that one Butty was seised of the Land where c. and also of a Messuage with which Messuage the said Land had been usually occupied time out of mind c. and being seised and lying sick commanded a Scridener to be brought to him and the said Scrivener being brought to him he gave him Instructions to make his Will and amongst other things declared unto him that his meaning was that the said Messuage and all his Lands in Westerfield should be sold by his Executors and the Scrivener in making of the Will penned the matter in this manner I will that my house with all the appurtenances shall be sold by my Executors Butty died the Executors sell forty acres of the said Land to the Def. and all this matter was found by special verdict and it was moved by the Plaintiffs Counsel that the sale of this Land by the Executors is not warranted by the Will Another matter was moved scil admitting that the Executors have authority by the Will to sell the Land if the sale of parcel of the Land be good and warrantable As if I make a Charter of Feoffment of ten acres and a Letter of Attorney to make livery of them to the Feoffee if the Attorney makes several liveries of the several acres the same is void But by Cook the Cases are not like for in the Case put he hath a special Commission in which the party to whom and all the other circumstances are set down certainly contrary in the Case at the Bar there the Commission is general c. and peradventure the Executors shall never find a Chapman who will contract with them for the whole More Rep. 222. Co. Inst 113. a. And afterwards upon conference amongst the Iudges Clench Gawdy and Wray it was resolved that by this devise the Lands do pass by the sale of the Executors to the Defendant which sale also by process is warranted by the Will for by Wray these words with all the appurtenances are effectual and emphatical words to enforce the devise and that doth extend to all the Lands especially because it is found that the Testator gave to the Scrivener his Instructions accordingly And afterwards Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff See 3 Eliz. Plowd 210. Betwixt Sanders and Freeman there the Devise is pleaded in this manner Messuagium cum pertinentiis ad illud spectantibus in perpetuum in villa de Arthingworth XLIII Watkins and Astwicks Case Trin. 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 1 Cro. 132. IN an Ejectione firmae it was found by special verdict that one Maynard was seised and made a Feoffment in Fee upon condition of payment of mony on the part of the Feoffor by way of Mortgage at a certain day before which day the said Maynard dyed his Son and Heir being within age Tender to redeem a Mortgage afterwards at the day of payment limited by the Mortgage a stranger at the instance and request of the Mother of the Heir tendred the money to the Mortgagee in the name of the Heir being within age who refused it And it was resolved by the whole Court that the same is not a sufficient tender to redeem the Land according to the Mortgage for it is found by the Iury that the Heir at the time of the tender was within age 2 Len. 213. generally not particularly of six or ten years c. then it might well stand with the verdict that the Heir at such time was of the age of 18 or 19 years at which age he is by the Law out of the Ward of his Mother or any other prochein amy in which Case it is presumed in Law that he hath discretion to govern his own affairs and in this Case the Mother is but a stranger for the Law hath estranged the Mother from the government of the Heir but if the Iury had found that the Heir at the time of the tender was of tender age viz. within the age of fourteen years in which Case by Law he ought to be in Ward in such Case the tender had been good XLIV Leput and Wroths Case Trin. 28. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. A Replevin by Lepur against Wroth 6 Co. 33. Replevin 3 Len. 132. and declared upon a tortious taking in Burnham in the County of Essex the Case upon the pleading was that Robert Earl of Sussex was seised of the Manor of Burnham in Fee and leased the same to the King for one and twenty years and afterwards the said Earl died by which the said Manor descended to Thomas late Earl of Sussex and he being seised 4 and 5 Phil. and Mary it was Enacted by Parliament That the Lady Frances Wife of the said Earl by virtue of the said Act of Parliament should have hold and enjoy c. during the widowhood of the said Frances for and in consideration of the Ioynture of the said Frances the said Manor Provided always and it is further enacted Construction of Statutes That it should be lawful for the said Earl by his writing indented dimissionem vel dimissiones facere pro termino 21. annorum vel infra de eodem Manerio pro aliquo redditu annuali ita quod super omnes singulos hujusmodi dimissionem dimissiones antiquus redditus consuetus vel eo major amplior reservaretur and that every such demise should be of force and effectual in Law against the said Frances for term of her life if the said term should so long continue And further the said Act gave to the said Frances Distress Avowry Covenant c. against such Lessee and for the said Lessee against the said Dame And afterwards the said Thomas the said former Lease not expired leased the said Manor to Wroth the Defendant for one and twenty years to begin at the Feast of Saint Michael next following and note the Lease was made the third of April before rendring three hundred and forty pounds per annum which was redditus amplior antiquo usuali Popham Attorney general argued that the said Lease did not bind the said Lady Frances and that for two Causes 1. because it is to begin at a day to come 2. because it was made a former Lease being in esse and he argued much upon construction of Statutes to be made not according to the letter but according to the meaning of them And he cited a Case upon the Statute of 2 H 5. 3. by which it is Enacted that in no Action in which the damages do amount to forty marks any person should be admitted to pass in trayl of it who had not Lands or Tenements of the clear yearly value of forty shillings yet the said Statute shall not be by construction extended where in an Action between an English-man and an Alien the Alien prayeth medietatem linguae and yet the Statute is general So in our Case although this private Act doth not seem to provide expresly but for two
Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Debt KYnter brought debt upon an Obligation the condition was that whereas the Plaintiff had bought of the Defendant a Ship if then the Defendant shall enjoy the said Ship with all the furniture belonging to the same without being disturbed for the said Ship or any furniture appertaining to it that then c. and the Case was that after the sale of the said Ship a stranger sued the Plaintiff for certain monies due for certain Ballast bought by the Defendant for the same Ship and put into the said Ship before the sale of it and in the said suit the Plaintiff obtained a Iudgment and Execution and thereupon the said Ship was seised and all the matter was if Ballast be furniture of a Ship or not And it was moved by Serjeant Gawdy that it was for Ballast is as necessary to a Ship as a Sail but the Court was against him for somtimes a Ship may sail without Ballast for it may be laden with such Merchandizes which are convenient Ballast in themselves as Coals Wheat c. Periam at the first doubted of it and by him if I be bound upon condition ut supra I am bound to deliver the Guns being in it at the time of the sale but yet he conceived that the Plaintiff should be barred because he had not specially shewed that at the time of the sale the Ballast was in the Ship. LX. Pendleton and Gunstons Case Mich. 28 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. PEndleton informed against Gunston upon the Statute of 13 Eliz. Cap. 5. for that where the said Pendleton had before brought a plaint of Debt against I.S. in the Guild-Hall of Norwich upon which issued out of the said Court an Attachment against the said I.S. by which the Sheriff of Norw being ready by virtue of the said process to attach the said I. S. by his goods there the now Defendant in disturbance of the said process and the execution of it did publish and shew to the Sheriff a conveyance by which he claimed the said goods as conveyed to him by the said I. S c. and averred the fraud c. and it was moved by Serjeant Snagg that the matter of which the Defendant is charged is not within the said Statute because the avowing of the said conveyance doth not go in delay of the execution for no Iudgment is given but only in delay of process but the Court was clear of opinion to the contrary and that by reason of the Statute and the words of it scil delay hinder or defraud Creditors of their just and lawful Actions sutes c. for here is a delay for want of serving the said Attachment the Appearance of I.S. to the sute of the Plaintiff is delayed which mischief is within the remedy of the said Statute And Periam and Rhodes Iustices conceived that such avowing of such conveyance where no sute is depending is within the said Statute which Anderson doubted See the pleading of this Case reported in the second Book of Entries 207 208. 30 Eliz. per quod secta impedita fult c. LXI Mich. 28 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. FEnner Serjeant moved this Case 4 Len. Alien Purchasor An Alien purchaseth Lands in Fee The Queen confirms it to the Alien Office is found if the confirmation shall bind the Queen and it seemed to some that it should for by the Lord Anderson Confirmation when an Alien is enfeoffed he receiveth by the Livery the Fee-simple of which he shall be seised until Office be found and a Praecipe quod reddat lyeth against him And by Fenner an Alien and Denizen Ioynt-tenants are disseised they both shall joyn in Assize vide 11 H. 4. 26. and by him the Kings Nief being an Inheritrix takes a Husband and hath issue Office is found the Husband shall be Tenant by the Curtesy which see 33 E. 3. Traverse 36. It was argued of the other side that the estate of the Alien is so feeble that a confirmation cannot enure upon it for an Alien cannot take but to the use of the King and cannot be enfeoffed to another use and if he be such use is void for there is not a sufficient seisin in the Alien to carry an use And it hath been adjudged in the Case of one Forcet that where an Alien and the said Forcet were Ioynt-purchasors and the Alien died Forcer had not the whole by the Survivor but that upon an Office found the Queen should have the moyety See Dyer 11 Eliz. 283. LXII Sir Roger Lewknor and Fords Case Mich. 28 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 1 Cro. 17. Co. 5. Rep. 12. b. SIr Roger Lewknor seised of the Manor of Wallingford leased the same to A. for years and died after which it was Enacted by Parliament That the said Manor should from henceforth be deemed and reputed in the Heirs of the body of the said Sir Roger begotten upon Eliz. his Wife the said Sir Roger having three Daughters only without any other issue The Daughters married Husbands and had issue A. assigned his enterest in the said Manor to B. C. and D. and also to one Shelley B.C. and D. assigned their interest to one Sponer one of the Defendants and Shelly assigned his fourth part to Ford another of the Defendants excepting the Woods and Vnderwoods Wast is committed one of the Daughters having issue dieth living her Husband the two surviving Sisters and their Husbands the Term being expired brought a Writ of Wast leaving out the Husband of the third Sister who was Tenant by the Curtesy against Shelley and Sponer who Tenuerunt Shuttleworth Serjeant took Exception to the Writ scil praedictus Rogerus cujus haeredes ipsae funt which shall be intended Heirs general and by the Declaration it appeareth that the Daughters have to them by Act of Parliament an especial inheritance as Heirs in special tail and that by a special conveyance and therefore the Plaintiffs ought to have brought a special Writ according to their Case as where Cestuy que use maketh a lease for years by the Statute of 1 R. 3. and the Lessee committeth Wast now the Feoffees ought to have a special Writ of Wast according to their Case 26 H. 8. 6. but that exception was disallowed and the case cited out of 6 H. 8. is upon another reason for in such case the estate of the Lessee for years is created by the said Statute Another Exception was taken to the Writ for the Writ is tenuerunt which shall be intended prima facie conjunctim tenuerunt and in the Declaration it appeareth that one of the Defendants is assignee of three parts of the Lands demised and the other Defendant of the fourth part and so separatim tenuerunt but that Exception was also disallowed because originally it was one and intirely demised interest and estate and so it remaineth as to the Plaintiffs although it be devised by the Lessee himself
upon the grant of the said Rent ought to attorn to the Grant for the Ter-tenant ought to attorn and one of them is not Ter-tenant And in case of a Rent-charge the Avowry is upon the Lands but Attornment differs from our case for Attornment is but a bare assent without any interest in him who attorns for an Abator may do it but here is matter of Interest and in Attornment Attornment for one acre is effectual for all 18 E. 3. Fitz. variance 63. but otherwise it is in case of Confirmation for one acre the same doth not extend to the rest for in such case an Interest passeth So here the one of them is not Patron therefore all of them ought to concur 31 E. 3. Grants 61. That such act of the Patron shall not bind but according to the Estate of the Patron which see Lit. 112. 528. as if Tenant in Tail confirm the same shall not bind the Presentee of the issue See Fitz. Grants 104 In R. 2. The case was that the Bishop of Covent and Lichfeild had two Chapters one of Coventry the other of Lichfeild and he made a conveyance but one Chapter only did confirm it the same doth not bind the Successor for both are but one Chapter in respect of the Bishop and see the case abridged by Statham Title Assize for if the Bishop is chosen by both Chapters there a confirmation must be of them both The case in Dyer 11 Eliz. 282. Thark Archbishop of Dublin hath two Deans and Chapters the one surrendreth without the assent of the Bishop and afterwards the other Dean and Chapter confirmeth a Lease made by the Bishop the same is good I confess that for the Surrender was by Act of Parliament and so one sole Chapter remained And in our case the Lease cannot be good in part and void for the residue for all are but one Patron as 22 H. 6. 47. Two Coparcenes are they make composition to present by Turns a Writ of Annuity is brought against the Incumbent he shall have aid of both And see the Case betwixt Gore and Dawbney in the Exchequer Chamber upon a Writ of Error where two are accountable an Account made by the one is not good for both the Accountants shall make but one account and therefore the Account of the one cannot be good And the Lord Anderson put this Case two Ioynt-tenants of a Manor the one of them doth grant a Copy the same is void for he is not Dominus pro tempore And see as to the assent of them all c. 3 Eliz. 190. Dyer But it hath been objected That now the Incumbent comes in by the Ordinary and not by the Presentment of the Patron and the Ordinary is bound by the confirmation of his Predecessor so that the collation of the Bishop by Lapse is in the right and sted of the Patron and as the Presentee of the Heir of the Patron shall avoid c. so also of the Ordinary and 20 E. 3. Br. Presentment 12. The Patron shall have a Writ of Darrein-presentment upon the present of the Bishop for Lapse and 22 H. 6. If a man can recover an Advowson and after the Bishop collate for Lapse the same is an Execution of the Iudgment and will make a possessio fratris as Moyle saith And in our case this confirmation is void in all because Non sunt concurrentes ii qui in hac parte concurrere debuerant And it is an entire Act and cannot be avoided in part and stand for the residue and the Presentee comes in in the right of the Heir for which he may avoid it c. Popham contrary it is to be here considered if the Ordinary hath Interest in the Church by this Lapse or only an authority for if he hath an Interest then it will follow that every one of his Successors shall be bound by his Confirmation and also their Presentees It hath been objected that there ought to be a full and entire Patron who makes such a Lease otherwise it is void But that is not so as if the Patron be Tenant for life his Lease or Confirmation shall not be void in all but shall be good during his life which see 31 E. 3. Grants 61. and 19 Eliz. 356. A Parson makes a Lease for forty years the Bishop being Patron and Ordinary confirms it the Patron dyeth the Bishop presents and afterwards is translated this Lease shall stand during the life of the Bishop and of the new Incumbent who found the Church charged and then such Lease may be good for part and void for part See for the same 2 E 3. 8. If the Advowson of a Church be appropriated unto a Prior and his Successors if afterwards the wife of the Grantor be endowed of it and present her Clerk the Church is become dis-appropriated during the life of the Wife but afterwards shall stand See the case cited to the contrary 29 Eliz. in the case of the Earl of Bedford 7 Co. 8. At the beginning the Patron was not restrained to any time to present his Clerk but the six months was appointed at the instance and suit of the Ordinaries by a Canon confirmed in the councel of Lateran before which time the Ordinaries had not any Lapses but after the said Canon they had an Interest in the Church and this appeareth in the Register And see F.N.B. 37. f. that after the Ordinary is entituled to Lapses The Plaintiff in a Quare Impedit cannot have a Ne admittas for now the Ordinary hath an Interest And if the Bishop hath Title to present by Lapse and before Presentment he dyeth so as his temporalties come to the King the King shall present which proves that it is an Interest and the Civilians call it Interesse caducum conditionale And in our case the confirmation of the Coparcener shall bind the other Coparceners in a Nativo habendo shall bind them all and the villain shall be free for ever And it was moved also if an usurper or the Clerk who is in by him shall avoid this clause and by the words of the Statute of West 2. Si tempus semestre transierit per impedimentum alicujus ita quod Episcopus Ecclesiam conferat verus Patronus ea vice praesentationem suam amittat adjudicentur damna ad valorem Ecclesiae pro duobus annis Wherefore what the Patron loseth the Ordinary hath the same therefore it is an Interest and in lieu of that loss the Statute gives damages to the Patron c. And the case was adjorned to be further argued at another day c. CCCXVIII Pet and Baldens Case Pasch 33. Eliz. Rot. 392. In the Kings Bench. IN a prohibition the Plaintiff declared Prohibition 1 Cro. 274. that whereas Michael Pett was seised of divers Lands and made his Will by which he made the Plaintiff his Son his Executor and thereby devised unto A. his Wife one hundred pounds in consideration and recompence
afterwards that this murder is dispunishable notwithstanding the Statute of 2 Ed. 6. CCCLXIV The Queen and Braybrooks Case Pasch 25 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 3 Co. 1 2 c. THe Queen brought a Writ of Error against Braybrook The Case was this That King Ed. 4. was seised of the Manor of Marston and gave the same to Lionel Lord Norris and A.M. and the Heirs of the body of the Lord the Remainder to H. Norris in Tail L and A. entermarry L. suffered a common Recovery against himself only without naming the said A. Hen. Norris is attainted of high Treason by Act of Parliament and by the same Act all his Lands Tenements Hereditaments Rights Conditions c. the day of the Treason committed or ever after c. Hen. Norris is executed Lionel dieth without issue the Queen falsified the said Recovery for one moiety by Scire facias because Anne who was joint-tenant with Lionel was not named party to the said Recovery and afterwards the Queen granted to the Lord Norris Son of the said Hen. Norris Manerium suum de Merston omnia jura in eodem and now upon the said Recovery the Queen brought a Writ of Error and it was argued by Egerton the Queens Sollicitor that this right to a Writ of Error is such a right as is transferred to the Queen by the Act of Parliament for the words are omnia jura sua quaecunque and here is a right although not a present right yet a right although in futuro so it is a right of some quality as A. Tenant in Tail the Remainder in Tail to B.A. makes a Feoffment in Fee B. is attainted of high Treason and by such Act all his Lands c. given to the King. A. dieth without issue the Queen shall have a Formedon in the Remainder and although the Queen hath granted to the Lord Norris Manerium suum de Merston omnia jura in eodem yet by such general words a Writ of Error doth not pass which See 32 H. 8. Br. Patents 98. And also this Action rests in privity of record and cannot be displaced from thence but by Act of Parliament see Br. Chose in Action 14. 33 H. 8. for when the King will grant a thing in Action he ought in his Patent to recite all the circumstances of the matter as the Right and how it became a Right and because the Queen here doth not make mention of this Right as of the Entail the Recovery and the Attainder for that cause the Right doth not pass The Case betwixt Cromer and Cranmer 8 Eliz the Disseisee was attainted of Treason the Queen granted to the Heir of the Disseisee all the Right which came unto her by the Attainder of his Ancestor nothing passed Causa qua supra And always where the King grants any thing which he cannot grant but as King that such a grant without special words is to no purpose Coke contrary he agreed the Case put by Egerton for at the time of the Attainder B. had a Right of Remainder but in our Case Hen. Norris had not any Right but a possibility of a Right of Action i.e. a Writ of Error And he said that this Writ of Error is not forfeitable for it is an Action which rests in privity no more than a condition in gross as a Feoffment in Fee is made upon condition of the party of the Feoffor who is attainted ut supra This word Right in the Act of Attainder shall not transfer this Condition to the Queen and of the Act of Attainder to Hen. Norris it is to be conceived That the makers of the Act did not intend that by the word Right every right of any manner or quality whatsoever should pass to carry a Condition to the Queen and therefore we ought to conceive that the makers of the Act did not intend to touch Rights which rested in privity And as to the Grant of the Queen to the Lord Norris of the Mannor of Merston Et omnia jura sua in eodem he conceived that thereby the Right of the Writ of Error did pass for it is not like Cranmers Case but if in the said Case the Land it self had been set down in the Grant it had been good enough as that Cranmer being seised in Fee of the Manor of D. was there of disseised and so being disseised was attainted of high Treason now the Queen grants to his Heirs totum jus suum in his Manor of D c. and so in our Case the Queen hath granted to the Lord Norris Manerium suum de Merston omnia jura sua in eodem c. at another day it was moved by Plowden that this Right of Writ of Error was not transferred to the Queen by the Act but such Right might be saved to a stranger c. the words of the Act are omnia jura sua and this word sua is Pronomen possessionis by which it is to be conceived that no Right should pass but that which was a present Right as a Right in possession but this Right to a Writ of Error was not in Hen. Norris at the time of his Attainder but it was wholly in him against whom the erroneous Iudgment was had and therefore if in a Praecipe quod reddat the Tenant vouch and loseth and Iudgment is given and before Execution the Tenant is attainted by Act of Parliament by words ut supra and afterwards he is pardoned the Demandant sueth for Execution against the Tenant now notwithstanding this Attainder the Tenant may sue Execution against the Vouchee and afterwards Wray chief Iustice openly declared in Court the opinion of himself and all his companions Iustices and also of all the other Iustices to be That by this Act of Parliament by which all Lands Tenements Hereditaments and all Rights of any manner and quality whatsoever Henry Norris had the day of his Attainder or ever after Lionel then being alive and over-living the said Hen. Norris that this Writ of Error was not transferred to the Queen And that the said Act by the words aforesaid could not convey to the King this possibility of right for at the time of the Attainder the Right of the Writ of Error was in Lyonel and Hen. during the estate tail limited to Lyonell had not to do with the Land nor any matter concerning it And Iudgment was given accordingly And it was holden That he in the Reversion or Remainder upon an Estate tail might have a Writ of Error by the common Law upon a Recovery had against Tenant in tail in Reversion CCCLXV Mich. 25 26. Eliz. In the common Pleas. Copy-holder IN Trespass brought by a Copy-holder against the Lord for cutting down and carrying away his Trees c. It was found by special Verdict That the place where c. was Customary lands of the Plaintiffs holden of the Defendant and that the Trees whereof c. were Chery Trees de
Defendant did demur in Law it was holden by the whole Court that the Replication was good for the Award as to the second point was meerly void as if no such Award at all had been because A. was a stranger to the Award and the submission 1 Cro. 4. but as to the point of the 100 l. the same is good and shall bind the parties and the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover vide 21 E. 475. 18 E. 4. 22 23. CCCCXXV Fabian and Windsors Case Mich. 31 and 32. Eliz. Rot. 814. In the Common Pleas. IN Trespass for entring into his house or Inn at Uxbridge Leases 1 Cro. 209. it was found by special verdict That the Plaintiff leased to the Defendant the said house for seven years rendring Rent at the Feasts of the Annunciation of our Lady and Saint Michael c. with condition that if the said Rent shall be behind by the space of ten days c. that it shall be lawful to the Lessor to re-enter And afterward at the Feast of the Annunciation 31 Eliz. the Rent was behind and the tenth day after the Lessor came to the said House a quarter of an hour before the sun setting and demanded the rent in these words I demand three pound ten shillings for a half years rent of this House now due and there continued till the Sun was set but no Rent was paid But note that the Issue was If he came to the House half an hour before Sun set and there continued demanding the half years Rent of the Premises due at the Feast of the Annunciation of our Lady then last past It was moved by Fenner That upon this Verdict the Issue is not found for the Plaintiff i. the Issue was upon the half hour and the quarter part of the hour was found 2. the Issue was If the demand were of the Rent due at the Feast of the Annunciation passed and the Verdict is for Rent due at the time of the demand c. And it was the opinion of Anderson Periam and Walmesley Demand of Rent That as to the first point the Verdict was good enough for the Plaintiff Windham contrary But it was agreed by them all That if in demand of Rent ut supra the Lessor or any on his part doth demand one penny more or less than is due or in his demand doth not shew the certainty of the Rent and the day of payment of it and when it was due the demand is not good Conditions taken strictly for a condition which goes in defeazance of an estate is odious in Law and no re-entry in such Case shall be given unless the demand be precisely and strictly followed CCCCXXV Elmes and Meldcalfes Case Mich. 32. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IT was holden for Law by the whole Court 1 Cro. 189. That if one of the witnesses after the Iury are departed from the Bar doth repeat unto the Iury the same Evidence which he gave before and no more That that doth make the Verdict to be void CCCCXXVII Carter and Claycoles Case Mich. 32 33 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Leases More 593. 4 Co 76. IN Ejectione firmae by Carter against Claycole the Plaintiff declared upon a Lease made by the Wardens and Fellows of All-souls Colledge 1. July 10 Eliz. And it was found by special Verdict That Overden Warden of the said Colledge and the Fellows c. leased unto the Plaintiff To have and to hold from the Feast of the Annunciation next following to the end of twenty years and made a letter of Attorney to one to enter into the said Manor and to seal and deliver the Deed of the said Lease in their names to the Plaintiff who by force thereof entred into part of the demised Premises and there did seal and deliver the same c. But it was not found that any rent was reserved thereupon And if this Lease were gooâ— Then the Iury found for the Plaintiff but if not then for the Defendant Cooper Serjeant It hath been objected That this Lease being but for twenty years is not warranted by the Statute of 13 Eliz. Cap. 10. For the words of the Statute are Other than for the term of 21 years 5 Cr. 6. as to that It was not the intent of the Statute but only to abridge the great and long Leases heretofore made by Colledges and to limit such Leases to a certain measure of time ut supra for twenty one years or three lives non ultra but on this side as much as they would which was granted by the whole Court Another matter was because it is not found That the due rent was reserved upon the said Lease accustomed yearly rent or more and yet the same is good enough 1 Cro. 707. 708. Post 333. for if the other party will take advantage of such defect he ought to shew the same otherwise it shall be intended because it is found that such Lease was made that it was made according to the Statute For if a man is to make title to himself by a conditional Lease he is not to plead the condition but only the Lease and if the other party will defeat the Lease by the Condition he shall shew the same And in this Case The Defendant also ought to have shewed the Statute by which such defective Leases are made void Also it hath been objected That by the Statute of 18 Eliz. the third part of the Rent ought to be reserved in Corn and here is not found any Corn as to that It is to be considered that the said Statute is not a general Law Special Statutes ought to be pleaded whereof the Iudges are bounden to take notice but it ought to be pleaded for it extends but to four places viz. Cambridge Oxford Winchester and Eaton and therefore such a Statute ought to be pleaded or given in Evidence and found by Verdict As where a man pleads a general pardon in which divers persons are excepted he ought to plead it specially and shew that he is not any of the persons excepted 8 E. 4. 7. 28 H. 7. So special customs ought to be pleaded Gavelkind Borough-English 21 E. 4. 55. 36. The King grants to the Citizens of Norwich c. And afterwards by Act of Parliament all their Liberties c. are confirmed by a general confirmation to all Cities and Boroughs this is a special Act and ought to be pleaded by Brian 59 13 E. 4. 8. The Lord Saies case an Act of Parliament That all Corporations made by the King H. 6. shall be void is a special Act and ought to be pleaded And see 28 H. 8. 27. 28. Dyer If the Statute of 21 H. 8. cap. 13. Of Lands taken to Form by Ecclesiastical persons be a special Law Yelverton contrary The Statute of 13 Eliz. is a special Law and ought to be pleaded but the Statute of 13 Eliz. is now a general Law which see Hollands
not set down any place or time of the notification of his contentment for the same is traversable Gawdy The Issue here is non Assumpsit Assumpsit and therefore that matter is out of the Book Cook If one assume to pay twenty pounds to another upon request although the Defendant plead non Assumpsit yet if the place and time of request be not shewed Iudgment many times hath been stayed for no Action without a Request so here without notification of his contentment no Action therefore he ought to shew it Gawdy The ground of this Action is the Assumpsit but that cannot be certain without Declaration and thereof notice ought to be given to make certainty of the duty but not to enforce the promise but in our case without a Request Assumpsit will not lye But here it being but conveyance the certainty of the time and place is not necessary to be shewed but the general form shall serve for it is but inducement As if a man will plead a devise of goods to him and assent of the Executors to take them he need not to shew the time and place of the assent Gawdy at another day said that Iudgment ought to be given for the Plaintiff the Assumpsit is the ground and cause of the Action and the shewing of the contentment is only to reduce the Action to certainty And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CLXVIII Musket and Coles Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. WIlliam Musket brought an Action upon the Case against Cole 1 Cro. 13. and declared that in consideration that the Plaintiff had payed unto the Defendant forty shillings for the Debt of Symon his Son the Defendant promised to deliver to him omnes tales billas Obligationes in which his Son was bounden to him which thing he would not do and it was found by Verdict for the Plaintiff And it was moved for stay of Iudgment because the Plaintiff had not averred in his Declaration that the said Defendant had Bills or Obligations in which Simon his Son was bounden to the Defendant Averment for if there were none then no damage And see Onlies Case 19 Eliz. Dyer 356. D. in consideration that the Plaintiff had expended divers sums of money circa the businesses of the Defendant promised c. Exception was taken to that Declaration by Manwood and Mounson Iustices because it was not shewed in what businesses certain and betwixt what persons Gawdy The Plaintiff here is not to recover the Bills or Obligations but damages only and therefore needeth not to alledge any Bills in certain And 47 E. 3. 3. A. covenants with B. to assure unto B. and his Heirs omnia terras tenementa quas habet in such Counties and for not assurance an Action of Covenant was brought and the Plaintiff declared that the Defendant had broken the said Covenant and that he had required the Defendant to make a Feoffment unto him of all his Lands and Tenements in the said Counties and the plea was not allowed for the Land is not in demand but only damages to be recovered See also 46 E. 3. 4. and 20 E. 3. And in the principal case the Plaintiff had time enough for the shewing to the Iury what Bills or Obligations for the instructing of the Iury of the damages CLXIX English and Pellitary and Smiths Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Assault and Battery 1 Cro. 139 140. IN an Action of Trespass of Assault and Battery and wounding The Defendants say that they were Lessees of certain Lands and the Plaintiff came to the said Lands and took certain Posts which were upon the Lands and they gently took them from him S. pleaded that he found the Plaintiff and P. contending for the said Posts and he to part them mollite put his hands upon the Plaintiff which is the same c. The Plaintiff replyed De injuriis suis propriis absque tali causa per ipsos P. S. allegat upon which issue was joyned which was found for the Plaintiff It was moved in arrest of Iudgment that here was not any issue for the Plaintiff ought severally to reply to both pleas aforesaid for here are several Causes of Iustification and his Replication absque tali causa Nomen Collectivum Post 139. Dy. 182. doth not answer to both Cook This word Causa is nomen Collectivum which may be referred to every Cause by the Defendants alledged reddendo singula singulis and their Iustifications are but one matter and the Defendants might have all joyned in one plea. Wray Both pleas depend upon one matter but are several causes for two justifie by reason of their Interest and the third for the preservation of the Peace And by him and the whole Court although it be not a good form of pleading yet by reasonable construction this word Cause shall be referred to every cause and so the pleading shall be maintained And afterwards Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff CLXX Cater and Boothes Case Trin. 30. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Intrat Hill. 30 Rot. 58. or 581. IF a Writ of Covenant the Plaintiff declared that the Defendant by his deed bearing date the first of October 28 Eliz. did covenant that he would do every act and acts at his best endeavour to prove the Will of I. S. or otherwise Covenant that he would procure Letters of Administration by which he might convey such a Term lawfully to the Plaintiff which he had not done licet saepius requisitus c. The Defendant pleaded that he came to Doctor Drury into the Court of the Arches and there offered to prove the Will of the said I. S. but because the Wife of the said I.S. would not swear that it was the Will of her Husband they could not be received to prove it Vpon which it was demurred in Law. It was moved by Williams that the Action doth not lie for there is no time limited by the Covenant when the thing should be done by the Defendant for which he hath time during his life for as much as it is a collateral thing See 15 E. 4. 31. if there be not a Request before but admit that the Covenant had been to perform upon request Request then the Plaintiff in his Declaration ought to have shewed an express request with the place and time of it for that is traversable See 33 H. 6. 47 48. 9 E. 4. 22. Gawdy If the Covenant had been eypresly to do it upon request there the request ought to be shewed specially But when a thing upon the exposition of the Law only is to be done upon Request such Request alledged generally is good enough And by Wray the Covenantor hath not time during his life to perform this Covenant but he ought to do it upon request within convenient time but in some case a man shall have time during his life as where no benefit shall be to any of the
Surrenders from the said Husband and Wife the Remainder over to the said John Buck in Fee upon condition to pay a certain sum of money c. It was moved That the Surrender is void and without warrant for the warrant was ad capiendum unum fursum redditionem and here are two several Surrenders and so the warrant is not pursued and then the Surrender is void Another matter was because the Remainder to John Buck by the words of the Deputation was absolute and without Condition and now in the Execution of it it is conditional so as this conditional estate is not warranted by the Deputation But the whole Court was clear of a contrary opinion in both the points and that all the proceedings were sufficient and well warranted by the Deputation Another matter was objected because that this Surrender and regrant is entred in the Roll of a Court dated to be holden the second of Maij and the Letter of Deputation bears date the third of June after But as to that The Court was clear of opinion that the mis-entry of the date of the Court should not prejudice the party for this Entry is not matter of Record but is but an Escape and if the parties had been at Issue upon the time of the Surrender made or of the Court holden the same should not be tryed by the Rolls of the Manor but by the Country and the party might give in Evidence the truth of the matter and should not be bound by the Roll and according to this Resolution of the Court Iudgment was given CCCXCVI Mich. 26 27. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Fines levied THe Case was Tenant in tail leased for sixty years and afterwards levyed a Fine to Lee and Loveday Sur Conusans de droit come ceo c. with a Render to him and his Heirs in Fee And upon a Scire facias against the Conusees supposing the Lands to be ancient Demesn the Defendants made default for which the Fine was avoided and now the Issue in tail entred upon the Lessee for years and he brought an Ejectione firmae Sene facias â— Len. 117. and it was found That the Land was Frank Fee And all the question was If by the Reversal of the Fine by Writ of Disceit without suing forth a Scire facias against the Ter-Tenant should bind him or should be void only against the Conusee and not against the Lessee Atkin. It shall not bind the Lessee for years For a Fine may bind in part and in part not as bind one of the Conusees and not the other 7 H. 4. 111. A Fine levied of Lands part ancient Demesn and part at the common Law the same was by Writ of Disceit reversed in part as to the Land in ancient Demesn and stood in force for the residue 8 H. 4. 136. And there by award of the Court issued forth a Scire facias against the Ter-Tenants and the Iustices would not adnul the Fine without a certificate that the Land was Ancient Demesn notwithstanding that the Defendant had acknowledged it to be so but as to them who were parties to the Fine the Fine is become void as to the said parties and and he who had the Land before might enter i. And he said it should be a great inconvenience if no Scire facias or other Proces should be awarded against the Ter-tenant for he should be dispossessed and disinherited without privity or notice of it where upon a Scire facias he might plead matter of discharge in Bar of the Writ of Disceit as a Release c. which see Fitz. N.B. 98. And so although the Fine be reversed yet he might retain the Land and he resembled this case to the case of 2 H. 4. 16 17. In a Contra formam collationis against an Abbot a Scire facias shall issue forth against the Feoffee and so by the same reason here And for the principal matter he said That the Fine should be avoided against the parties but not against the Lessee Kingsmill The Scire facias brought against the parties only is good enough for they were parties to the Disceit and not the Ter-tenants It was adjorned CCCXCVII Mich. 26 27. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Error Appearance by Attorney Dyer 135. b. A Writ of Error was brought upon a Iudgment in a Quid juris clamat It was assigned for Error that the Tenant did appear by Attorney whereas he ought not but in person because he is to do an Act in proper person if it be not in case of necessity where the Attorney may be received by the Kings Writ or plead matter in Bar of the Attornment as if he claim Fee c. or other peremptory matter after which Plea pleaded he may make Attorney 48 E. 3. 24. 7 H. 6. 69. 2â— E. 3. 48. 1 H. 7. 27. Another Error was because it is not shewed in the Quid juris clamat what estate the Tenant hath Another matter was If the Grantee of the estate of Tenant in tail after possibility of issue extinct shall be driven to attorn â— Len â—â— and it was said he should not for the priviledge doth pass with the grant See 43 E. 3. 1. Tenant in tail after possibility of issue extinct shall not be driven to attorn 46 E. 3. 13. 27. Ergo neither his Grantee Williams contrary As to the appearance of the Tenant by Attorney because the same is admitted by the Court and the Plaintiff the same is not Error which see 1 H. 7. 27. by Brian and Conisby 32 H. 6. 22. And he said That the Grantee should be driven to attorn for no other person can have the estate of the Tenant in tail after possibility of issue extinct but the party himself therefore not the priviledge and although he himself be dispunishable of Wast yet his Grantee shall not have such priviledge As if Tenant in Dower or by the curtesie grant over their estates the Heir shall have Wast against the Grantors for Wast done by the Grantee but if the heir granteth over his Reversion then Wast shall be brought against the Grantees See Fitz. N.B. 56. And it two Coparceners be and the one taketh a Husband and dieth the Husband being Tenant by the curtesie a Writ of Partition lyeth against him but if he granteth over his estate no Writ of Partition lyeth against the Grantee 27 H. 6. Stathams Aid If the Grantee of Tenant after possibility shall attâ—rn Tenant in tail after possibility of issue extinct shall not have Aid but his Grantee shall have Aid Clark The Grantee of Tenant in tail shall not be driven to attorn If Tenant in tail grant totum statum suum the Grantee is dispunishaple of wast so if his Grantee grant it over his Grantee is also dispunishable c. It was adjorned CCCXVIII Gravenor and Masseys Case Mich 26 27. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. GRavenor brought a Writ of Error upon a common
case 39 Eliz. and Damports case 45 Eliz. And this Act of 13 Eliz. is general in respect of time for it extendeth to all time after from henceforth and to all persons to whom such Leases shall be made the words the Statute are scil To any person or persons in respect of persons who shall lease all spiritual persons General in respect of the end which is the maintenance of learning which extends to the common profit c. Drew Serjeant That this act of 13 Eliz is general in respect of restraint only and extends only to spiritual persons and therefore ought to be pleaded for otherwise the Court shall not take notice of it As the Statute of 23 H. 6. of Sheriffs ought to be pleaded which see in the Case of Dive and Manningham Plowden 64 65. Co. 1 Inst 45. And although the Statute ought to be pleaded Yet this Lease is not void against the Warden who made it but against his Successor although no rent be reserved upon it notwithstanding that the perclose of the Statute be utterly void and of none effect to all intents constructions and purposes So upon the Statute of 1 Eliz. concerning Leases made by Bishops the Law had been so taken in the case of the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfeild upon a Grant of the next Avoidance That although it doth not bind the Successors yet it shall bind the Grantor himself So here this Lease being made by the present Warden and Fellows of the Colledge aforesaid although it be not sufficient to bind the Successor yet it shall bind the Warden who made the Lease Puckering contrary And as to the case of 13 E. 4. 8. the reason there is because there is an Exception in the said Statute of divers Grants made by King H. 6. and therefore the said Act ought to be specially pleaded And see 34 H. 6. 34. by Prisoit But in this Act of 13 Eliz. there is not any Exception and although it be a general Act with a Restraint yet such an Act ought not to be pleaded and therefore 27 H. 8. 23. in an Action upon the Statute of 21 H. 8. for taking of Lands to Ferm by spiritual persons he need not make mention of the Statute And afterwards the Iustices did advise upon this point whether the Lease be so void that it be void against a stranger So as the Defendant who doth not claim under the Colledge and who hath no title to the Land may avoid it And Periam Iustice denied the Case put by Puckering A. morgages Lands to B. upon a usurious contract for one hundred pounds and before the day of payment B. is ousted by C. against whom B. brings an Action C. cannot plead the Statute of Vsury for he hath no title For the estate is void against the Mortgagor Another Exception was taken to the Declaration because the Plaintiff had declared upon a Lease by the Warden and Fellows without naming any name of the Warden 13 E. 4. 8. 18 E. 4. 8. In Trespass the Defendant doth justifie because that the Free-hold was in the Dean and Chapter and he as Servant and by their commandment entred And Exception was taken to that Plea because he hath not shewed the name of the Dean scil the proper name So if a Lease be made by Dean and Chapter in these words Nos Decan Capituli the same Lease is void which was granted by the Court and 12 H. 4251. A Provost granted an Annuity by the name of Provost of such a Colledge without any name of Baptism and afterwards the Grantee brought a Writ of Annuity against the Successor of the said Provost and by Hull The Writ is well enough but the Christian name ought to be set down in the Writ So here because that the name of Baptism of the Warden is not in the Declaration the same is not good But the opinion of the whole Court was That the Declaration is good enough and they did rely especially upon the Book of 21 E 4. 15 16. Where Debt is brought by the Dean and Chapter without any Christian name and the Writ holden good Anderson It stands with reason That for as much as the Colledge was incorporated by the name of Warden and Fellows and not by any Christian name that they may purchase and lease by such name without any Christian name and may be impleaded and implead others by such name and as the Fellows in such case need not to be named by their Christian names no more ought the Warden But of a Parson Vicar Chauntry Priest it is otherwise for in such case the name of Baptism ought to be added It was also objected That because the Letter of Attorney was to enter in the Manor and all the Lands and Tenements of the Colledge in such a Town and to seal the Indenture of Lease in the name of the Lessors and to deliver it to the Plaintiff as their Deed now the Attorney in executing of this Warrant hath not pursued it for he hath only entred into the Lands but it is not found that he entred into the Manor and so the Lease is void And it was said by Puckering That if I lease two Acres in two several Counties rendring for the one Acre 10 s. and for the other Acre 10 s. and make a Letter of Attorney to make Livery in both if the Attorney entreth into one Acre and makes Livery the same is void for the Attorney hath not pursued his authority for peradventure I would not have leased the Acre whereof Livery is made for such rent of 10 s. being perhaps of greater value but with the other Acre which was of lesser value and so the mis-executing of my warrant shall prejudice me Windham Perhaps if one entire Rent had been reserved out of both Acres it may be that by the Livery in one Acre all is void But by Puckering one entire Rent cannot be reserved upon such a Lease of two Acres in several Counties Walmesley denied the Case put by Puckering for the authority is executed well enough for it doth not appear upon the Verdict but that the Colledge was in possession at the time of the Lease made and then there needed not any such Entry but the bare sealing and delivery of the Attorney is good enough And also it doth not appear by Verdict That the Colledge hath any Manor and therefore it shall be so intended and then the Case is no other but that A man leaseth a Manor and certain Lands in D. and makes a Letter of Attorney to make Livery of them where he hath nothing in the Manor and the Attorney makes Livery of the Land without medling with the Manor the same is a good Livery and the authority duly executed But if it had been expresly found that the Colledge had such a Manor there then the Entry in the Land only without medling with the Manor and the Livery made accordingly should not be good But
appeareth upon his own shewing as it was holden in a Hampshire Case betwixt Sutton and Dowze Sutton and Dowzes Case 2 Len. 55. 3 Len. 155 164. which see Mich. 25 26 Eliz. and in that case the Lease is void for it was made within a year after the Statute of 31 H. 8. the January before and the Statute in April after for he hath not averred that the usual Rent is reserved nor that the Land was usually let to farm for which Leases otherwise made within the year are absolutely void by the said Statute But it will be objected Ante 306. 1 Cro. 707 708. Heydons Case That this matter shall come in of our part and it is sufficient for them to plead the Case but it is not so as it was lately agreed in Heydons Case in the Exchequer where the Case was That the Warden and Canons of the Colledge of Otery leased certain Lands to Heydon for years and he in pleading of his Lease did not shew that the ancient Rent was reserved and therefore naught and so was the opinion of the Iustices of the Common Pleas Lord Cromwel and All-Souls Case in the Case betwixt the Lord Cromwel and All-Souls Colledge upon the Statute of 18 Eliz. cap. 6. upon a branch of it by which it was provided that the third part of the Rent reserved upon any Lease should be paid in Corn c. and the Leases made to the contrary should be void and in an Ejectione firmae brought upon such Lease because it was not shewed in the Declaration that the Corn was reserved according to the Statute Iudgment was arrested and we need not to plead the Statute for although the Statute be particular yet because the King hath interest in it it shall be holden in Law a general Act and the Iudges shall take notice of it although it be not alledged by the party as it was ruled in the Lord Barcklays Case 4 Eliz. Plow 231. but if such Rent was reserved yet the Lease cannot be good for the King cannot have his Rent because it is not incident to the Reversion nor passeth by the Grant of the Reversion for it is not a Rent but rather a sum due by reason of contract which see 30 Ass 6. A man leaseth a Hundred rendring Rent or grants a Rent out of a Hundred the same is not a good Rent but meerly void for a Hundred is not Manorable nor can be put in view nor any Assize lieth of such Rent See 9 Ass 24. and in 20 Eliz. in the Case betwixt Corbet and Cleer 7 Co. 5. Corbet and Cleers Case the Dean and Chapter of Norwich leased a Parsonage and common of Pasture rendring Rent 1 E. 6. they surrendred their possessions to the King and afterwards the King granted the Parsonage without speaking of the common of Pasture It was holden that the Patentee of the Parsonage should have all the Rent and no apportionment should be in respect of the Common for all the Rent issueth out of the Parsonage and nothing out of the Common So here 2 Co. 48. for Tithes are not an Hereditament which cannot support a Rent within this Statute for which cause the Lease is void Also he said that the traverse of the Defendant was not well taken for the Plaintiff hath said That time out of mind c. the Abbot and his Predecessors were seised of the Rectory and Manor aforesaid simul semel and ratione inde was discharged c. at the time of the dissolution the Defendant traverseth absque hoc that the Abbot and his Predecessors held discharged of Tithes time out of mind c. which is not good for he hath traversed our conclusion for our plea is an argument wheresoever is unity time out of mind c. there is a discharge of Tithes but in the Abbot was such an Vnity ergo he held discharged of Tithes as 21 E. 3. 22. In a Praecipe quod reddat the Tenant saith that the Land in demand is parcel of the Manor of D. which is ancient Demesn and c. to which the Plaintiff saith That it is Frank-fee and the same was not good for he denies the conclusion but he ought to plead to the nature of the Manor that it is not ancient Demesn or that the Land in demand is not parcel of it Another matter was because it is pleaded fuit in tenura occupatione of Goodman and others but he did not shew by what Title Disseisin or Lease or other Title c. Buckley contrary And he said This unity of possession is not any discharge of Tithes by the said Statute and as to the Case cited before of 3 H. 7. 12. where Tenant in tail of a Rent entreth upon the Tenant of the Land now is the Rent suspended and then after when he makes a Feoffment in fee by that Feoffment the Rent is extinguished which was but suspended at the time of the Feoffment and therefore some have holden that if after such Entry he makes a Lease for life of the Land that his Rent or Seigniory is utterly gone in perpetuum for by the Livery all passeth out of him which he said cannot be Law and so it seemed to Gawdy Iustice Then upon such Feoffment with warranty he could not vouch as of Land discharged of the Rent generally but as of Land discharged at the time of the Feoffment which proves that the suspension is not a discharge for it was suspended before the Feoffment and discharged by the Feoffment and so suspension is not a discharge à fortiori in the Case of Tithes for in the case of Common and Rent although they are suspended so as they cannot be actually taken yet they are to some intent in esse As where Lands holden of other Lords are in the hands of the King for Primer seisin by reason of Prerogative and during such seisin of the King the Lord gets seisin the same is a good seisin notwithstanding that it was suspended so as he could not distrain And also in Assize of Land damages as to the Rent out of the Land shall be recouped therefore the rent in some sort is in esse and à multo fortiori this Tithe which is a thing of common Right shall be in esse but goes with the Land A Rent in esse to some purposes and suspended to other and therefore by unity of possession shall not be suspended 35 H. 6. He who hath liberty of Warren in the Lands of another entreth into the Land the Warren is not suspended nor by Feoffment of the Land is extinct and in this Case upon the matter during the unity of possession the Tithes were paid although not in specie Also the Abbot had the Tithes as Parson of B. and the Land as Abbot and therefore no suspension for the Tithes were always in esse although not taken in the manner as Tithes commonly are but by way of Retainer 22
commonly called Le Savoy without any addition of Hospital for as it was called Savoy before it was erected into an Hospital so it is also called after the Erection and true it is that the misnaming of a Corporation in any small thing shall abate a Writ for there is only delay yet it is not of force in a Conveyance unless the misnaming be in a point material Coke to the contrary The variance from the true Name of a Corporation which shall prejudice a Conveyance ought to be in matter of substance for variance in matter of form and circumstance will not hurt it sed parum differunt quae re concordant And first it is to be confessed That the Name of a Corporation is as the Name of Baptism which admits of no variance and therefore it is said 38 E. 3. 15. by Knivet when a Man founds a Chantry or a house c. it ought to bear such a Name as his Founder hath given to it for that is its proper name And so it hath been Reported by Bendloes Serjeant 4 and 5 Phi. and Mar. That it was holden for a positive Law by all the Iudges of England That the mistaking of the Name of a Corporation in any matter of Substance makes the Conveyance utterly void for a name is given to a Corporation upon the Foundation and that by the same Name they shall implead and be impleaded but that ut idem nomen et sub eodem nomine sint habiles ad perquirend concedend to be impleaded and to implead but that is to be meant idem re for it is not necessary that it be idem litera for qui haeret in litera haeret in Cortice but if it be idem re with the Foundation it is well enough And therefore it hath been adjudged That where the Colledge is incorporated by the Name of Masters and Fellows Collegii St. individ Trin. in Cantabrig and they make a Lease by the Name of Collegii Trin. this is good enough for the word Trinity implies and imports St. individ And therefore such variance was holden not material But here in our case is a variance in Substance betwixt the Name given to the Hospital upon the foundation and the name usurped in the Lease And the same will clearly appear upon my Argument viz. If the Name given to this Hospital upon the foundation of it and the Name usurped in the Lease be not unum in sensu not in your private understanding as private persons but in your judicial knowledge upon the Record quod coram vobis residet as Iudges of Record then this lease is void For although you as private persons otherwise than by Record know That the Hospital of Savoy and the Hospital vocat le Savoy are all one Hospital you ought not upon that your private knowledge to give Iudgment unless also your judicial knowledge agree with it that is the knowledge which is out of the Records which you have before you But if the Name given upon the Foundation and the usurped Name be not idem sensu in your Iudicial knowledge and you cannot otherwise conceive the Identity of these two Hospitals nor make any Construction to imagine it but by the Record for the Record is your eye of Iustice and you have no other eye to look unto the cause depending before you but the Record and to this purpose he cited the case of 7 H. 4. 108. Where a man killed another in the presence of a Iudge traveling on the way where the murther was And at the next Assises in the said County before the same Iudge another man is indicted of the same murder and arraigned and convicted by verdict In that case The Iudge he ought not to carry himself according to his private knowledge which he hath of the said fact sci to acquit the Prisoner but all that he can do is to respite Iudgment against the party because of the Iudges knowing to the contrary and to make further Relation thereof to the King for his Pardon of grace for the Party So in our Case It may be that you in your private knowledge know That the Hospital de le Savoy and the Hospital vocat le Savoy is all one but that doth not appear unto you upon the Record which is before you but it may be for any thing that appears in the Record that they are diverse and several Hospitals Therefore the Lease is void To prove my Minor I do say that this word de as here de Savoy designes a place so as by this Word de the place is become parcel of the Name but this word vocat locum non denotat but only the very name and so here is a material difference and variance for here by pretence of the Name in this Lease there is not any place of the Corporation in the Name but the Corporation is transitory which cannot be for a Corporation especial consisting of many persons as Corpus aggregatum ought to have a certain place of their abiding or otherwise it cannot be discerned by the Law and it is but a Mathematical thing and nothing else but a fiction and they cannot be otherwise considered in Law but as they are circumscripti within the bounds of their house and they cannot appear but by Attorney and if a Prebend consist upon a Manor afterwards the Manor by Writ be demanded against the Prebend and he lose it here he hath lost his Name because he hath lost that which giveth to him his Name by Contrary by Blake for his estate and place in the Chapter doth remain unto him And secondly for another Cause here is a material variance for this word de supposeth a place before the Foundation as the place upon which the Hospital was erected was called Le Savoy before the Erection of it but these words vocat le Savoy supposeth the same Name Savoy was imposed upon the Foundation Thirdly these words de le Savoy do import the Hospital to be part of the place which before the Foundation was called Savoy but vocat trencheth only to all the place called Savoy Fourthly de le Savoy is matter of certainty and verity vocat but matter of Reputation And so for these four reasons great difference in substance appeareth betwixt the very name of the Hospital and the Name usurped in the Lease And he cited the Case 29 Eliz. in the Kings Bench betwixt Hall and Wingat King E. 4. did incorporate the Dean and Cannons of Windsor by the Name of Dean and Cannons of the King and Queens Free Chappel of Saint George the Martyr within his Castle of Windsor and made a Lease by another Name viz. by the Name of Dean and Cannons of the King and Queens Free Chappel there and the same Lease was made in the time of Queen Mary and it was holden that the same was a variance in Substance And he cited another Case 30 Eliz. in the Kings Bench betwixt
Fisher and Boys A Colledge in Oxford was by Act of Parliament incorporated by the Name of Warden and Scholars Domus sive Collegii Scholarium de Merton in universitate Oxoniae and they make a Lease by the Name Custos Domus sive Collegii de Merton in Oxonia and Scholares ejusdum Domus and the variance in that point because in the very name of the Foundation Domus five Collegii Scholarium de Merton and in the usurped Name in the Lease Domus sive Collegii de Merton was holden material and the true name was de Merton in universitate Oxoniae but in the Lease in Oxonia only leaving out the word Vniversity and the same was holden a variance in substance For Oxford doth contain in it self the Vniversity which is a thing of it self and also the City is a thing by it self and it may be that there is a Colledge in the City called Merton Colledge and also a Colledge which is called by such Name in the Vniversity and so in our Case it may be that there is an Hospital which is called the Savoy and also another which is Le Savoy and then the Court shall be enveigled c. And in the end of the Argument the Lord Treasurer which was the Lord Burleigh put this Case which was adjudged in his time The Guild of Boston in Lincolnshire was incorporated by the Name of the Guild of St. Nicholas and our Lady the Virgin Mary c. and they made a Lease for years by the Name of the Guild of our Lady the Virgin and St. Nicholas Religione quadam motus ut nomen Virginis Mariae in charta dimissionis proponeretur nomini Sancti Nicholai and it was adjudged a void Lease for the variance aforesaid And afterwards at another day the matter was argued by Atkinson on the part of the Defendant Starkey 21 E. 4. 56. saith That the Name of the Corporation by which it is incorporated is as properly the Name of a Corporation as the Name of Baptism is the Name of a single and individual person and yet there is a great difference in the misprision of them for the Name of Baptism doth consist of one word and therefore it cannot admit of any variance but the name of a Corporation doth consist of many words in which case variance in words which are supplyed by other words and not in matter of substance shall not hurt and that hearing is notably discussed in the case of the Cooks of London cited before by Godfrey Four things are to be considered in the Name of a Corporation which are of the Essence and Substance of it First the persons incorporated of which the Corporation doth consist as here the Master and Chaplains de Savoy Secondly The quality of the Corporation as Dean and Chapter Mayor and Commonalty Thirdly the Patron or Founder as Merton Colledge Fourthly The Place whereupon the Corporation is founded As to this last point see 31 E. 3. 28. and fo 15 by Knivet and see 6 Eliz. Dyer King H. 8. erected the Dean and Prebend of Chester by these words scil Decanus et Capit. Cathedralis Ecclesiae Christi et Sanctae Mariae Virginis Cestriae And afterwards by Letters Patents gave to the said Dean and Chapter certain Manors Decano et Capitulo Ecclesiae Cathedralis Christi et Sanctae Mariae Virginis by us before erected and that grant was holden void because that the place where c. is not expressed in the said Letters Patents for Cestria is the local place of the Incorporation And as to the Objection made upon the word de that this word de goeth only to part and vocat goes to the whole and so here is a great difference the same is not any reason for this word de extends as well to the whole as to part As a Rent granted percipiend de Manerio de D. the same shall go to the whole Mannor 5 E. 4 5. ad respondendum I. Abbati Monasterii Sanctae Mariae Ebor. where the Obligation was Abbati Monasterii Sanctae Mariae Virginis extra Muros Ebor. and yet the Writ was well enough notwithstanding such variance a fortiori in the case of a conveyance and Interest And I conceive that it appeareth in the Record That the Lease given in evidence of the part of the Defendant is a Lease made by the Master and Chaplains of the Hospital of the Savoy for it is found by verdict That King Henry the eighth upon the Site of the Manour of Savoy betwixt the house of the Bishop of Worcester and the house of the Bishop of Carlisle and that it was incorporated by the Name c. and that afterwards Q. Mary by her Letters Patents reciting the foundation of the said Hospital called the Savoy and lamenting the Ruin of it being surrendred in the time of E. 6. did restore it by which it appeareth That the Hospital of the Savoy and Hospital called the Savoy is one and the same in respect of the Bounds Foundation and Situation And in the whole course of our Books no case can be found That any Corporations have avoided their own acts by such cause of Misnosmer nor of such matter is any question moved in our Books And as to that which hath been objected That although the Iudges in their private knowledge well know That the House de le Savoy and the House vocat the Savoy be all one yet they ought not to judge according to such their private knowledge but according to their judicial knowledge which they have out of the Record I conceive That the Iudges of necessity ought to use in such cases their private knowledge as where Misnosmer of a Colledge was objected viz. Trinity Colledge in Cambridge where it was incorporated by the Name of Masters Fellows and Scholars Collegii Sanctae individuae Trin. and they made a Lease by the Name of Master Fellows and Scholars of the Colledge of Trinity the same was holden a good Lease for the Iudges knew well enough That this word Trinity doth imply in it self Sancta individua but by what knowledge not by their judicial knowledge but by their private knowledge So in our case Egerton the Queens Sollicitor to the contrary It is a clear and plain Rule in our Law That the name of a Corporation is as a name of Baptism to a natural man and if there be any difference I conceive that the Law requires more strict certainty in the name of a Corporation than in the Name of any particular person For a name is more necessary to a Corporation than to another for when an infant is born he is presently a perfect creature before any name given him and the giving of the Name is not a matter of necessity but of policy for distinction c. but in the case of a Corporation The Name is the substance and essence of it and it is not a Body before a Name be imposed upon it and therefore in the