14. but contrary in a Writ of Habere facias seisinam or in a Liberate for in these Writs there are not such words and therefore although they be not retorned Execution done by virtue of them is good enough See 11 H. 4. 212. If the Sheriff by force of an Elegit doth deliver the moyety of the Land and doth not retorn the Writ if the Plaintiff will plead a new Action of Debt the Defendant may plead in Bar the Execution aforesaid although the Writ be not retorned nor doth remain upon Record and it is not like unto the Case of Partition made by the Sheriff for that must be retorned because that after the Retorn of it a secondary Iudgment is to be given scil Quod Partitio praedict firma stabilis remaneat in perpetuum firma stabilis in perpetuum tenetur says the Book of Entries 114. And Egerton the Solicitor-General cited a Case to be lately adjudged betwixt the Earl of Leicester and the Lady Tanfield Earl of Leicester and Tanfields case That such an Execution was well enough although the Liberate was not retorned The second point was Admitting that it be a good Execution If the Executors being in possession of the Manor and suffering the Conusor to hold a Court there and saying the words aforesaid in the presence of the Lord who is Conusor if the same do amount unto a Surrender or not And it was the Opinion of Wray chief Iustice That it was not a Surrender for that here the words are not addressed to the Conusor who was capable of a Surrender but to other persons And it is not like unto the Case of 40 E. 3. 23 24. Chamberlains Assise where Tenant for life saith to him in the Reversion That his Will is that he enter upon the Land the same is a good Surrender because here is a person certain who may take the Land But in our case it is but a general speech and therefore it shall not be a Surrender LXVI Baskervile and Bishop of Hereford 's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Quare Impedit brought by Walter Baskervile against the Bishop of Hereford and others the Plaintiff counted That Sir Nicholas Arnold Knight was seised of the Advowson in gross and granted the same to the said Baskervile and others to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of Richard Arnold his Son in tail Proviso That if the said Nicholas died his Heir being within the age of twenty three years that then the Grantees and their Heirs should be seised to themselves and their Heirs until the said Richard had accomplished the said age Sir Nicholas died Richard being but of the age of fourteen years by force whereof the Grantees were possessed of the said Advowson c. and afterwards the Church became void and so it appertained to them to present Exception was taken to the Count by Serjeant Gawdy because the Plaintiff had not averred the life of Richard upon whose life the interest of the Plaintiff did depend and he compared the same to the Case of the Parson which had been adjudged where the Lessee of a Parson brought an Ejectione Firmae and it was found for him and in Arrest of Iudgment Exception was taken to the Declaration because the life of the Parson was not averred and for that cause the Iudgment was stayed Anderson Vpon the dying of Sir Nicholas Richard being but of the age of fourteen years an absolute Interest for nine years vested in the Grantees not determinable upon the death of Richard or rather they are seised of a Fee determinable upon the coming of Richard to the age of 23 years Rhodes and Windham Iustices contrary and that here is an Interest in the Grantees determinable upon the death of Richard within the term for if Richard dieth without issue within the term the Remainder is limited over to a stranger And as to the Exception to the Count it was argued by Puckering Serjeant That the Count was good enough for although the life of Richard be not expresly added yet such an averment is strongly implied and so supplyed For the Count is Quod dictus Nich. obiit dicto Richardo being of the age of fourteen years non amplius by force of which the Plaintiff was possessed of the said Advowson quo quidem Nich. sic possessionato existente the Church voided and possessed he could not be if not that the said Richard had then been alive and that is as strong as an Averment See 10 E. 4. 18. In Trespass for breaking of his Close the Defendant pleaded That A. was seised and did enfeoff him to which the Plaintiff said That long time before A. had any thing B. was seised and leased to the said A. at will who enfeoffed the Defendant upon whom B. re-entred and leased to the Plaintiff at will by force whereof he was possessed untill the Defendant did the Trespass and that was allowed to be a good Replication without averring the life of B. who leased to the Plaintiff at will for that is supplied by the words scil virtute cujus the Plaintiff was possessed untill the Defendant did the Trespass See also 10 H. 7. 12. In an Assise of Common The Defendant made Title that he was seised of a House and a Carve of Land to which he and all those whose Estate he hath c. had common appendant and doth not say That he is now seised of the House but the exception was disallowed for seisin shall be intended to continue untill the contrary be shewed LXVII Morgan and Chandler 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the King's-Bench IN Debt for Arrerages of Rent by Morgan against Chandler It was found by special Verdict That the Land out of which c. was assured by an Act of Parliament to the Marchioness of Northampton for the term of her life the remainder to the Lady Bourcher her daughter and the heirs males of her body the remainder to King H. 8. in Fee And it was ordained by the same Act Quod omnes concessiones dimissiones Anglice Grants and Leases factae vel in posterum fiendae by the said Marchioness of the Lands aforesaid per script Indentat dict Marchio bonae validae in Lege erunt durante termino c. The Marchioness made a Lease for 21 years to Kenelm Throgmorton rendring 10 l. Rent who assigned the same to the Defendant The Lady Bourcher died without Issue the Marchioness died and if the Lease should now bind the Queen was the Question And it was moved by Clark of Lincoln's-Inn That it should for the King was party to the Act of Parliament and those Estates for life in Tail and in Fee are all as one Estate and derived out of one Estate and the Estate of the King is bound with the Lease and it was moved by Broughton That the Lease should not bind the Queen and so by consequence not her Patentee and he
to sue to the King by Petition if he will have his Land yet he conceived that before the Statute of 18 H. 6. the King might grant the Land before Office as it appeareth by Thirning 13 H. 4. 278. who was before the said Statute So if the King's Tenant makes a Lease for years the Remainder over to another in Fee who dieth without Heir the Remainder is in the King without Office because a common person in such case cannot enter but a claim is sufficient and therefore it shall be in the King without Office. As to the pardon he said That it doth not extend to this Estate for this is a Freehold ergo not within the pardon As if the King's Tenant be attainted of Felony and the King pardons him all offences and all things which he may pardon these words shall not go nor extend to Freeholds but onely unto personal matters and such punishments and peins which do concern Chattels But it may be objected That by this pardon Title of Quare Impedit and Re-entries for Conditions broken are excepted and therefore if they had not been excepted they had been remitted by the pardon and therefore this pardon shall extend to Inheritances and Freeholds As to that I say That such Exceptions were not in use in the time of H. 4. and yet Inheritances and Freeholds were not taken to be within such pardons and such Exceptions did begin 5 Eliz And he said he had been of Council in such Cases where it hath been taken that such pardons did not extend to Freeholds As an Abbat was disseised and afterwards during the Disseisin the Abby is dissolved the King makes such pardon the same doth not transfer the Right of the King and in that Pardon are divers Exceptions of Goods and Chattels in many cases and therefore it cannot be intended that the pardon doth extend to Freeholds And see the said Act of pardon The Queen grants all Goods Chattels Debts Fines Issues Profits Amercements Forfeitures Sums of Moneys which word Forfeiture shall be intended of a personal Forfeiture non aliter for it is coupled with things of such nature And as to the Traverse he said It did not lie in this Case for the Office is not untrue but true in substance although void in circumstance And also the King here is entituled by double matter of Record scil the Attainder and the Office and he said that the Statutes of 34 and 36 E. 3. which gave Traverse are to be intended of Offices found virtute Officii and not virtute Brevis for then Efcheators were very troublesome And the Statute of 2 E. 6. doth not give Traverse but where the Office is untruly found as if Tenant of the King be disseised and the Disseisor be attainted the Queen seiseth the Land Now the Disseisee hath not remedy by Traverse upon the Statute of 2 E. 6. but is put to his Monstrans de Droit for the Office is true But if I be Tenant of the King and seised of Land accordingly and it was found that J. S. was seised of my Land and attainted c. whereas in truth he had not any thing in my Land there Traverse lieth for the Office is false and so in our Case for the Traverse it is at the Common Law and it was true that Venables was seised Coke to the contrary and he said That by the Attainder the Queen hath gained but a Chattel and that notwithstanding this Forfeiture if Venables had been in possession a Praecipe should be brought against him And where it hath been said by Mr. Attorney That Writs set down in the Register are the best Expositours of our Law the same is not so for the Register saith That Waste lieth notwithstanding a Mesn Remainder which is not now Law but it hath been clearly ruled to the contrary and see accordingly 50 E. 3. the Register therefore and the Writs are subject to the Iudgment of our Law and the Writ of Diem clausit extremum is not to the contrary for I confess that in such case the Land shall be seised into the hands of the King but the King shall not have but a Chattel therein It hath been argued It may be granted Roll. Tit. Grant. 4 Len. 112. ac Godb. 351. a. therefore it may be forfeited Nego Consequentiam for a man seised in the right of his Wife may grant but not forfeit Gardian in Socage may grant but not forfeit the Husband may grant a term for years which he hath in the right of his Wife but he cannot forfeit it A woman Inheretrix taketh a Husband who afterwards is attainted of Felony the King pardons him they have issue the Husband shall be Tenant by the curtesie which proveth that the King hath not the Freehold by that Attainder Before the Statute of Westm 2. Tenant in tail post prolem suscitatam might forfeit his Lands but now the Statute hath so incorporated the Estate tail to the Tenant in tail that it cannot be devested even a Fine levied by him ipso jure nullus although as to the possession it be a Discontinuance and that is the reason wherefore Tenant in tail shall not be seised to another's use See Stamford 190. The Husband seised in the right of his Wife is attainted of Felony the King shall have the profits of the Lands of the Wife during the life of the Husband c. So if Tenant in tail be attainted of Felony and that is but a Chattel in the Lands of the Wife and also in the Lands of the Tenant in tail and if the possessions of a Bishop be seised into the Queen's hands for a Contempt in such case the Queen hath the possession and not the profits onely the same Law of the Lands of Tenant in tail or for life being attainted of Felony so of seisure for Alienation without license or of the possessions of Priors Aliens See Brook Reseiser 10. So where the Seisure is for Ideocy And he said That in the principal Case nothing is in the King until Office and as to the Case of 13 H. 4. 6. he confessed the same for at that time many and amongst them Lawyers and Iustices were attainted by Parliament and so was Sir John Salisbury whose Case it was and their Lands by Act of Parliament given expresly to the King and therefore I grant that their Lands were in the King before Office. Tenant in Fee of a common Lord is attainted of Felony his Lands remain in him during his life until the Entry of the Lord and where the King is Lord untill Office be found but in the Case of a common person after the death of the person attainted they are in the Lord before Entry and in the Case of the King before Office for the mischief of abeyances And see the Lord Lovel's Case 17 and 18 Eliz. 485 486. Plow where it is holden That upon Attainder of Treason by Act of Parliament the Lands were
who 37 H. 8. levied a Fine of the said Manor without Proclamations to two strangers to the uses according to the said agreement and before any assurance made by the said Lord the said Lord was attainted of Treason by which all his Lands were forfeited to the King And afterwards the said Andrew Bainton made a suggestion to Queen Mary of all this matter and upon his humble Petition the said Queen by her Letters Patents reciting the said mischief c. Et praemissa considerans annuens Petitioni illius granted to him the Manor aforesaid and farther De ampliori gratia sua did release to the said Andrew Bainton all her right possession c. which came to her Ratione attincturae praed vel in manibus nostris existant vel existere deberent after which 5 Eliz. Andrew Bainton levied a Fine to the Plaintiff with Proclamations and died without issue and the Defendant as issue in tail entred Puckering Serjeant First it is to see if by the words of the Patent of Queen Mary viz. De ampliori gratia c. the Reversion in Fee which the Queen had shall pass or not Secondly Admitting that the Reversion doth not pass then if the Fine levied by Andrew Bainton 5 Eliz. to the Plaintiff the Reversion being in the Queen be a bar unto the issue in tail For as unto the first Fine levied 37 H. 8. which was without Proclamations the same shall not bind the issue in tail neither as to the right nor as to the Entry for it is not any discontinuance because the Reversion is in the King as of things which do not lie in discontinuance as Rent Common c. for such a Fine is a Fine at the Common Law and not within the Statute of 4 H. 7. and such Fine is void against the issue But if such a Fine without Proclamation be levied of a thing which lieth in discontinuance then such a Fine is not void but voidable by Formedon and therefore this Fine in the Case at Bar being levied without Proclamation of Lands entailed whereof the Reversion is in the King at the time of the Fine levied shall not bind the issue and by such Fine the Conusee hath nothing but a Fee determinable upon the life of Tenant in tail which Fee was forfeited to the Queen by the Attainder of the Lord Seymore and that the Queen moved of pity did restore the same to A. B. in recompence for the Indentures of themselves were not sufficient to raise any use See 1 Mariae Dyer 96. As to the first point it seems that nothing passed of the Reversion for the Grant hath reference to the words All her Right Possession c. which came to her ratione attincturae and all the residue of the Grant ought to have reference to that to the ratione attincturae which was the foundation of the whole Grant and here the intent of the Queen was not to any other intent but onely to restore A. B. to the said Manor or to his former Estate in it and nothing appears in the Letters Patents by which it may appear that the Queen was knowing of her Reversion which she had by descent and therefore the same cannot pass by general words If the Queen grants the Goods and Chattels of all those which have done any Trespass for which vitam amittere debent the Goods of him who is attainted of Treason shall not be forfeited to the Grantee by such general words 8 H. 4. 2. The King grants omnia Catalla Tenentium suorum qualitercunque damnatorum the same shall not extend to the Goods of him who is condemned of Treason See 22 Ass 49. So in our Case the Patent shall not serve to two intents but to a restitution of the Manor and then nothing passed by this Patent but the Fee determinable which was conveyed to the Lord Seymore and forfeited by his Attainder Then we are to see how after this grant the said A. B. is seised And he said That he shall be in of the said Fee determinable and not of the Estate tail against his own Fine and then if he be not seised by force of the Entail at the time of the Fine levied 5 Eliz. the same Fine cannot bind the tail But admit that at the time of the second Fine levied he was in of an Estate in tail yet the same Fine shall not bar his issue For first this Fine cannot make any discontinuance because that the Reversion in Fee is in the King which is not touched by the Fine See the Case of Sanders where A. makes a Lease to begin at a day to come and afterwards levies a Fine to a stranger with Proclamations the five years pass and afterwards at the day of the Commencement of the Lease the Lessee enters his entry is lawfull and he shall not be bound by the non-claim And so it was adjudged 21 Eliz between Sanders and Starky After the making of the Statute of 4 H. 7. of Fines it was much doubted if the issues of common Tenants in tail should be bound by a Fine with Proclamation forasmuch as upon the death of their Ancestours they were as new purchasors per formam doni and therefore it was provided by the Statute of 32 H. 8. that the said Statute of 4 H. 7. should extend to such common Entails but there was no doubt of the Estate tail of the Gift of the King and see betwixt Jackson and Darcy Mich. 15 and 16 Elizab. Rot. 1747. in a Partitione facienda the Case was Tenant in tail the Remainder to the King after the Statute of 32 H. 8. levied a Fine with Proclamations and adjudged that that should bind the issues and the Act of 32 H. 8. doth not extend but where the Reversion is in the King but no mention is there of a Remainder because the words of the said Act are general of all Tenants in tail the makers of the said Act perceiving that it might be a doubt that the generality of the said words might exclude Estates tail of the Gift of the King they have restrained the words in a special manner as appeareth by the last words of the same Act Nor to any Fines heretofore levied or hereafter to be levied by any person or persons of any Manors c. before the levying of the said Fine to any of his or their Ancestors in tail by Letters Patents or Act of Parliament the Reversion whereof at the time of the levying of such Fine was in the King and so such Estates are excepted and that in such Cases where such Fines are levied they shall be of such force as they should have been if the said Act had not been made and therefore he conceived it appeared at the said Parliament That such Estate tails of the Gift of the King were not bound bâ— 4 H. 7. for otherwise that Proviso or Exception had been frivolous Walmsley Serjeant to the contrary and he agreed That the
cited a Case adjudged upon a like Act scil the Statute of 35 H. 8. by which it was enacted That the Lady Katharine Wife of the said King should be as a Feme sole and that she might make Leases c. In that case the Leases should not bind the King or his successours for the said Act did not extend to make the Leases good but onely against Coverture And it was observed by Clench Iustice that in the Act of Parliament now in question It is expresly provided that the Rent reserved by the Marchioness should go to the lady Bourcher but no provision made that it should go to the King and therefore it is not reason that the King should be bounden But another matter arising upon the pleading the point did not fall in judgment LXVIII Backhouse and Spencer 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the King's-Bench SAmuel Backhouse brought a Writ of Annuity against Alderman Spencer of London 1 Roll. 228. and declared upon a Grant of an Annuity for term of years and depending the Action the term expired And it was the clear opinion of the whole Court that the Plaintiff could not have Iudgment for the Iudgment in this Writ is Quod querens recuperet annuitatem praedictam and now there is not any Annuity in being See 34 H. 6. 20. 6 Co. Higgin's Case 1 Inst 285. a. 14 H. 7. 31. 19 H. 7. 16. LXIX Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas IN a Writ of Partitione facienda The Defendant prayeth Aid and the Plaintiff counterpleads the Aid upon which counterplea they are at issue and it is found for the Plaintiff It was adjudged that same is peremptory to the Defendant and the Iudgment shall be Non quod respondeat sed quod Partitio fiat c. LXX Rolston and Chamber 's Case 1 Leon. pa. 282. Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas ROlston brought an Action of Trespass upon the Statute of 8 H. 6. of forcible entry against Chambers and upon issue joined it was found for the Plaintiff and damages assessed by the Iury and costs of suit also and costs also de incremento adjudged and all were trebled in the Iudgment with this perclose Quae quidem damna in toto se attingunt ad c. and all by the name of damages and it was objected against this Iudgment That where damages are trebled no costs shall be given as in Wast c. But afterwards it was clearly agreed that not onely the costs assessed by the Iury but that which was also de incremento adjudged should be trebled and so were all the Presidents as it was affirmed by all the Prothonotaries and so are many Books scil 19 H. 6. 32. 14 H. 6. 13. 22 H. 6. 57. 12 E. 4. 1. Book of Entries 334. and Iudgment was given accordingly It was also agreed that the party so convicted of the force at the suit of the party should be fined notwithstanding that he was fined before upon an Indictment for the same LXXI Wren and Bulman 's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas 1 Len. 282. Rolston and Chambers WRen brought an Action upon the Statute of 1 and 2 of Phil. Ma. for unlawfull impounding of Distresses against Bulman and was Nonsuit and it was moved by Shuttleworth Serjeant If the Defendant should have costs upon the Statute of 23 H. 8. and it was adjudged that he should not and that appears clearly by the words of the Statute c. For this Action is not conceived upon any such matter which is comprised within the Statute And also the Statute upon which this Action is conceived was made after the said Statute of 23 H. 8. which gives costs and therefore the Statute of 23 H. 8. and the remedy thereof cannot extend to any Action given by 1 and 2 Phil. Ma. And so Rhodes Iustice said it was adjudged 8 Elizabeth LXXII Mery and Lewes 's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas MEry brought an Action upon the Case against W. Lewes 3 Len. 91. Executor of David Lewes late Master of St. Katharine juxta London and declared That the said David in consideration that Quaedam pars domus fratrum sororum Sanctae Katharin fuit vitiosa in decasu The said Mery ad requisitionem dicti Davidis repararet eandem assumed to pay to the said Mery all such moneys that the said Mery expenderet in such reparations And farther declared That eandem partem Domus praedict reparavit c. and upon Non assumpsit it was found for the Plaintiff In arrest of Iudgment it was objected That the count was too general Quaedam pars domus For the Plaintiff ought to have shewed specially what part of the house in certain as Hall Chamber or other Rooms but the same was not allowed Another objection was because it is set forth in the consideration that the Plaintiff Ad requisitionem dict Davidis repararet and the Plaintiff declared Quod reparavit generally without saying 2 Cro. 404. ad requisitionem dict Davidis reparavit and that is not the reparation intended in the Declaration scil Reparatio ad requisitionem but a reparation of his own head and at his pleasure and for that Case judgment was reversed LXXIII Brasier 's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas NOTE It was agreed in the Case by all the Iustices and by the Prothonotaries That if the Disseisor levy a Fine and the Disseisee in the preservation of his right against the said Fine enter his claim in the Record of the Foot of the Fine that the same is not any such claim as shall avoid the Statute of 4 H. 7. See for this Case of the Lord Zouch in Plowden's Commentaries LXXIV Ralph Morris 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the King's-Bench RAlph Morris and his Wife libelled in the Spiritual Court for that the Defendant called the Wife of one of the Plaintiffs Veneficam Sortilegam Incantatricem Daemoniorum and now came the Defendant into this Court and surmised that the matter of the Libell is determinable by the Common Law and thereupon prayed a Prohibition and it was holden by the Court That although the offence of Witchery be in some cases triable by Law yet the same doth not take away the jurisdiction of the Spiritual Court and therefore to call one a Witch generally an Action will not lie at Law as it hath been adjudged But to say that he hath bewitched such a one an Action will lie at Law. Wray Such Witchcraft as is made Felony by any Statute is not punishable in the Ecclesiastical Court but in case of slander of such Witchcraft upon such slanderous words of Witchcraft which is not Felony the Ecclesiastical Court shall punish the same and afterwards in the principal Case a Consultation was awarded LXXV Bardens and Withington 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas A. Is bound in a Statute to B. and sows the Land. B. extends the Lands which are delivered unto him
the Reign of King H. 8. And if the Common Law doth not warrant such Executions Truly the presidents cannot make such imprisonments lawfull without Act of Parliament It hath been said that Executions ought to be favoured that is true but also Liberty to which the Law hath special respect See the Statute of Magna Charta Nullus liber homo capiatur vel imprisonetur nisi per legale judicium parium suorum vel per legem terrae and this is not Lex terrae but usage onely and Malus usus est abolendus 26 Eliz. Error was brought upon a Iudgment given in Curia de Woodstock which is a Court of Record and Error assigned for that they had awarded Execution secundum consuetudinem Villae against one who had bailed the Defendant without a Scire facias first sued forth against him i. the bailee and it was adjudged Error and the custome could not maintain it for the Bailee might have a release or other matter of discharge to plead And he cited the Case of 13 and 14 Eliz. Dyer 306. That upon a Scire facias out of a Recognizance in Chancery Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff and the Warden of the Fleet was commanded to detain the Conusor in his custody in Execution for the Plaintiff and afterwards the Conusor escaped the Plaintiff not satisfied And it was holden no escape for his body was not liable in case of a Recognizance to the Execution and see also the book of Entries 500 there is a Rule put If the Recognizee will have execution within the year he may have a Fieri facias or Elegit but not a Capias ad satisfaciendum And he conceived that this Process is not onely erroneous but also utterly void As a Capias in a Formedon antea 77. contrary where in Debt a Capias is awarded after the year where it ought to be Scire facias the same is but erroneous for such Process lieth upon such Iudgment if he had not surceased his time Another matter he moved because this issue is not well tried for it was tried by Nisi prius out of the Exchequer and the Statute of West 2. cap. 30. Mar. 14 E. 3. cap. 1. do not give Nisi prius in Causes out of the Exchequer but onely out of both Benches but Causes out of the Exchequer are tried by Commission and here their Commission was insufficient for it was directed Chr. Wray and Williel Periam without saying Et eorum alteri so as it was joynt and not several and Wray at the time of the trial was as the Parliament at London and so the cause was tried before Periam onely and therefore coram non Judice At another day The Case was argued by the Barons of the Exchequer And Clark Baron conceived that the Plaintiff ought to recover and he said That upon the escape the Common Law gave an Action upon the Case against the Sheriff and the reason why the Sheriff shall be charged is that one cannot be in Execution but once and then if the Sheriff should not be charged the party Plaintiff should by negligence of the Sheriff lose his Suit and also his Debt And admit that a Capias doth not lie in the Case yet the Execution by force thereof is not void but voidable onely and Error may be assigned as well in the Execution as in the Iudgment which see 17 Ass 24. where the Recognizor in a Statute Merchant aliened the Land and afterwards the Conusee sued forth Execution so as the Land was extended supposing the payment i. Solvend 14 E. 3. whereas in truth it was 16 E. 3. and the Feoffee brought a Writ of Error thereupon and it was allowed but the Sheriff shall not take advantage of the same And truly the common course is That a Capias lieth upon a Recognizance and 7 H. 4. 101. upon a Recognizance acknowledged for the Peace a Capias lieth for the King and a Recognizance is but an Obligation of Record and wherefore should not a Capias lie thereupon as well as upon an Action brought upon an Obligation The Statute of West 2. cap. 45. Si recens sit Cognitio statim habeat Querens Breve de Executione illius Recognitionis and the Statute doth not speak in certain what manner of Writ or what manner of Execution therefore we ought to resort to the Common Law for it as that is a Capias Gent Baron argued and agreed in every point with Baron Clark. Manwood chief Baron argued That the Plaintiff should recover and he put the Case of Recognizance The Plaintiff sueth two Scire facias's upon which two Nichel's are retorned and afterwards a Levari facias and upon that also Nihil is retorned and then issueth a Capias ad satisfaciendum for to take the said Francis Woodhouse who then was in Prison for Felony upon which Capias the Sheriff did arrest him and he being afterwards convicted of Felony escaped upon this matter Debt is brought against the Sheriff A Recognizance taken in the Chancery is a thing upon Record in a Court of Record an Obligation of Record and a Debt upon Record It hath been objected where no Capias lieth in the Process upon the Original there no Capias lieth upon the Execution but it is good to examine the Reason thereof for Lex plus laudatur quando ratione probatur The Capias upon a Recognizance is not by 25 E. 3. but by the common Law for here is a Debt upon Record wherefore shall not this body be subject to it as well as in the case of a Debt upon a bare Obligation I do admit the Rule That where there is no Capias ad respondendum there is no Capias ad satisfaciendum but that ought to be intended in cases where there is an Original and Mesn Process before Iudgment but here is no Original nor Mesn Process before Iudgment ergo our Case is not within the same Rule But I will put a good Rule It is Debt upon Record ergo a Capias lieth In the King's Bench If the Defendant comes in by Latitat if the cause whereof the Action is brought be of importance he is to put in special Bail and those who bail him shall be bounden in a Recognizance c. The Defendant is condemned in the Action Now if the Defendant cannot be found so as Execution may be sued forth against him then a Scire facias shall issue forth against the Sureties which bailed him and upon that a Capias and that is very frequent therein use So also is the course of the Court of Common Pleas ergo it shall be so in the Chancery in case of a Recognizance If one be taken in Execution upon a Statute Staple and sueth an Audita Querela upon a Release or other matter and be bound with Sureties in the double value c. to the King and to the party If he be condemned in the Audita Querela c. and cannot be found a
not in the King without Office in the life of the party attainted upon the words of the Act shall forfeit See Stamford Prerogat 54 55. acc He said That this interest which came unto the King by this Attainder is but a Chattel and then it is remitted by the Pardon and so he conceived if it be a Freehold For the words of the general Pardon are large and liberal Pardon and release all manner of Treasons c. and all other things Causes c. and here Forfeitures are pardoned and this word things is a transcendent c. and although it be a general word yet by the direction of the Act of general Pardon it ought to be beneficially expounded and extended as if all things had been specially set down Also the words are Pardon them and their Heirs therefore the Pardon extends to Inheritance for otherwise there is no use of that And he conceived That by the first branch of this Act that the same extends to Inheritances and to acquit the Lands of all incumbrances for every Offence not excepted for there is the word Heirs and the third branch concerns onely Chattels and that is by the word Grant where the first is by words of acquittal See 33 H. 8. br Charter of Pardon 71. Tenant of the King dieth seised the Heir intrudes Office is found by Pardon of Parliament all Intrusions are pardoned in that case the Offence is pardoned but not the issues and profits of the Lands but by a Pardon before all is pardoned But here in our case the Office is not void for the Statute makes all Precepts Commissions c. void being awarded upon such forfeiture See also in the second branch Vexed or inquieted in Body Goods or Lands and see also among the Exceptions That persons standing indicted of wilfull Murther and Forfeiture of Goods Lands Tenements grown by any offence by such person By which he said that if such Exception had not been the Land of such person if he had been attainted upon such Indictment should be forfeited as to the Traverse he said That because the Office is true our Plea is in the nature of Monstrans de Droit although it concludes with a Traverse We vary from the Office in number of the persons and in the day of Feoffment and every circumstance in case of the King is to be traversed and our Plea in substance confesseth and avoideth the Offence Although that here the King be intituled by double matter of Record scil the Attainder and the Office yet one of the said Records scil the Attainder is discharged by another Record scil the Pardon and then but one Record remains scil the Office and therefore our Traverse well lieth And he said that by the common Law there was a Traverse as where it was found by Office that the Lessee of the King had committed Waste or had cessed for two years and that in such case the Lessee and Tenant in an Action brought against them may traverse the Offence therefore there was a Traverse at the common Law where the King was entitled by single matter of Record So upon Office finding Alienation without Licence there was a Traverse by the common Law See Traverse in such case in the Case of William de Herlington 43 Ass 28. See Br. Traverse of Office 54. Petition is by the common Law and Traverse by the Statute Frowick in his Reading See Stamf. Prerogat 60. That Traverse in case of Goods was at the common Law but for Lands by Office by 34 E. 3. 14. for before the remedy was by Petition See Co. 4. part the Sadler's Case 55 56. Traverse was at the common Law concerning Freehold and Inheritance but that was in special Cases scil when by the Office the Land is not in the King's hands nor the King by that is in possession but onely by the Office is entitled to an Action and cannot make a Seisure without Suit for there in a Scire facias brought by the King in the nature of such Action to which he is entitled the party may appear to the Scire facias and traverse the Office by the common Law. It was adjourned CLXX Scott and Scott 's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. 1 Cro. 73. 3 Len. 225. 4 Len. 70. IN a Replevin betwixt Scott and Scott the Case was George Scott 2 H. 8. being Tenant in tail of certain lands suffered a common Recovery to the use of his last Will and 15 H. 8. made his Will by which he did declare That the Recoverors should make a good and favourable Lease to Hugh Scott his younger brother and 25 H. 8. they make a Lease of the same land to the said Hugh for 199 years according to the Will of the said George Scott rendring Rent 11 l. 6 s. 8 d. payable at the Feast of the Annunciation and S. Michael by equall portions and that to the Recoverors their Heirs and Assigns and there was a Covenant that after the death of the Recoverors the said Rent should be paid to Cestuy que use his Heirs and Assigns any thing in the said Indenture notwithstanding Proviso That if the Lesse make his Heir male his Assignee of that term that then he shall pay the said Rent to the Recoverors their Heirs and Assigns and the Lessee shall not pay the Rent to the Heirs of Cestuy que use upon which a Distress is taken and thereupon a Replevin brought Drew argued for the Plaintiff When a Condition is created the Law saith That it shall be taken and construed favourably in the behalf of him who is to perform it As if one be bounden to appropriate such a Church to such a house before such a day at his own costs and the Obligor grants a Pension out of the said Parsonage and afterwards appropriates the said Church it was holden that the Condition was well performed 3 H. 7. 4. A Lease for years upon condition to scowre the Ditches if the Lessee scowreth them once it is well enough And as to this word Proviso It is to see If here it be a word conditional In some Cases this word Pro makes a Condition as 45 E. 3. 8. Grant of a Ward pro bono servitio if the Grantee departeth out of his service the Grant is void So if an Annuity be granted unto a Physician pro consilio impendendo the same is a Condition 41 E. 3. 6. For the Grantor hath not means to compell the Grantee to give his Council but in some Cases this word Pro doth not make a Condition As if before the Statute of West 3. Land was given pro homagio suo there if the Homage be not done the Feoffor could not re-enter but he ought to distrain And I conceive that in our Case Proviso doth not make a Condition 7 H. 6. 44. A Feoffment in Fee with Warranty Proviso that the Feoffee shall not vouch So a Grant of a Rent-charge Proviso that the Grant shall not
shall be brought by Process into the Exchequer to make their Accounts and to answer the issues and profits but if he intermeddle after Office he shall be an Intruder Tenant of the King alieneth without licence by that the King is to have the profits untill he compound with the King and purchaseth his pardon and if the Feoffee taketh the profits after the Alienation he is a Pernor of the profits and shall answer for them but he is not an Intruder untill Office found Tenant of the King is attainted of Felony the King is entitled to the Land from the time of the Felony committed yet if he take the profits untill Attainder he is not an Intruder but he taketh the profits without Title therefore he is Bailiff of his own wrong and so accountable to the King. And it is not a new thing that a Conveyance or an Estate shall be void as to the Right onely and not as unto the Possession The Statute of Doms West 2. finis ipso jure sit nullus i. as to the right of the Entail yet as unto the possession the issue in tail is bound untill he hath recovered it by a Formedon Vpon the Statute of 21 H. 8. cap. 13. by acceptance of another Benefice against the said Statute the first Benefice shall be void c. yet the same shall not be construed so as to possession but that the same shall remain with him untill it be taken away from him The Queen leaseth for years Proviso that if the Lessee commit Waste the Lease shall be void when first Waste is done the Lease is determined in Right but not as to the possession before Office finding the Waste So if the Condition be for the building of a House for by the breach of the Condition the Lease as unto the right and interest is determined and after Office found it shall revest the possession also And if a Lease of the King expire by effluction of time and such effluction appeareth here of Record if the Lessee in such case continueth his possession he shall be an Intruder Sir Robert Chester's Case Dyer 4. Eliz. 211. Sir Robert Chester was Receivor of the King by Patent upon condition to render Account yearly at such a day and before such a day to pay the arrearages the condition is broken the Patent was void without Office thereof found but yet it is not altogether void for a Scire facias shall be brought against the Patentee The King leaseth unto A. his Manor of D. and after he leaseth also to the said A. his Manor of S. Proviso that if the Lessee doth not surrender his first Lease of the Manor of D. at such a day that then the latter Lease of the Manor of S. shall be void The Surrender is not made now the Lessee if he continue his possession in the Manor of S. after he is an Intruder Now is to see of what effect the Office is not to make the Lease void but to vest the possession in the King again It hath been objected That as the case is the Office is not to any purpose for the Queen hath granted the inheritance over so as the possession cannot be revested in the Queen by that Office against her own Grant nor can the Queen punish the Lessee as an Intruder for his continuance of the possession after the Office nor can seise the Land by such Office and there is not any such Office for the benefit of a Subject therefore the Office is meerly void Let us compare our Case unto the Case of Cessavit The Tenant of the King ceaseth for two years the King grants the Seignory over in fee the Cesser is found by Office the Grantee of the Seignory gains nothing by it but that is not like unto the Case in question for there when the Office is found the Tenant may tender the arrearages for the King is not absolutely entitled by the Cesser because by tender of the arrearages the Tenant may save his Tenancy But in this case after the Condition is once broken there is not any means for the Tenant to save the Forfeiture also the King by his Grant after the Cesser hath not granted the thing which accrued unto him by the Cesser scil the Tenancy but onely the Seignory but in our case the King hath granted the thing forfeited i the land demised and here is a full forfeiture contrary in the case of Cesser And in our Case the King hath granted onely the land demised and not the profits encurred mean between the breach of the Condition and the Grant of the King but these remain to the Queen and to that purpose the Office is good scil to entitle the Queen to these profits And as to that which hath been objected That the Lessee hath always paid the Rent unto the Queen after the Condition broken and hath an Acquittance of the Receipt of it therefore no profits due to the Queen for she hath the Rent in lieu of the profits and it is not reason that the Lessee shall pay an annual Rent and also shall be accountable for the mean profits and so the Office as unto the mean profits which in truth upon the matter aforesaid are not due unto the Queen is void and then altogether void quia nihil operatur To that he answered That the King shall not be bound off the mean profits in that case by the payment of the said Rent for by intendment the true annual value of the Land is more than the Rent reserved and it is not reason but that the Queen shall be answered of the surplusage or overplus above the Rent and therefore the Office entituling the Queen to part of the profits is good enough Tenant of the King for life or for years makes a Feoffment in Fee although that by this Act he cannot pluck any thing out of the King yet because he hath attempted to do such a wrong it is a forfeiture and the Lease for years utterly extinct by it for it cannot be in the Feoffor against his own act by which he hath departed with all his Interest c. And the Feoffee cannot have it for if he hath any thing it ought to be a Fee-simple or nothing at all and a Fee-simple he cannot have for that remains in the King and so neither have Estate then is all in the King and the King hath Title to have the profits c. But put case that after the Feoffment the King grant over the Land in Fee and after that tortious Feoffment is found by Office he who accupieth the Land after the forfeiture untill Office be found shall be occountable to the King for the issues and profits c. as Pernor of the profits or Baily of his own wrong and he who occupieth the Land after the Office shall be punished as an Intruder There was a Case very late in this Court betwixt Sir Tho. Henage and one Hungate which was thus Sir
the Case of making this Statute it was not to overthrow a foundation as it hath been said but it was rather a gratuity of the Subjects to the King for his bounty towards them for whereas by the Statute of Vses Vses were executed in possession so as the Subjects could not dispose of their Lands by their Wills as before the Vses Now by this Statute the King was pleased to give his Royal assent to an Act by which Lands might become devisable in respect of which the Subjects added to this Act the last clause to give him Wardship where it did not lie before by the Common Law and that as a recompence from the Subjects for the King's bounty and therefore it ought to be construed beneficially for the King. And to prevent covin and fraud was not the scope of this Statute For if three purchase Lands unto them and to the heirs of two of them now it is uncertain whose heirs shall inherit for non constat which of them shall survive and therefore no covin is averrable in such case and yet if the survivor of two to whom the Fee is limited dieth his heir within age such heir shall be in Ward So if such Lands be given to two and to the heirs of him of those two who shall first come to the Church of Paul Now it is uncertain which of them shall first come to the Church of Paul yet if he who first cometh to the Church of Paul dieth his heir within age he shall be in Ward which Cases prove that covin and fraud were not the cause of making this Statute but onely the thankfulness of the Subjects unto the King for his bounty as abovesaid for if this Act had not been made the Subjects should not have power to dispose of their Lands for the advancement of their children but all should descend So as now the King hath lost the Wardship and Primer seisin of two parts of the Lands of his Tenant and hath also lost the averment of covin which he had by the Common Law where Estates were made by the King's Tenant for advancement of their children In respect of which losses the Subjects gave unto the King Wardship in case where the Lands continue in jointure as to that which hath been said That this Statute shall not be taken by equity I conceive the contrary the words of the Statute are In every such case i. e. In every like case not onely where two or more persons hold jointly to them and the heirs of one of them but also in every the like Case as the Case now in question and in every Case where the life of him who hath the Freehold is the sole impediment quo minus the heir hath not the Land by descent in Demesne And it may be resembled unto the Statute of Marlbridge of Collusion which speaks of Leases for years Quas tradere voluerint ad terminum annorum and yet a Lease for life or Lease for years is within the said Statute for the Statute was made in restraint of an ill liberty that the Tenants had by the Common Law in prejudice of their Lords which see 4 E. 6. 53. Plow 59. And as to the word otherwise that may be construed for payment of his Legacies And as to equity enlarging the Statute speaks where many hold and to the heirs of one yet if two hold to them and the heirs of one of them the same is within the Statute And as to Equity restraining he puts this case Land is given to the Husband and Wife and the heirs of the body of the Wife who have issue the Wife dieth the issue within age he shall not be in Ward and yet he is within the Letter of the Statute but because that other matter That the Estate for life in the Husband is an impediment Quo minus he shall be in Ward It is a maxim of the Common Law That the father shall have the Wardship of the son and heir apparent therefore he shall not be within the meaning although he be within the Letter of the Statute So if Lands be given to my Villain and to another and to the heirs of my Villain who dieth seised his heir within age I seise the Villain and claim the remainder he shall not be in Ward and yet he is within the Letter of the Statute But I conceive in our Case the King shall have two Wards Simul semel the heir general of Wiseman and the issue in tail the heir general by the Common Law by reason that his father was the King's Tenant who disposed of his Lands for the advancement of his children and therefore the Queen shall have the third part in Ward And also the heir special shall be in Ward for that part of the Statute And it is no new thing to have two Wardships for one and the same Lands As 14 H. 8. of the heir of Cestuy quae use and also of the Feoffee and if the Tenant dieth seised having issue a daughter who is his heir the Lord seiseth the daughter and marrieth her and afterwards a son is born he shall have the Wardship also of him So of the heirs of the Disseisor and Disseisee and he said If Lands holden in chief be leased for life the remainder to A. in Fee A. dieth his heir within age he shall be in Ward and that by reason of these words in the Statute In every such case it is not the same Case but the like Case for if he who hath the Fee dieth so as the Freehold survives to the other now the Estate becomes as an Estate for life the remainder over It was adjourned CLXXXIV The Lord Howard and the Town of Walden 's Case 24 Eliz. In the Exchequer More Rep. 159. Post 162 163. BEtwixt the Lord Howard and the Town of Walden the Case was That the King made a Feoffment in Fee of Lands parcel of his Dutchy of Lancaster Tenend in feodi forma reddend inde sibi haeredibus suis aut illi cui de jure reddi debet 10 l. The question was How and of whom the Tenure should be It was argued by Plowden That it should be holden of the King as of his Dutchy he said The King is not bounden by the Statute of Quia emptores terrarum but here upon this Feoffment the Feoffee shall hold of the King as of his Dutchy All Grants of the King notwithstanding that they be of Lands yet they savour of the person of the King and his Prerogative being wrapt up in his person shall guide the disposition of the land and he said that this Tenure shall be implyed by reason and in respect of his person And the Statute of Quia emptores terrarum extends to Tenants onely Libere tenentes magnatum aliorum but the King is not Libere tenens alicujus magnat 32 H. 6. 21 22. The King hath an Advowson in the Right of his Dutchy to which
being void he presents he may repeal his presentment and he vouched divers presidents of Grants of the King of such lands to hold of him as of his Dutchy and sometimes of others And the King by his Dutchy seal may give lands in Mortmain and the King under his Dutchy-seal hath made divers Corporations within his Dutchy And although this Rent be a new thing never parcel of the Dutchy yet because it is issuing out of the Dutchy lands and reserved thereout shall be of the same nature and accounted parcel of the possessions of the Dutchy If before the Statute of West 3. one seised of lands on the part of his mother made a Feoffment in Fee Tenend by such services and died the Seignory should go to the heir on the part of his mother and should be descendable as the land it self in lieu of which it came And if Tenant in tail now after the Statute of 32 H. 8. makes a Lease for years according to the Statute rendring Rent to him and his heirs it shall be expounded such heirs which are inheritable to the land according to the entail Manwood chief Baron Demanded of Plowden this Question The King makes a Feoffment in Fee of lands of his Dutchy Is the same a matter of Record who answered yes Manwood Truely no for then there needed not any livery Egerton Solicitor argued to the contrary and he argued much upon the Statute of 1 H. 4. and 1 H. 7. of the separation of the Dutchy of Lancaster from the Crown which see in the Comment 215. in the Case of the Dutchy of Lancaster by which Acts the possessions of the Dutchy were devested out of the body Politick of the King and vested in his body natural and are as their corporal holding in the King as they were in the Duke of Lancaster being a Subject who if he had made a Feoffment the Feoffee should not hold of him but of the King Ergo so shall it be in the case where the King himself makes a Feoffment and he cited a Case put in the end of the Dutchy Case 4 Eliz. 223. The Queen made a Feoffment of lands of the Dutchy out of the County Palatine to hold of her in Capite the Feoffee shall hold of her in Capite as of her Crown of England The case went farther the King after this Feoffment granteth the Fee-farm the Question is If the Rent reserved upon this Feoffment shall pass by such grant or not and he said That this Rent is not parcel of the Fee-farm but rather a collateral charge upon the land for in all cases where there is a Tenure expressed in fait or implyed in Law there the rent reserved after shall not be parcel of the Tenure but a Rent in gross by it self As in our case Tenend in feod firm makes a Tenure therefore the Reddend after shall not make the sum reserved parcel of it 33 E. 3. Annuity 52. before the Statute of Quia Emptores terrarum a man makes a Feoffment in Fee Tenend de Dominis Capital rendring the rent of 20 l. that Rent is a Rent in gross and not parcel of the Tenure King E. 6. granted to Cranmer Archbishop and his heirs Tenend by the fifth part of a Knight's-fee Reddend 6 l. per ann Cranmer in Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for life the remainder to the use of his son in tail the remainder to the use of the right heirs of Cranmer made a Fee who is attainted of Treason by which the remainder to his right heirs Escheats to the King and so the Seignory is extinct but it was adjudged That the Rent was in esse and not extinct by the Escheat of the remainder for it was not parcel of the Seignory So here in our case Another matter was moved If this Rent being a new thing created de novo and not parcels of the possessions of the Dutchy 1 H. 4. nor 1 H. 7. shall be accounted in Law in the right of the Crown or of the Dutchy and if of the Crown then it cannot pass by the Dutchy-seal and the Statute of 1 H. 4. speaks of such Lands and Tenements which were to his Ancestors Dukes of Lancaster but this Rent never was in them c. and the Queen cannot enlarge the possessions of her Dutchy by her own Act and therefore if J. S. being Tenant in Fee-simple be impleaded in a Praecipe quod reddat and saith that he holdeth for life the remainder to the King in Fee in the right of his Dutchy now this remainder is vested in the King in the right of his Crown and not in the right of his Dutchy for it is onely an Estoppel So the Villein of the King in the right of his Dutchy purchaseth lands the King seiseth he shall have the lands in the right of his Crown and not in the right of the Dutchy If the King giveth Common out of his lands parcel of his Dutchy and afterwards makes a Feoffment in Fee of the lands out of which the Common is granted and afterwards the Commoner dieth without heir the King shall have the same in the right of his Crown and not in the right of the Dutchy So although the rent doth follow the nature of the lands out of which it is issuing yet it is not so to all intents and he said That by the Statute of 2 3 Phil. Ma. the King could not enlarge the possessions of the Dutchy and therefore by the said Act authority is given for to annex possession unto the Dutchy by Letters Patents And there is another clause in the said Statute That if any part of the possessions of the Dutchy have been aliened or granted unto any subject and are reverted to the Crown by Escheat attainder forfeiture purchase c. they shall be deemed and accepted parcel of the Dutchy which case proves That if the King makes a Feoffment of such lands the same is a Tenure in chief for if it were a Tenure of the Dutchy then upon Escheat it should be parcel of the Dutchy again without the help of that Statute Now this Rent being a Rent in gross and not parcel of the Seignory Reddendo Domino Regi haeredibus successoribus suis aut Domino aut Dominis feodi when the King grants the Seignory to the Lord Audley it hath been moved that it was in the Election of the Feoffee to pay the Rent to the King or to the Lord Audley but that is not so for although the Law be so betwixt Subjects yet in case of the King it is otherwise for the King shall never be over-reached by an Election and therefore he shall pay the Rent to the King. It was adjourned CLXXXV The Executors of Sir William Cordel and Clifton 's Case Hill. 18 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 3 Len. 59. THE Case was The Earl of Westmerland seised of a Manor whereof the Demeans were usually let for three lives by Copy
for the abatement of a Writ As in a Praecipe quod reddat the Tenant acknowledgeth himself to be Villein to a stranger the Writ shall abate without any averment if Frank and of Frank Estate for the Law presumes that the Tenant would not enthral his condition Wray to the same intent But the Demandant may confess and avoid the Fine as to say That he that levyed the Fine was his disseisor upon whom he had before entred c. And if Tenant in Fee-simple be impleaded and he saith that he is Tenant for life the remainder over to A. in Fee and prayes in aid of A. the Demandant shall not take averment that the Tenant the day of the Writ purchased was seised in Fee. Note that in this fine Ioynt-tenancy was pleaded but to parcel It was holden by Wray and Southcot that the whole Writ should abate As in a Writ the misnosmer of one shall abate the whole Writ against all the Defendants and so where the Demandant enters into parcel of the land in demand if the thing in demand be one intire thing it shall abate the whole Writ In this Case the Demandant ought to have in his Writ de Forsprise of the land in demand whereof the Ioynt-tenancy by Fine is pleaded per availe and under the gift of which the Formedon is conceived and therefore in respect of the title of the Demandant it remains in right parcel of the Manor and therefore ought to be demanded accordingly with an Exception But if A. give to B. a Manor except ten acres in tail there if after upon any discontinuance the issue in tail have a Formedon in such case there needs no exception for the said ten acres were never after the gift parcel of the Manor which was given in tail for they were severed from the Manor upon the gift but if land in demand was several as twenty acres except two an exception is not good for he might demand eight acres See E. 1. F. N. B. 866. Praecipe unam bovat terrae except a Seleon and the Writ was abated for every demand ought to be certain but a Seleon is a parcel of land uncertain as to quantity in some places an acre in some more in some less Another point was That because the Tenant hath admitted and accepted this averment scil sole Tenant as the Writ doth suppose If the Court notwithstanding the admittance of the Tenant ought without exception of the party Ex officio to abate the Writ and Wray conceived that they should for it is a positive Law as if a woman brings an appeal of murther upon the death of her brother and the Defendant doth admit it without challenge or exception yet the Court shall abate the appeal 10 E. 4. 7. And see the principal Case there Non ideo puniatur Dominus and if an Action be brought against an Hostler upon the common custome of the Realm and in the Writ he is not named common Hostler and the Defendant doth accept of such Writ without exception to it yet the Court shall abate the Writ Ex officio 11 H. 4. 198. and 38 H. 6. 30. CXCVII 24 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. Antea 150. More Rep. Saffron Walden's Case THE Case was this King Henry the 8. seised of certain lands in the right of his Dutchy of Lancaster Granted them unto another Tenend in Fee-farm Reddend dicto Dom. Regi haeredibus suis aut illi cui de jure reddi debet 10 l. And if this land should be holden of the King in Capite or holden of the Dutchy was the question Egerton Solicitor general argued much upon the Statute of 1 H. 4. by which the Dutchy and possessions thereof were severed from the Crown See Plowden in the Case of the Dutchy of Lancaster 213. And see ibid. the Statute of 1 H. 4. Entituled Charta Regis Hen. 4. 1. De separatione Ducatus Lancastr à Corona by which it is enacted That the Dutchy of Lancaster taliter tali modo deducatur gubernetur pertractetur c. ac si ad culmen dignitatis Regiae assumpti minime fuissemus So as by that Act the Dutchy is dis-joined from the Crown and in such point as to possession as it was in a common person But the possession of the Dutchy doth not bind the person of the King as 10 H. 4. 7. The King brings an Action for certain Lands to him descended from his Vncle the Duke of Lancaster and the Writ was Non omittas propter aliquam libertatem and exception was taken to the Writ because that such clause ought not to be in the King 's Writ but where the King sueth as King but that Writ he sueth as Duke of Lancaster but the exception was not allowed The King cannot sue otherwise but as King for the person of the King ought not to be measured according to his possession so as it was a severance in order survey government and process and not in respect of the person But after the Statute of 1 H. 4. The said Act of Separation was repealed and farther enacted that the said King should hold the said Dutchy to him and his heirs Kings of England so as thereby the Dutchy is settled in the politick Body of the King afterwards came the Statute of 1 H. 7. by which it is enacted That the King shall hold the said Dutchy and the possessions thereof in such manner and form and so separated from the Crown as King Henry the fourth and King Henry the fifth did hold the same so as the Dutchy was devested out of the Body politick of the King where it was setled 1 H. 4. and vested in the Body natural of the King so as the possession of the Dutchy as to their government c. are in the King as they were in the Duke of Lancaster before he was King and if the Duke of Lancaster had made a Feoffment c. the Feoffee should not hold of him but of the King So if the King himself maketh a Feoffment of Lands of the Dutchy the Feoffee shall hold of the King c. which see in the Dutchy of Lancaster's Case in the end of it And he conceived That notwithstanding the union of the Crown and the Dutchy yet the privity of the Tenure doth remain being preserved by the said Act of 1 H. 4. Another matter was That here the Tenure reserved is Tenend in feodi firma Reddend 10 l. c. And he said that this Rent is not parcel of the Tenure but rather a Rent-charge collateral to the Tenure For in all Cases where there is a Tenure expressed in suit or implied in Law before there Reddendo following shall not make the thing rendred parcel of the Tenure 3 Cro. 210 211. but it shall be a Rent in gross and here Tenend in feodi firma makes the Tenure c. and the Reddendo after shall not make the Rent reserved parcel of the Tenure See the
Case 33 E. 3. Annuity 52. before the Statute of Quia Emptores terrarum a man makes a Feoffment in Fee Tenend de Dom. Capital Feod c. Reddend 10 s. Rent here because that the Tenure was reserved Capital Dom. feodi illius this Rent reserved is not parcell of the Tenure but a Rent in gross King Edward the sixth gave certain Lands to Cranmer Archbishop of Canterbury Tenend by the fifth part of a Knight's Fee Reddend inde 6 l. per ann Cranmer made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of his eldest son in tail the remainder to the right heirs of Cranmer who is attainted of Treason by which the remainder in Fee escheated to the King by which the Seignory is gone But it was adjudged that notwithstanding that escheat the Rent did remain for the Rent was not parcel of the Seignory Now this Rent being a thing newly created and not parcel of the possessions of the Dutchy in 1 H. 4. nor ever descended from any Ancestor of the King being Duke of Lancaster shall be accounted to be in the King in the right of his Crown and so cannot pass by the Dutchy-seal See the said Statute of 1 H. 4. and the King cannot enlarge the said Dutchy nor the possessions thereof beyond the possessions which were of the Dutchy at the time of the making of the said Acts As if J. S. seised in Fee is impleaded and he saith that he holds the Lands in demand for life the remainder to the King in the right of his said Dutchy now the said remainder is vested in the King not in the right of the said Dutchy but in the right of his Crown The Villain of the King in the right of his Dutchy of Lancaster purchaseth Lands the King seizeth he shall be seised thereof in the right of his Crown and not of the Dutchy The King grants Common out of certain Lands parcel of his said Dutchy and afterwards makes a Feoffment of the said Lands to another the Grantee of the Common dieth without heir so as the Common escheats to him now he shall have the Common in the right of the Crown and not of the Dutchy so although it is said That the Rent shall follow the nature of the Land out of which c. yet the same is but to some intents and not to every intent See the Statute of 2 and 3 Phil. Ma. cap. 20. by which it is enacted That all the Lands which have been granted or severed from the Dutchy to any person or persons and after such grant have come or reverted to the King in possession reversion or remainder or otherwise by attainder escheat forfeiture c. shall for ever be united to the said Dutchy and shall be adjudged and esteemed as part and member of the same which proves that such Lands were not holden of the King as Duke of Lancaster but as King for if they had been holden of the Dutchy upon the escheat they should be parcel of the Dutchy again without help of that Statute See the special Reservation Reddendo Domino Regi haeredibus suis aut illi cui de jure reddi debet c. Now when the King grants the Seignory to the Lord Audley it was in the Election of the Ter-tenant to whom he would pay the Rent if it had been in the Case of a common person but it is otherwise in the Case of the King As if A. holdeth of two several Lords by owel Feoffment and dieth his heir within age the Lord which first gets the Ward shall have him but in the Case of the King it is otherwise Plowden The King is not bound by the Statute of West 3. But in this Case in the making of this Feoffment with this Tenend Reddend the Feoffee shall hold of the King as of his Dutchy for all grants of the King savour of the person of the King and then his Prerogative wrapt in the person shall guide the same and see the Statute of West 3. extends to all who make Feoffments Tenend de Feoffatoribus but the King is not Tenant to any one And if the King be seised of an Advowson in the right of his Dutchy and the same becomes void and the King presents to the same he may repeal his presentation and he vouched divers precedents of Patents made to many great Lords to hold of the Dutchy and also to hold of others And the King by his Dutchy-seal may give Lands in Mortmain And he argued That this Rent although newly created yet in so much as it came and accrued in respect of the Land which was parcell of the Dutchy it should be accounted also parcel of the Dutchy as if before the Statute of West 3. A. seised of Lands in Fee of the part of his father makes a Feoffment in Fee Tenend by such services c. the same Seignory shall go to the heirs of the part of the father in lieu of which the Seignory is come Tenant in tail after the Statute of 32 H. 8. makes a Lease for years according to the said Act rendring Rent to him and his heirs it shall be intended heirs in tail It was adjourned CXCVIII. Forster and Walker 's Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the King's-Bench IN an Ejectione firmae by Foster against Walker the Case was 3 Cro. 106. Shepherd's Touch-stonâ— of Conveâ—…ances 416. That Richard Meager was seised of a house in London and 6 E. 6. he devised the same to his Wife for life the remainder to John his son in tail the remainder to the Master and Wardens of the Cordwaynors in London and died the Wife entred and died John died The Master Wardens and Commonalty of the Cordwaynors entred and leased the Plaintiff upon whom the heir general of the Devisor did enter The onely question was inasmuch as the Cordwaynors of London are incorporated by the name of Master and Wardens and Commonalty of Cordwaynors If this devise made to them by the name of Master and Wardens of the Cordwaynors of London be good or not It was argued by Daniel that the Devise by the manner was good enough and he insisted much upon the favour which the Law gives to Wills and to Legatees in the Devises and construction of them even in Devises and Grants to Corporations and as to Grants to Corporations he cited the Case of the Dean and Chapter of Norwich Decanus Capitulum sanctae individuae Trinit and they make a Lease leaving out these words sanctae individuae and yet held the Lease was good notwithstanding that for the words left out are not words of substance of the name but for the beauty and ornament of it But in the Case of Devise if the name be mistaken in matter of substance yet if upon the Devise the intent of the Devisor sufficiently appeareth it is good enough for the intent of the Devisor shall guide the Devise and
in which was parcel demised and demiseable according to the custome of the said Manor by Copy in Fee whereof Langley was a Copiholder in Fee c. and the said Earl so seised enfeoffed divers persons of the said Manor unto the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of the Lord Lumley and Elizabeth his wife daughter of the said Earl and the heirs of their two bodies begotten who made a Lease of the said Customary lands by Indenture unto the Plaintiff for 100 years and the question was If by this Lease the lands be so severed from the Manor that the Copihold is extinct Walmesly took exception to the pleading for that Langley pleads That the custome within the Manor is That if any Copiholder seised of Customary lands of the said Manor dieth thereof seised having many sons That the youngest son shall inherit and he sheweth That the Lord of the said Manor granted to his father and his mother the said customary lands by Copy to have to his said father and mother and the heirs of his father c. And that his father died and that his mother survived him and died and he as youngest son according to the custome entred and he said That this custome set forth by the Defendant doth not maintain his entry For the custome intendeth but a general and immediate descent upon a Copy made unto a man and to his heirs but such is not the descent here for the wife surviveth during whose life the heir cannot enter nor is there here such Estate in the father of the Defendant unto whom the custome set forth in the Avowry can extend For the custome is alledged Where a Copyholder hath a Copyhold Estate to him and his heirs And here the Title of the Defendant is That a customary Estate was granted to the father and the mother and the heirs of the father so as this Estate is not within the Letter of the custome And to that purpose he cited the Case of Sir John Savage Sir John Savage's Case ante 109. late adjudged Where one entitled himself to a Copihold in this manner That within the Manor there is such a custome that if one taketh to wife any customary Tenant of the said Manor in Fee and hath issue by her he if he over-live such wife should be Tenant by the Curtesie and the Case in truth was That he married a woman who at the time of the marriage had not any Copihold but afterwards during the coverture a Copihold descended to her In that Case it was holden That no Tenancy by the Curtesie did accrue by that custome which did not extend but where the wife is a Copiholder at the marriage and a custome shall be in construction taken strictly and shall not be extended beyond the words of it And as to the matter in Law he said That by this Lease the custome was gone and then by consequence the customary Tenancy as to that land is determined for the Estate of the Copiholder is Secundum consuetudinem Manerii ad voluntatem Dom. And now by the Lease Langley cannot hold Secundum consuetudinem Manerii for now the services reserved upon the Copy and the advantages of Waste and other forfeitures are extinct so that if notwithstanding the Lease the customary interest should endure then such a Copiholder should hold this land discharged of all services c. in better Estate than any Freeholder at the Common Law and because the services in Law are discharge and cannot be recovered for that cause the customary interest is determined For the Case is 7 E. 4. 19. by Danby That the Copiholder shall have remedy against his Lord if he put him out for he payes a Fine when he enters but here during this Lease no Fine can be paid upon any descent c. and the Fine is the cause for which the Copiholder shall maintain his possession against the Lord But here no descent or surrender can be presented for there is not any Tenant who can do it See 21 E. 4. 80. by Brian As long as the Copiholder payeth unto the Lord the customs and services If the Lord putteth him out he shall have an Action of Trespass 42 E. 3. 25. If the Copiholder will not do his services the Lord shall seize the lands Dyer 100. 1 Cro. 35. And he resembled this Case to the case where the King grants lands probis hominibus de D. the same is a good Grant and that onely in respect of the Rent and for the reason of that it is a good Corporation But if the King releaseth the Rent the Corporation is dissolved and the Grant is become void Fenner Serjeant contrary and he said That by this Lease being the act of the Lord himself the customary interest is not determined c. And the whole Court was of clear opinion with Fenner That the Copihold did remain for otherwise by such practices of the Lords all the Copiholders in England might be defeated and if any prejudice be grown to the Lord by this act it is of his own doing and against his own act he shall not be relieved And by Periam Iustice The Lord by his act i. e. the making of the Lease hath destroyed his Seignory and lost the services as to this land And Windham Iustice said That the Lord himself had destroyed the custome as to the services but not as to the customary interest of the Tenant but the Lord Anderson was of opinion That the Rents and services do remain and if the Copiholder after such Lease committeth Waste that it is a forfeiture to the Lord and that will fall in evidence upon a trial although such Waste cannot be found by an ordinary presentment and the same Law which alloweth the Copiholder his Copihold interest against this Lease will allow unto the Lord his Rents and services and he said That the Lord shall have the Rents and services and not the Lessee Quod mirum against his own Lease See 33 Eliz. between Murrel and Smith now reported by the Lord Coke in his 4 Report fol. 20. CCLVIII. Russel and Broker 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. RUssel brought Trespass against Broker 3 Len. 218. for cutting down of four Oakes The Defendant pleaded That the place where c. and that he is seised of a Messuage in D. And that he and all those whose Estate he hath c. Habere consuerunt rationabile estoverium suum for fuel ad libitum suum capiendum in boscis subboscis arboribus ibidem crescentibus and that in quolibet tempore anni but in fawning time The Plaintiff by Replication said That the place where is within the Forrest of c. and that the Defendant and all those whose Estate c. Habere consueverunt rationabile estoverium suum de boscis c. per liberationem Forrestarii vel ejus Deputati prout boscus pati potest non ad exigentiam
moved the Case That the Plea is good and Iudgment was entred accordingly CCLXXI. Richmond and Butcher 's Case Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas 1 Cro. 217. IN a Replevin the Case was this A man made a Lease for years reserving Rent to the Lessor his Executors and Assigns where the Lessor had a Fee-simple in the Lands it was holden by the Court That the Rent should go to the heir notwithstanding the special Reservation because the words of the Reservation are During the term and the other words To his Executors and Assigns shall be void and then the Rent shall go with the Reversion to the heir which see 27 H. 8. 19. by Awdley And it was said by some That a Rent reserved during the term shall go to the heir with the Reversion and 12 E. 4. was cited where a Rent reserved to the Lessor and his Assigns should not go to the heir and that these words During the term did not mend the matter for the Lessor might well overlive the term But in the principal Case it was said by Periam Iustice That the Executors should not have the Rent for they have not the Reversion but if the Lessor grants over the reversion the Grantee shall have the Rent And afterwards Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff for it was in a Replevin and Iudgment was given for the Avowant who was heir to the Lessor CCLXXII Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas IN an Action of Trespass brought by a poor woman for breaking of her Close she declared of a Continuando of the Trespass by six years and upon Nihil dicit pleaded she had Iudgment to recover upon which issued forth a Writ of Enquiry of Damages and now came the poor woman and shewed to the Court That the Iury had found too little damages i. e. but 10 s. whereas the Land is worth 4 l. per ann and the Trespass had continued by six years together and prayed that the said Writ might not be received and that the Court would grant her another Writ to have a Melius inquirendum of the damages but the whole Court denied to grant any such Writ for so there might be infinite enquiries But sometimes at the prayer of the Defendant when excessive damages are found or any misdemeanors alledged in the Plaintiff procuring or using such a Writ of Enquiry of damages we use to relieve the Defendant by granting and issuing forth of a new Writ but to the Plaintiff never because the suing forth of the Writ is his own act And by Rhodes Iustice The late Countess of Darby brought a Writ of Dower and had Iudgment to recover and she surmised that her husband died seised and prayed a Writ of Enquiry of damages and had it granted unto her and because too small damages were found she would have suppressed the said Writ and procured a new Writ but she could not obtain it and at last she was driven to bring in the first Writ and so it was done CCLXXIII Scrog 's and Griffin 's Case Hill. 30 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. IN an Action upon the Case upon a promise by Scrogs against Griffin The Plaintiff declared That whereas such a day one Brown and another did run for a wager from Saint-John-Street to High-gate That he of the said two that first got thither and came again should have 5 l. which wager the said Brown did win and whereas after the said match so performed the said Plaintiff affirmed that there was deceit and covin in the performance of the said match upon which the Defendant in consideration of twelve pence to him delivered by the Plaintiff promised that if the Plaintiff can prove that any deceit or covin was used or practised in the performance of the said match that then upon request he should pay to the Plaintiff 5 l. And upon Non Assumpsit pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff and it was moved by Foster in arrest of Iudgment That here is not any request set forth in the Declaration and also that this deceit is enquired of in London whereas it ought to be in Middlesex where the Race was run and it was agreed by all the Iustices That the proof ought to be made in this Action as in the common Cases of voyages and that request now is but matter of conformity and not of necessity Wray Iustice It is clear That always proof ought to be as it is here if not that the matter be referred to a special proof before a person certain And as to the trial The deceit is not in issue but onely the promise and therefore the issue is well tried in London Also this Action here includes proof and request for there cannot be made any other proof and the proof is the effect for which cause he concluded that Iudgment should be entred for the Plaintiff which was done accordingly CCLXXIV Fuller and Trimwell 's Case Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Replevin by Fuller against Trimwell who made Conusance 1 Roll 46. â—… as Bailiff to one house for damage fesance The Plaintiff in Bar of the Conusance shewed That one A. T. did pretend right to the land where c. and the Defendant in the right of the said A. T. took the cattel c. Absque hoc that he took them as Bailiff to the said House upon which the Defendant did demur in Law and it was argued by Shuttleworth Serjeant That the traverse is not good which see 26 H. 8. 8. 5 H. 7. 2. Not his Bailiff but if the truth of the Case be so he may plead of his own wrong without such cause c. And see also 28 H. 6. 4. The Commandment is not traverseable but in special Cases where the Commandment determines the interest of the other party which see 13 H. 7. 12 13. Antea 196. in the Case of the Earl of Suffolk in Trespass the Defendant pleaded That before the trespass the Plaintiff was seised and thereof enfeoffed one B. by whose commandment he entred to which the Plaintiff said That after the Feoffment and before the trespass the said B. leased to the Plaintiff to hold at will Absque hoc that the said B. did command him and that was holden a good traverse for the commandment determines that Lease at will and in the principal Case all the Iustices were of clear opinion That the traverse is good and they all said That the Custos Brevium had shewed to them many presidents thereof See 15 H. 7. 17. and see also 7 H. 4. 101 102. In trespass for taking of cattel the Defendant did justifie as servant to such a one for Rent arrere due to his Master The Plaintiff Replicando said That the Defendant was not Bailiff at the time of the taking where it is said by Gascoigne That if the Defendant takes the cattel claiming property as a Heriot due to himself although that afterwards the Lord agrees to the distress