed without Issue the younger Son entred and suffered a Comon-Recovery and after dyed without Issue and the daughter also dyed without Issue Resolved That the Executors could not now sell the Land 193. Note If an Enfant levy a Fine and take back an Estate for life or in Tail by render he shall not avoid after the Fine by
was attainted of Treason The first Question was If the Uses limited to I. S. and others were good or not Resolved they were void because they wanted a good consideration but if he had made them Executors and chargeable to the payment of his debts then the same had been good Second point If the use limited to William Pagett should begin presently after the death of the Lord Pagett or should expect untill the 24. years were incurred after the death of the Lord Pagett or not at all Resolved That the use should be in William Pagett presently before the 24. years were expired Wiseman and Barnards Case 328. The case was Tenant in tail for the advancement of his Blood Name and Issue covenanted to stand seised to the use of himself in tail the remainder to the Plaintiff in tail the remainder to the Queen in see and died his issue entred and suffered a common Recovery and died without issue he in the remainder entred Resolved That the consideration that the Land should continue in his Name and Blood was no consideration to raise the use to the Queen 2. Resolved that he in the Remainder was barred by the common Recoverie and the Remainder not preserved by the Statute of 34. H. 8. because it was not of the Provision of the Queen but of a common person Chenyes Case 329. A seized of Lands made a Lease for years thereof to B. and C. upon confidence for the preferment of the wife of A. and afterwards he made a Feoffment to B. and others to certaine uses of the same Lands the point was If the Lease for years were extinguished by the Feoffment Resolved That the Terme was not extinct but was saved by the Proviso in the Statute of 27. H. 8. of uses which preserved all Interest which the Feoffees had in the Lands to their own uses and here B. had the Term to his own use and therefore not extinguished Pimbs Case 330. A committed Treason 18. Eliz. and was attainted 26. Eliz. In the interim he was Conusee of a Fine levied by I. S. which fine was to the use of the said I. S. and his wife Afterwards I. S. and his wife bargained and sold the Land for money to Pimb It was conceived that the Land was in the Queen upon the discovery of the Treason and Attainder which intitles the Queen to all the Lands which Traitors had at the time of the Treason or after so as the estate of I. S. and his wife was thereby destroyed by the Relation of the Attainder Wherefore Pimb sued to the Queen and she granted him the Land by her Letters Patent Beckwiths Case 331. Husband and Wife seized of Lands in the right of the Wife levied a Fine The husband detained the uses solie one way and the Wife detained the uses upon the Fine another way It was resolved that both the Declaration of the uses were void and so by consequence the uses upon the Fine should be to the use of the Wâ—te and her Heirs The Lord Mountjoys Case 332. The Case was this A Mannor which did consist of Free Rents of 7. l. copyhold Rents of 3. l. and of domaines which had used to be devised for several Rents and Farmes to which Mannor an Acre of waste parcel of the Mannor of the yearly value of 12. d. Heriotts Court Baron Leet and perquisits of Court which never were devised for Life years or otherwise did appertain and were incident was by a private Act of Parliament given to A. and B. in tail with diverse remainders over and the Donees were restrained Quod non facerent aliquid ad Nocumentum or disinheritance of the Tenant in tail or them in remainder and that they should have power to make a Lease for Life Years or at Will rendring the true and ancient Rent of the said Tenements to be demised and that all other acts should be void Tenant in tail accepted of a fine from a stranger of the Mannor by which they granted and rendred the Mannor for 300. years rendring rent yearly amounting to the free Rents Copy rents and Farme Rents and 18. d. more and 12. d. for the waste to be paid at two Feasts whereas the ancient Rent was paid at four Feasts Tenant in tail died and if the Lease for 300. years was to be avoided by the clause of Restraint was the Question It was Resolved 1. That although by the purview of the Act That all Estates restrained by the Act should be void yet the same should not avoid the Lease as to the Tenant in tail himself but it should be avoided by the Issues in tail 2. Resolved That in respect the Acre of waste was never devised before that the Rent which is entire reserved out of the whole cannot be said the true and antient Rent 3. Resolved That the reservation of the Rent at two Feasts where the antient Rent was payable at four Feasts made the Grant and Render void for that was to the hurt of the Issues in tail for it was more beneficial to have the Rent at four Feasts then at two Feasts and all beneficial Qualities of the Rent ought to be observed and for these causes and others the Lease for years was to be avoided by the Issue in tail Knights Case 333. The Case was a Prior seised of divers houses with the consent of his Covent made a lease of them for years rendring rent of 5. l. 10. s. 11. d. at four usual Feasts upon condition that if the Rent was behind in part or in all at any of the said Feasts he and his Successors to reenter The Priory came to the King by surrender the King by his Letters Pattents under the Great Seal granted one of the houses to the Lessee and another in Fee and afterwards it was found by Commission under the Exchequer Seal that parcel of the said Rent was behind at one of the said Feasts the King before the Commission returned granted the residue of the houses to I. S. in Fee It was resolved in this case amongst other things That although without Office found the Lease was not void and although the Office was not returned before the date of the Letters Pattents made to I. S. yet forasmuch as the Office was found before the Grant and afterwards it was returned of Record that the grant was good and that in this case of Reentry without seisure the Lease was void Owens Case 334. Upon a Fine levyed the Lands were rendred to A. and to his wife and to the Heirs of the body of A. A. suffered a Recovery with Voucher in the life of his wife and afterwards died the wife died It was resolved in this case that the Recovery suffered by the Husband only did not bind him who was in the Remainder for betwixt husband and wife there are no moyeties and the joynt estate was not severed by the Recovery against the Husband only and the husband was not the only Tenant to the
one saith he hath Title or Interest to anothers Land an action doth not lye although he hath no Title but when he saith that another hath Title he cannot salve the same by applying the same to himself for his Justification Shaw and Thompsons Case 536. A Woman recovered Dower of a Copyhold within the Mannor and 40 l. damages because her Husband dyed seised and she brought Debt for the damages in B. R. adjudged it did not lye because the Court Baron could not hold plea not award Execution of 40 l. damages although the damages were there well assessed Huntbage and Shepheards Case 537. The Issue in an Ejectione firme was if Jemet the Wife of the Defendant was alive at the time The Jury found Julian the Wife of the Defendant was alive It was the opinnion of the Justices they cannot be intended one person without finding that by the Custome of the Country Weomen baptized by the name of Julian had been called Jemet Stile and Buts Case 538. Trespas for carrying away Clay the Defendant Justified by a Prescription as a Tenant of the Mannor but because the Clay was digged by another and not by the Tenant the Justification was ruled not to be good Doggerell and Pokâ—s Case 539. Covenant upon an Apprentiship the Defendant pleaded a By-law in London where he was Apprentice by the Common Councell That if any Freeman takes to Apprentice the Son of an Alien the Bonds and Covenants should be void It was adjudged no plea for that the Common Councel cannot make the Bonds and Covenants void but may Impose a Fine upon the Master for taking such an Apprentice Bab and Clerks Case 540. False Imprisonment the Defendat Justified That the Borough of St. Albans had authority by Charter to make By-lawes and they made a By-law That if any Burgesses give opprobrious words to the Major he should be Imprisoned of the Major at his pleasure and that he being Major sent an Officer to the Defendant being a Burgesse to come to the Common Hall for the affairs of the Town and he sent him this Answer Let the Major come to me if he will for I will not come to him Adjudged the Justification was not good that the By-law was not Lawfull and that the words were not opprobrious words Reynold and Purchowes Case 541. Assumpsit where the Plaintiff had recovered 4 l. against the Defendant in Consideration the Plaintiff had given him 3 l. he promised to acknowledge satisfaction and had not done it It was said it was no Consideration to pay that to him which is due The Court held the Consideration good because speedy payment will excuse and prevent travail and expense of Suit Gregory and Blasfields Case 542. Error of a Judgment in Ludlow upon the Statute of 4 and 5 Mar. for weaving of wollen Cloathes It was assigned that the Statute of 5 Eliz. had abrogated that Statute The Court said the Statute of 5 Eliz. had not abrogated it but encreased the penalty But because the Suit was there by Bill or plaint but ought not to be but by Writ or Information the Judgment there was Erroneous 543. The Custome of a Mannor was layed to be That if a Copyholder hath 2. Sons and a Wife and dyes and the eldest Son hath Issue and dyeth in the life of the Wife the younger Son shall have the Land The Issue being upon the Custome The Jury found the Custome That the younger Son shall have the Land unlesse the eldest was admitted in his life and paid the Lords Fine The Court held the verdict to be insufficient to prove the Issue Walter and Dawes Case 544. Assumpsit upon a promise to pay 20 l. yearly for 10. years to the Testator of the Plaintiff in consideration the Testator had granted him the Office of the Clerk of the Fines in the Counties of B. C. and Glamorgan The Defendant pleaded he did not exercise the said Office and the Venire was awarded in the County of Worcester It was adjudged against the Plaintiff because there they cannot take Notice of the Issue Necton and the Wardens of Wexchandlers Case 545. The Plaintiff sued a Prohibition against the Defendant upon Libell exhibited by them for a Legacy given to them by the Testator of the Plaintiff The Plaintiff surmised that there were divers Obligations for monies depending and Suits But in Conclusion the Defendants had a Consultation upon security to repay the Legacies to be there recovered by them if any things were Recovered by the Excecutors upon the Obligations Vide this case more largely Reported in Cr. 3. part 467. Wright and Major and Commonalty of Wickhams Case 546. Error was brought to reverse a Fine viz. that the Ancestor dyed mean between the Teste and the Return of the Writ of Covenant The Defendant pleaded that after the death of the Father the Plaintiff entred into parcell of the Land and made a Feoffment It was the opinion of the Court that he was barred by his entry and Feoffment of part upon the difference If a man hath an Action to Land if he suspend or extinguish it in part it is extinct in the whole but if he hath right to Land he may Release or suspend it in part and remain good for the Residue and upon this point the Judgment was reversed Welshes Case 547. Note It is the same case with the case of Attonwood Reported at Large in Cook 1. p. of his Reports upon the points there more largely debated and adjudged and therefore I have forborn here to abridge it I shall mention this case put by Pirriam Justice viz. If Tenant in tail be the remainder in tail the remainder to the Queen and Tenant in tail commits Treason and the Queen makes a Lease and the Tenant in tail dyeth without Issue and afterwards he in the Remainder dyeth without Issue that this Lease shall continue good upon the Reversion Lord Darcies Case 548. Quo Warranto for using a liberty to be exempt of Purveyance The Defendant pleaded that King Edward 4 granted to the Dean and Cannons of St. Pauls and their successors the said liberty within all their Lands and averres that they were seised of the Land in which at the time of the Grant and that afterwards the said Lands came to Edw. 6. who granted the same to his Grandfather and his Heirs with a Clause de tanta talia consimilia libertates c. quae quot qualia quanta the Dean and Canons or their predecessors ever had by reason of any Charter Grant of any of the Progenitors of the said King with a general non obstante aliquo Statuto c. It was Replyed that 27 H. 8. it was enacted by Parliament that the Kings Purveyors should execute their Commission in all places aswell within Liberties as without any Charter c. notwithstanding The Court was of opinion for the Queen because at the time of the Grant of tot tanta talia libertates the
liberty of Exemption was extinct by the Act of Parliament and the Kings intent was not to grant such a Liberty as was excinct and as to the non obstante it was not sufficient being general but if the Grant or non obstante had been particular there the Grant should have been good Matthew and Woods Case 449. Judgement was given in B. R. in an Action upon the case for words the Plaintiff there brought another Action in C. B. for the same words and had Judgment to recover Error was brough upon the Judgment in B. R. the Court was of opinion to confirme the Judgment in B. R. but they in discretion would not grant execution upon it but only upon the Judgment in their own Court Thimblethorps Case 550. Words viz. when wilt thou bring home my Husbands sheep which thou hast stollen adjudged actionable and the damages to be paid by the Husband Hilliard and Constables Case 551. Words spoken of the Plaintiff a Justice of Peace and Vice President of York viz. He is a blood-sucker and thirsteth after blood but if any man will give him a couple of Capons or a score of Weathers he will take them It was adjudged the words were not Actionable because he may thirst for blood in care of Justice Wheeler and Collyers Case 552. Assumpsit against an Administrator whereas the Intestate was in his life endebted to him 17 l. in consideration the Plaintiff would deliver to the Administrator 6. barrells of Beere he promised to pay the whole 20 l. being found for the Plaintiff Judgment was stayed because the action did not lye joynt for two sums of money Colmans Case 553. In consideration of 4 d. one promised to pay 10 l. upon non Assumpsit Damage shall be given to 10 l. and not to 4 d. adjudged Awder and Nokes Case 554. Lessee for years assigned over his Terme by deed to I. S. and Covenanted that I. S. and his assignes should enjoy the Land during the Terme without Interruption of any After I. S. assigned over his Terme by word and the Assigne being disturbed brought Covenant adjudged it did lye although the Assignement was but by word because there was privity of estate Paramoure and Darings Case 555. The Condition of an Obligation was to pay all Legacies which I. S. had bequeathed by his Will Adjudged the Defendant shall be estopped to say I. S. made no Will but he may plead he gave not any Legacies by his Will Grene and Bufkyns Case 556. The Statute of 31 H. 8. gave all Colledges dissolved to the Crown in which there is a Clause that the King and his Pattentees should hold discharged of Tythes as the Abbots held Afterwards the Statute of 1 Edw. 6. gave all Colledges to the Crown but there is in it no Clause of Discharge of Tythes The Parson Libelled in the spiritual Court and the Farmor of the Lands of the Colledge of Maidston in Kent brought a Prohibition upon the Statute of 31 H. 8. The Court was clear of opinion that the King had the Lands of the Colledge by the Statute of 1 E. 6. and not by the Statute of 31 H. 8. But the Justices doubted the Lands comming to the King by that Statute whether they should be discharged of Tythes by the Statute of 31 H. 8. there being no Clause in the Statute of 1 Edw. 6. for dicharge of Tythes but it was Resolved by the Justices that unity without Composition or Prescription was a sufficient discharge of Tythes by the Statute of 31 H. 8. 557. Action upon the case for that the Defendant made a Conigree in his own Lands and that the Conies entred into the Plaintiffs Land and destroyed his Corne Resolved that the Action did not lye because they were not the Defendants Conies when they were out of his Warren But in that case it was holden that the Erection of a Conigree or a Dove Cote was presentable in a Leet and finable there 558. Note Resolved in the Court of Common Pleas by the Justices there That an Information doth not lye upon the Statute for Tanning of Leather but only in the Courts of Record at Westminster and not in any other Inferior Courts The Queen and Hussies Case 559. Tenant in Tail of an Advowson the reversion to the King in 32 H. 8. granted it to the King and his Heirs the King granted the Advowson to the party presented Tenant in Tail dyed without Issue the Church became void Resolved that the Advowson did passe out of the Kings Reversion after the estate Tail was determined and that a Quare Impedit brought by the Queen did not lye But in this case it was Resolved That a double presentation would not put the Queen out of possession if she had had Right Nevill and Barringtons Case 560. After Issue joyned in an Ejectione firme and the Jury at the barre ready to try the Issue A Writ was brought to the Justices not to proceed Regina inconsulta in the Nature of Aide and after great debate the same was allowed by the Court Vide aide in personal actions 2 R. 313. Fennor and Plasketts Case 561. It was Resolved in this case That if the Husband distrain for Rent due to the Wife dum sola fuit and Rescous be made he alone may have a Writ of Rescous or at his Election joyne his Wife with him in the Writ 562. A Rescous was returned without shewing the place where Rescous was and the party was discharged Hinson and Baradges Case 563. If the Jury challenge the Sheriff and the challenge be confessed although the Jury be removed and a new Sheriff chosen Yet Resolved The proces shall go to the Coroners 564. It was Resolved in this case that Ejectione firme doth not lye de pecea terrae Hollman and Collins Case 565. A Judgment in the Court of Plimouth was reversed because the stile of the Court was Placita coram I. Majori c. and did not say secundum Consuetudinem villae nec per litter as Patentes c. Kelsick and Nicholsons Case 566. Two Executors were and one of them gave the Obligation to a Stranger for the payment of his own Debt and died The survivor brought Detinue It was adjudged the Action did not lie Sowel and Garrets Case 567. A devise was made to the Son and if he die without Issue or before his age of 21 years it shall remain to another the Son had Issue but dyed before 21. years Adjudged the Son should have the Land and not he in the Remainder and in that Case Ou was construed for Et. Buckler and Harvyes Case 568. The case is very long but this in effect Tenant for Life the Remainder in Fee Tenant for life made a Lease for years the Lessee entred Tenant for Life granted the Tenements to C. Habendum the Tenements from the Feast of Mich following for Life the Lessee for years attornes C. enters and makes a Lease at Will to whom the Tenant for Life
any essence and also because the possibility of the Wife was included in the Fine Ferry and Redings Case 718. Two were bound in a Statute to make such assurance as should to devised by the Conusee or his Councell upon Notice Assurance was devised and notice thereof given to one of them who refused but no Notice was given to the other It was Resolved that by the Refusal of one of them the Statute was forfeited and should bind both of them Strangewayes and Hicks Case 719. The Defendant knowing that the Plaintiff was an Enfant within age procured him to enter into a Recognizance of Debt to him for wares bought of him and for this the Defendant was fined in Star Chamber 100 l. and Imprisoned Lewes Case 720. He being Clark of the Assises in the County of S. and hearing his Deputy reading an Indictment of Murther the 31. day of June whereas June hath but 30. dayes and because he did not discover the same to the Justices of Assise before the Tryal of the person for that cause he was fined in the Starre Chamber 40 l. and the Judgment and execution of the party respited Rosses Case 721. A. levyed a Fine to the use of himself for life the remainder to his Excecutors untill they have levyed 300 l. for the performance of his Will and dyes The Executors permit a stranger to enter who receives greater profits then will pay the 300 l. afterwards the Excecutors enter and make a Lease for years Resolved that the estate of the Excecutors was determined by their own negligence and although the words of the Will are they shall have Levyed It is intended untill they might conveniently have Levyed the 300 l. 722. King Hen. the 8. Mortgaged certain Lands to Citizens of London upon condition of Redemption by payment of the money by the King to them They did not demand the money at the Receit of the Exchequer which was so found by Office It was the opinion of the Justices that the King might enter upon the Land Wherefore the Mortgagees and their Heirs were compelled to compound de Novo with the Queen for the Land and paid ten years purchase and took new grants from the Queen of the Lands Townsend and Kingsmills Case 723. Ejectione firme The Defendants pleaded that the Dean and Canons of Windsor was seised and made a Lease for years and the Lessee assigned the Terme to the Defendant who was possessed till the Lessor of the Plaintiff ousted him and disseised the Dean and Canons and made the Lease to the Plaintiff The Plaintiff Replyed and confessed the seisn and Lease of the Dean and Canons and made title to the Terme by the assignment made by the Lessee to his Lessor before the assignment to the Defendant and Traversed the disseisin It was the opinion of the Justices that the Traverse was not good because he confessed and avoyded and also Traversed Vide Helyors Case before pl. 709. Barres Case 724. Information in the Exchequer against divers Merchants some Aliens some English After issue the Aliens prayed tryal per medietatem Linguae It was denyed by the Court because the English who were Defendants could not have that tryal Lewen and Coxes Case 725. A. seised of Lands in Fee devised them to his 2. Sons equally and their Heirs If it was a joynt estate in them or they were Tenants in Common was the Question It was said the words equally had 2. significations in the one it referreth to the estate in the other to the quantity of the Land It was said in a Devise of Lands to 2. equally they were joynts But if a Devise were to 2. and their Heirs equally or part and part like it is a Tenancy in Common At last after long debate it was adjudged it was a Tenancy in Common and so it was affirmed in a Writ of Error in the Exchequer Chamber upon the opinion of 4. Judges against 3. of them Lovedon and Windsors Case 726. Quare Impedit the Case was L. had 2. Presentations and W. the 3. of Inheritance perpetual L. presented P. who was Institute and Inducted and afterwards in the time of Queen Mary was deprived because a Married man wherefore he again presented D. who was Inducted Afterwards P. was restored with Declaration that he had good Title Afterwards P dyed W. presented H. L. brought the Quare Impedit It was adjudged for the Plaintiff because the sentence declaratory for the restitution made a nullity in the deprivation of P. and upon that P. was restored without new Presentation and so avoyded the Incumbency of D. and so L. had good Title to present as his second Turne and W. had no title to present as yet 727. Upon the Statute of 39 Eliz. Cap. 6. Of Charirable uses these poynts were Resolved by the Justices 1. That although the Bishop of the Diocesse be a Commissioner by the expresse words of the Act yet it is not necessary that he be present at the execution of the Commission but if it be directed to him and others they may proceed in it without the Bishop but it must be directed to the Bishop else it is void 2. If it be directed sede vacante the Metropolitan is not to be named in it because he is not Bishop of the Diocesse and if a Bishop be made before the Execution of the Commission the same doth not take away the force of the Commission 3. If the Commissioners decree a Lease or Feoffment to be void it is void in interest and estate and if the Lord Chancellor c. after decree the estate good it is again good in interest but the Chancellor cannot make any decree in it if the former decree of the Commissioners be not against equity 4. If a Lease be made in deceit of the Charitable uses which is assigned to one who hath not notice of it for good and valueable Consideration The Commissioners have power to decree the Assignment void 5. The Commissioners may decree the mean profits long time before taken to be repaid by the party his Excecutors or Administrators and had received the and misimployed them as well as they may the profits which are to come 6. The Commissioners cannot by decree estabblish a Corporation of Churchwardens or others to take for Charitable uses but they may Decree Land to a capable body Politique without danger of Mortmain be the Land holden in Capite or not because the Queen is bound by the Statute Yet afterward the Justices altred their opinion in one of the poynts viz. That they could not decree the Lease or estate void of one who came in without Notice and upon good Consideration Druries Case 728. The Case shortly put was this A Countesse being a Widdow retained two Chaplins and afterwards she retained a third Chaplain which third Chaplain purchased a Dispensation to have two benefices with Cure his first benefice being of the value of 8 l. per an It was Resolved after long Argument that
Tenant in tail became Officer yet that Land shall be sold by the Queen 2. When an Officer is endebted to the King and his Land subject to be sold by the Act 13. Eliz. and he to prevent the sale of the Queen and to evade out of the Act makes a conveyance of his Lands to his Issues or others of his Blood in consideration of natural affection that such conveyance shall not be good not said to be Bona fide within the Proviso of the Act of 39 Eliz. but that the Queen may sell the Land for so much of her debt as was due before the conveyance 3. If the Officer or Debtor of the Queen after 39 Eliz. be Tenant in tail or hath power of Revocation there the Queen may sell the Land by the Statute of 39 Eliz. and if any such Officer or Debtor before 39. Eliz. and and after 13. Eliz. had made any conveyance to his Issues or Blood without valuable consideration especially if it be with power of Revocation that Land may be sold by the Queen by the Statute of 39. Eliz. Adams and Lamberts Case 848. A man devised Lands to his Brother for Life the Remainder for Life the Remainder in tail upon condition to find a Chaplain for ever to pray for Souls and for the Souls of all Christian people to celebrate Mass Annusaries and other Superstitious uses and if they failed to perform the Uses then he devised the Remainder for eight years to an Hospital and because he doubted the profits of those Lands would not suffice he devised other Lands to supply them upon condition that if they aliened or let the Land to the prejudice of those in the Remainder they should presently enter and to be seised to the said uses It was resolved 1. That the Devise of Land to find a Priest c. was a Superstitious use 2. That although one of the uses was uncertain and no certain Sum limitted to it 3. That although the Devise was for the Sustentation and Maintanance of poor men yet the Limitation to them to pray for Souls was a Superstitious use because they depended upon the Superstitious uses and therefore it was Resolved in this case that all the Lands were given to the King by by the Statute of 1. Eliz. of Chaunteries Salway and Wales Case 849. It was holden by the Justices That if a man makes a Deed of Feoffinent in December and after and before Livery executed the Feoffor sells the Land by good assurance to another and after that the Feoffee takes Livery and Seifin of the Feoffor it is Forgery in the Feffor and the Feoffee So if the Feoffee causeth Livery to be endowed generally upon the Deed without a special day of making the Livery the Indorsement is Forgery Mouse and Weavers Case 850. The case was A. after a Recovery in an Assize in the Court of the Mannor of Isleworth and before Seisin delivered by the Bayliff of the Mannor bought the Copyhold by Surrender It was adjudged maintenance within the Statute of 32. H. 8. But it was holden by the Justices that if one recover Land and be in possession by Writ of Seisin he may sell the same although he nor his Ancestor or other by whom he claims was in possession by the space of a year next before And in this case it was holden by the Justices that a Clerk or Attorney in one Court cannot sollicite a Cause in another Court although it be for the same matter which was in his own Court Pollard and Moretons Case 851. It was Resolved in this case that a Justice of Peace coming to remove a Force may take posse comitatus with him 2. Resolved if one entreth into an house where no man is in the house with armed men or company unusual the same is a forceable entry Whetstone and Mintons Case 852. A. a Citizen of London seised divers Messuages in the Parish of St. Mary Sommerset in Queen-hith London 25 H. 6. devised the same to his two Daughters in tail and for want of such Issue to the Parson and Churchwardens of St. Michael and their Successors they yearly holding and making an Anniversary in the Church for the Soul of him and his Wife paying 6 s. 8 d. yearly amongst the Chaplains and others there and if the Parson and Churchwardens were remisse in holding Anniversary then the Parson and Curchwardens and Successors for that time should pay 20 s. of the Uses of those Lands Nomine poenae to the use of the Chamber of London The Devisor died the Land being of the yearly value of 10 l. 3 s. 4 d. The Daughter 's died without Issue the Parson and Churchwardens entred and took the profits and held the Anniversary and paid yearly the 6 s. 8 d. amongst the Chaplains c. et non ultra The Statute of 1. Ed. 6. of Chaunteries was found The sole Question in this case whether the Land or Annual Rent were given to the Crown by the Statute of 1 Ed. 6. of Chaunteries It was Resolved by the Justices in this Case that only the Annual Rent of 6 s. 4 d. was given to the Crown by the Statute and not the Lands for they said it had bin often adjudged that where a stipend was appointed to an Anniversary Obit Legacy c. there although the Land was given in the Premises the Crown should have but the stipend and in this case the intent of the Devisor was clear that the Parson and Churchwardens should have all the profits over and above the 6 s. 4 d. yearly to their own use Grills and Rigewayes Case 853. The case was A man was in Execution for debt and brake Prison and escaped The Sheriff made fresh Suit and retook him It was adjudged in this case no escape and it was holden that if the Prisoner who escapes be out of his sight yet if the Sheriff or Goaler take him upon Fresh Suit in recenti persecutione he shall be in Execution again 854. Note it was Resolved by the Justices that the breaking of a Dwelling-house in the night to the intent to rob or kill any one is Burglarie although that no person be in the house and if a man have two houses of Habitation which he dwells in by turnes if a Thief in the night breakes the house in which the person is absent it is Burglarie Austin and Twynes Case 155. It was Resolved in this case if two Churches one of the value of 10 l. and the other of 8 l. be within one mile of another the Ordinary may consolidate them and if the Patron and King confirm it the consolidation is good by the common Law and by the Statute pf 37 H. 8. 856. The King made the city of Gloucester a County with a clause of exemption from the County of Gloucester and of the power of the Officers of the County saving to the King and his Heirs Liberty for their Justices of Assize Goal-delivery and keeping Sessions there
condition that if there should be default made of Reparations upon Warning given within 6. Months the Lessor to reenter Resolved the warning in this Case must be given to the person and not at the place and both to the person of the Lessee as the person of his Assignee Wilmot and Knowles Case 884. A. and his Wife seised of Land to them and the Heirs of the Husband bargained and sold them to I. S. upon Condition if they or any of them or the Heirs or Assignes of the Husband pay 500 l. at such a day to I. S. it shall be Lawfull for the Husband and Wife and the Heirs of the Husband to enter and to hold in their former estate and that after the payment all Fines and Assurances should be to the use of the Husband and his Heirs and to no other use A Fine was Levyed before the enrollment of the Deed the Husband dyed having a daughter married to I. D. who in the right of his Wife payed the money and entred The Defendant in the Right of the Wife of A. entred It was adjudged his entry was Lawfull because upon the point the use was revested in the Wife as it was before the Fine and the last part of the Fine declaring the use to the Husband and his Heirs was void Atkins and Longviles Case 885. King H. 8. Anno. 33. of his Raign bargained and sold Land to the Ancestor of the Defendant without any words of grant It was adjudged it was good enough by the Expresse words within the Statute of 31 H. 8. of Monasteries which makes all Patents Indentures and writings made by the King after 4. Feb. Anno 27. of Monastery Land to be made within 3. years after the Act to be good 886. In Trespas the Record of Nisi Prius was of a Trespas 12 Jan. 25 Eliz. whereas the Declaration was of a Trespas 12 Jan. 45 Eliz. found for the Plaintiff I was adjudged the Plaintiff could not have Judgment nor the Record of Nisi Prius amendable by reason of this variance Fitzwilliams Case 887. A. suffered a Recovery to the use of himself and his Wife with a Remainder to their Son Provided it shall be Lawfull for him and his Wife by their joynt Deed sealed and delivered before three Credible Witnesses to alter change revoke determine and make void any use estate or estates limited in the said Deed and to limit new uses and from thence forth the Recovery shall be to the new uses A. and his Wife made a Deed and by the same declare That it was their intent to alter change and determine revoke and avoid all the former uses to their Son and thereupon without more words they limited new uses It was adjudged it was a good revocation of the old uses and a good limitation of the new uses Vide Cook 6. part 33. Brown and Nichols Case 188. It was Resolved in this Case that a Conduit to carry Water to an house shall passe with the house by the word Appertenant and the owner may come upon the Land of another to mend it so it be done at a convenient time and that without either Prescription or Grant Pudsey and Neusons Case 889. The Condition of an Obligation was that if the Obligor make all reasonable acts c. which shall be for assurance c. to be required by the Obligee before sueh a day c. Adjudged a general request is sufficient and the Obligor at his perill is to make it otherwise if it had been to be devised by the Obligee or his Councell there he must shew that he had required such a particular Assurance viz. a Fine or a Feoffment c. Milliner and Robinsons Case 890. Ejectione firme A Lease was made by two Coparteners the Declaration was Quod demiserunt ruled not good because it is a several Lease of each of them or his part The Case further was A. devised his Land to his brother I. and if he dyed having no Son that the Land should Remain to W. for life and if he dyed having no Son to Remain to the right Heirs of the Devisor Resolved I. had an estate Tail but W. had it but for life or at least to his Heirs Females for having no Son is meer Contingent Frewwater and Rois Case 891. Tenant in Tail the Remainder in Tail Remainder to the right Heirs of Tenant in Tail Tenant in Tail Covenanted to stand seised to the use of himself and his Heirs untill marriage and after to the use of himself for life the Remainder to his Wife for life with divers Remainders over in Tail and after he suffered a Recovery and dyed It was adjudged it was a bar of the Ancient Tail because by the Covenant to stand seised there was not any alteration of the estate of the Tenant in Tail 892. A Parson sued for Tythes of Fodder the Parishioners prescribed in Non decimando because the Fodder was for their Cattell which manured their Land It was holden no good Prescription but it was agreed Tythes should not be paid for Agistments nor for Wood for hedgwood to enclose the Corne nor for Fewell Rye and Fuliambs Case 893. A. was divorced from his Wife for Incontinency he after took another Wife living the first Wife Adjudged the second Marriage was void because the Divorce was but à Mensa Thoro and not à Vinculo Matrimonii Ward and Sudmans Case 894. The Case was The Bishop of Exeter in Consideration of service and other Considerations gave Lands to T. his Servant and to S. his Kinswoman in Tail Quaere if it was a Joynture within 11 H. 7. because no Consideration was expressed but service and the Consanguinity is but a Consideration implyed The Court doubted of it The Case was not Resolved Errors Short and Hellyars 895. Trespas Quare clausum fregit blada tritici ad valent ' 40 l. messuit conculcavit consumpsit nec non herbam ad valent ' centum solid ' pedibus ambulando conculcavit Consumpsit found for the Plaintiff Error assigned 1. Because the Venire facias was returned upon Sunday which was not dies juridicas 2. Because he supposed the Continuance of the Trespas inâ—depasturatione herbae whereas the Trespas is not supposed in the pasturing but only in conculcatione consumptione herbae pedibus ambulando The Court held the first was amendable by the Statute of 18 Eliz and for the second they said it was but surplusage Sir George Hennage and Curtis Case 896. Trespas for Trespas done in his Close in H. the Defendant justified and prescribed by reason there was a Common Foot way from H. thorow the said Close unto another Foot way from H. to K. in the same County Issue was upon the Prescription the Venire facias was only of H. whereas it ought to have been of H. and K. and for that cause the Judgment was reversed Holt and Tilcocks Case 897. Assumpsit against the Defendant
The Spanish Ambassador and Plages Case 1040. Plage was pressed with his Ship at Lisbone to carry the King of Spains Soldiers to such a Port and had their Letters from the Vice-Roy of Portugal to trade to Brasil he performed the Service of Transportation and 14 months after traded at Brasil and freighted his Ship there for the transportation of Goods to Hamborough and was bound with Sureâ—ies in the Custom-house of Brasil to pay the customes due to the King of Spain at St. Michaels the Ship by tempest was forced into England and did not touch at St. Michaels The Spanish Ambassador pretending the Goods to be forfeit to the King of Spain sued for them in the Admiralty here and a Sentence was there for the King of Spain to have the Goods Plage sued to the Lord Chancellor here to have an Appeal from that Sentence and an Appeal was granted him Sir Thomas Palmers Case 1041. Sir Thomas Palmer who was attainted of Treason in the time of Ed 6. for natural affection 7 Ed 6 by Indenture covenanted to stand seised to the use of himself for Life the remainder to I. S. for Life the remainder to the first Son of the said I. S. in tail the remainder to his eighth Son he was attainted before I. S. had any Son It was Resolved that by the Attainder the Son of I. S. was barred which was afterwards born and the Fee-simple was in the Crown discharged of all the Remainders Jepps and Tunbridges Case 1042. The Defendant delivered a brief of the cause to some of the Jâ—rors impannelled before they appeared for their Instructions This was adjudged an offence for which he was Sentenced in the Star-chamber And in this case it was Resolved that the Plaintiff and Defendant himself may labor the Jurors to appear but a stranger cannot so do 2. That the writing of a Letter or a request by wordâ— by one not a party to the Suit to the Jurors to appear is Maintenance 3. It is not lawful for the party himself to instruct the Jurors either by writing or by word nor to promise them any Reward for their appearance for it is Embracery in them aswell as in a stranger Sis Tho. Dâ—wbridgecourt and Sir Anthony Ashleys Case 1043. The Defendant was decreed â—n Chanceâ—y to pay 1000 l. to the Plaintiff after the Decree the Defendant procured the Son of Sir Thomas by a Letter of Attorney which he had from his Father to agree only the Suit for 200 l. whereof 100 l. was paid in hand and the rest to be paid at a day certain to make a Release which the Son did in his own name but not in the name of his Father It was the opinion of the Justices and also of the Lord Chancellor that this Release was void Crew and Vernons Case in the Star-chamber 1644 Sir Randolph Crew and all those whose Estate c. he had in the Mannor of Crew time out of mind c. had had Turf to born in the House of Crew-hall in a great Waste called Okehanger Moor being interâ—upted he sued in the Exchequer at Chester whereupon Affidavit of the possession 60. years his possession was established After the hearing of the Cause there Vernon interrupted the servants of Crew and with Harrows tore the Turffs for which cause a Bill was exhibited in the Star-chamber against the said Vernon and others they put in a scandalous Answer saying that the Judge at Chester ought not in Justice have made such an Order and called the Affidavit an equivocating Affidavit and affirmed the owners of the Mannor of Crew had taken the Turff but by License and Vernon affirmed to the Court that he had a Release to shew for the discharging of the Prescription but no such Prescription could be shewed nor was but a Grant of Turff to be there taken In this case it was Resolved by the Court the Prescription was not determined by the new Grant but the Grant enured as a confirmation and so the title of Prescription remained 2. Resolved that the words spoken of the Court of Chester were very scandalous and the Affidavit which he called an equivocating Affidavit was approved by the whole wherefore the Defendants were sentenced and fined by the Court and the defendants were to acknowledge their offence to the Court of Chester Sir Anthony Barkers Case 1046. I. S. exhiâ—ited a Bill in the Star Chamber against Sir Anthony Barker and divers other Gentry of Credit and charged the Defendants with the forging of the Will of M. P. and with many undue practices in drawing the said M. P. to make such a Will At the hearing of the Cause the Plaintiff relinquished the Forgery confessing it was no Forgery but would have insisted upon the practices of the Defendants for drawing the said M. P. to make the Will The Court refused to permit the Plaintiff to insist upon the practices for if he would have insisted upon the practices he ought to have confessed the Will and then have shewed the undue practises used to draw her to make such Will Wherefore the Plaintiff was fined 200 l. to the King and the Court gave Damages to each of the Defendants and the reason why they gave damages they declared to be because the Bill being scandalous no action lay for the Defendants at Law because the Bill was prefered before competent Judges to punish the Offences if there had been any and therefore it was reason by reason of such defect of the Common Law in giving damages the Court having Jurisdiction of the Cause supplied the said defect Goodricks Case 1047. Goodrick at a Tavero said to D. being a Master of Arts at Cambridge That there was late a great Contestation befor the King betwixt the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Earl of Northampton Lord Privy Seal because the Archbishop enformed that since the said Lord had been Warden of the Cinque Ports there were more Jesuites and Seminary Priests come into the Realm then before which he said was the Newes of the Court Another offence was That Ingram a Merchant had heard at Ligorne in Florence by two Students out of the Colledge at Rome that the Earl of Northampton writ a Letter to Cardinal Bellaâ—ine to pray him that no answer should be made to his book which he had Written upon the Treason of Garnet the Jesuite because he writ it only ad placandum Regem faciendum populum The Defendants were found Guilty upon their Confessions It was Resolved by the Justices it was a slander within the Statute of Z. R. 2. which moved sedition betwixt the King and his Nobles and that although the publisher did produce his author of such false newes yet he himself was punishable and if one saith there is common Rumor that such a one hath done such an act an action upon the Case lyeth although he doth produce his Author And in this Case it was agreed that if one sayes to another the effect of