levied a Fine Come Ceo c. he in the Remainder entred In this Case it was Resolved first that the Grant to C. was void for that an Estate of Freehold cannot begin at a day to come 2. That the Grant being void at the beginning the attornment afterwards cannot make it good 3. When C. entred by color of the Grant he was a Disseisor 4 If the Fine had been levied to the Disseisor himself he who had the right to the Remainder might have entred for the forfeiture 5. That the Fine levyed to the Tenant at Will was a forfeiture and he in the Remainder entring upon it had purged the Diseisin 6. It was Resolved in this case that if the Diseisee levieth a Fine to a Stranger the Diseisor shall retain the Land for ever for that the Diseisee against his own Fine cannot claim but by the Fine the Right is extinct of which the Diseisor shall take advantage Abraham and Twiggs Case 569. A seised of Land in Fee by his Will in writing devised 40. l. annuity to I. S. for Life with clause of distress payable at Mich. and our Lady-day and died The Rent was behind at our Lady-day 35 Eliz. I. S. distrained a Replevin was brought and the Plaintiff in the Replevin said â—hat before A. was seised that B. was seised in Fee and enfeoffed divers persons to the use of himself and the Heirs of his Body the Remainder to the use of G. Et haeredum masculorum suorum legitimè procreatorum pro defectu talis exitus ad usum I. D. et haeredum masculorum suorum legitimè procreat pro defectu talis exitus ad opus usum rect haered dicti G. imperpeâ—uum B. died without Issue G. had Issue A. the Devisor The principal point in the Case was If the Limitation to the use of G. and his Heirs Males lawfully begotten and for want of such Issue ut supra without the words Heirs Males of his Body was an Estate tail or a Fee simple in G. for if tail then the Devisor his his Son was seised in tail and his Will of the Rent void It was Resolved he was seised in Fee-simple and not in tail for default of the words Heirs of his body in the limitation of the use Wrights Case 570. In a Prohibition in this case it was holden by the Court that the Bishop of Winchester might prescribe that he and his Praedecessors Farmers and Tenants of Temporal Lands had held their Lands discharged from the payment of Tythes and so might any other spiritual person but Temporal persons could not prescribe in non Decimando but in modo Decimando they might prescribe Marsh and Curties Case 571. Ejectione firme The case was A seised in Fee let a Messuage and 20. acres of Land for years rendring Rent Provided the Lessee shall not parcel out any of the Lands from the House The Lessee devised the house and 10. acres for half a year reserving the other 10. acres the Lessor at the next day accepted of the Rent and notwithstanding entred upon the Land the Lease not being expired It was Resolved That the words in the Proviso were a condition 2. That the condition was broken by the Devise of the House with parcell of the Land as well as if he had devised the whole Land But some of the Justices were of opinion that the acceptance of the Rent after the condition was broken had dispensed with the condition and had barred them of his entry for the condition broken especially if the Lessor had notice of the Condition broken at the time of the acceptance of the Rent Quaere The Lord Norris and Barretts Case 572. Debt for an Amercement in a Leet The case was The Abbot of A. was seised of the Hundred of H. in Com. B. and of Leet appendant to it to be holden by prescription once in the year at Easter The Dissolution of the Abby was found and that the Towns of C. and N. with 20. other Towvs were in the Hundred King Edward the Sixt granted to L. divers Lands in N. which was parcel of the possessions of the Abby and also granted to him Omnes omnimodas Curias Leetas Perquisitiones proficua Curiarum Leetarum fines amerciamenta in N. seu in eorum aliqua seu alicui inde parcellae modo spectant sive pertinent With a further Clause that L. and his heirs should have tot talia tanta hujusmodi consimilia curias Leetas fines amerciament quaecunque prout Abbas c. Infra Messuagia terras tenementa caetera praemissa quamlibet inde parcellam Afterwards Ed. 6. granted the Hundred and the Leet to I. B. and I. D. which by mean conveyances came to the Plaintiff L. conveyed the Land to his second Son under whom the Defendant claims It was the opinion of the Justices That L. had not any Leet by the Grant nor any Amercement nor was discharged from the general Leet because the first clause of the Patent is restrained to Leets and Amercements belonging or appertaining to the Land granted and the Leet which the Abbot and King had was appertaining to the Hundred and not to Land 2. That L. could not have the like Leet as the Abbot for when eadem may be had and the Plaintiff hath words to have eadem if he fail of eadem he shall not have Consimile for eadem remains in the King and if the King hath a Leet none other can have a Leet in the same place because two Leets cannot be in one place simul semel Laughton and Gardiners Case 573. In Action upon the Case Upon a Latitat the Sheriff returned a Cepi habeo Corpus paratum which he had not and the Defendant did demur to it Adjudged the Action did lie because by his demur the Defendant hath confessed his false Retorn but if he had pleaded the Statute of 23. H. 6. and shewed he had taken Bail the Action would not lie Nicholas and Badgers Case 574. The Defendant in an Action upon the case for words by his Council gave in evidence That one I. S. had stollen certain Sheep and that by compart betwixt the Plaintiff and I. S. the Plaintiff did take a Lease of a Close of I. S. in D. to help him to cloak and to keep him from the Felony and that he said He would affirm all to be true that the Council had said It was adjudged that for these words a new Action did lie for although they do not accuse him as an accessary to the Felony but for misprision of Felony which is not Fineable yet it is a great-scandal of any man to say That he cloaks Felony Note in this Case It was Resolved that an Action upon the Case doth not lie against a Counsellor for delivering slanderous words in evidence Boneham and Springs Case 575. Assumpsit in London The Defendant pleaded a Concord in another County for all Matters in any County except London
it was Resolved that upon such Writ the Sheriff or his Officer might without any Offence by a Warrant arrest the person of the Countesse for he is not to dispute the authority of the Coâ—rt in awarding the proces but he is to execute the Writ to him directed But because the Defendants did arrest the Countesse upon a feined action of their own heads without Warrant They were fined and sentenced by the Court. Dag and Penkevells Case 1007. A bill was exhibited in the Star Chamber against the Defendant and divers others for several Offences The Defendant for that he inserted the name of a special Bailiff in a Warrant which was made by the Sheriff with blanks without privity or direction of the Sheriff Note in this Case it was holden that where there are several Defendants and one only is sentenced the other shall have Costs because not charged with the offence for which the sentence was but with other Offences of which they were acquitted 2. It was holden in this Case that a Defendant shall not have benefit of a general pardon at hearing of the Cause unlesse he prayes the same upon his answer put into Court Clerks Case 1008. Note in this Case being the Case of a Purveyor who was sentenced in the Star Chamber for several Offences in executing his Office of Purveyor It was said there were 7. properties incident to every Purveyor 1. He ought to be sufficient to answer the King and the party 2. He is to do his service in person and not by Deputy because it is an Office of Tâ—â—st 3. He is to be sworn in Chancery before he execute his Office for he ought to have authority under the great Seal with blank Labells to insert what he takes 5. His Authority is to continue but six moneths without renewing 6. He ought to take where is plenty and in Convenient time and no more then is sufficient 7. He is to take the things in kind and not money for them Lovice and Goddards Case 1009. The Case was A. the Grandfather had Issue two Sons T. and W. and by his Will devised to T. all his Mannors Lands c. within the Counties of D. and C. viz. to T. and the Heirs males of his body after his decease for 500. years Provided if T. or any Issue male of his body give grant c. the premises or any parcel thereof oâ—herwise then to Lease and demise the same for any term or number of years as may or shall be determinable upon the deaths of aâ—y 2. persons c. to be made in the Leases c. then all the premises for default of such Issues males of the said T to be begotten c. immediatly upon such alâ—â—nation gift grant c. shall remain and come to W. and to the Heirs males of his body c. The devisor dyed T. entred and made a Lease for 1000. years to I. S. who never entred T. dyed without Issue male I. being his Daughter and Heir W. dyed having Issue the Plaintiff who entred upon whom I. entred In this Case it was Resolved in C. B. that the devise to T. and the Heirs males was an estate Tail and the limitation for years void 2. Resolved that there ought to be a concurrence of death without Issue male and also of alienation before the rising of the Remainder 3. That the Remainder should never rise because the particular estate was destroyed by the alienation before the Remainder could commence 4. That the Lease for 1000. years made to I. S. was not an alientation within the Proviso upon which the estate might rise to W. when T. was dead without Issue male because that T. who made the Lease was but Tenant in Tail and then the Lease was determined upon his death It was the opinion of all the Justices in C. B. that the Judgment should be for the Defendant upon which Judgment the Plaintiff brought a Writ of Error in B R. and there by all the Justices upon the matter in Law the Judgment was reversed Mich 3. Jan. Cargenter and Collins Case 1010. In Debt for Rent the Case was A. had a Son and a Daughter and devised that his Son should have his Land at his age of 24. years and gave 40 l. to his Daughter to be paid at her age of 22. years and appointed that C. should be his Excecutor and should have the oversight and dealing of his Lands and goods till his Children should come to the ages aforesaid and dyed C. the Plaintiff made a Lease to the Defendant at Will rendering Rent at Mich. and our Lady-day the Daughter entred upon the Tenant at Will the Tenant attorned to her the Son dyed within the age of 24 years the Defendant did not pay the Rent for which C. brought Debt against him It was adjudged against the Plaintiff Resolved 1. The word Oversight and dealâ—ng with his Lands and goods did not give any Interest to C. the Excecutor but an authority only and that the estate discended to the Son 2. That by the death of the Son the Interest of the Executor was determined for it was noâ— the intent of the devisor to bar the Heir of the Son untill the Son should come to the age of 24 years if he lived 3. That the Tenury at Will was determined by the entry of the Daughter because she entred by Title i. e. as Heir to her Brother Lord Aburgavenny and Edwards Case 1011. An Excommengement was pleaded in Bar and the Certificate of the Bishop of Lâ—ndaph shewed of it but doth not mention by what Bishop the party was Excommenge wherefore it was adjudged void Rastoll and Drapers Case 1012. Debt upon an Obligation for payment of so much Flemish mony the Plaintiff declared for so much English money and it was holden good by the Court. Doyly and Drakes Case 1013. A man had two Closes adjoyning time out of mind and sold one of them who should make the Inclosure the Purchasor or the vendor the Court was divided in opinion Vide 21 Eliz. Diâ—r 372. Williams and Vaughans Case 1014 Scire facias by the Plaintiff against the Defendant who was bail in Debt for I. S. who did not render his body nor pay the Debt the Defendant demurred 1. Because no Capias was sued against the principal and also because the Principal was dead before the Scire facias brought but both points overruled because the Condition of the bail was broken before Whitâ—ock and Harâ—wells Case 1015. A. and B. Sisters Joynt Tenant A. Covenanted with a stranger that he should enjoy the moyety which she held with her Sister in Joynture for 60. years from the death of her Sister if she the said A. should so long live and demised to him the other moyety from her own death for 60. years if her Sister so long lived Adjudged the Lease was void for both moyeties â—he one because of her moyety after the death of her Companion and the other is
Attornment and not as a Surrender but if the Lessee be not upon the Land then it is not a Feoffment and when the Lessee enters again he shall have his Term and the Feoffee the Reversion and if the Lessee be upon the Land and denyes the Lessor to make Livery notwithstanding that Livery be made nothing passeth by the Feoffment nor is a grant of the Reversion 42. Lessee for life of a Mannor seizeth an Estray and dyeth before the year and the day passed Resolved the Executors of the Lessee shall have it and not he in the Reversion for although the Lessee had not an absolute propriety in it during his life yet when the year is past the property shall have relation to the time of the Seizure 1 2 Ma. Stapleton and Trewlocks Case 43. Debt by Executors of I. S. against A. Trewlock Administratrix of Rich. Trewlock The Will was That the Testator made the Plaintiff and Rich. Trewlock his Executors but said further in his Will I will my Friend Rich. T. shall pay to my other Executor all such debts as he oweth me before he shall meddle with any thing of this my Will by reason I have made him one of my Executors for the discharge of the said Debt The Defendant averred Trewlock in the Will and Trewlock the Intestate to be one and the same Person and said He in his life had paid to the Executor the debt in demand and all other debts which he owed at the time of the death of the Testator Adjudged that the Dfendants plea was not good because she ought to have pleaded an Acquittance of the said debt for that payment without an Acquittance is no plea and for the other Debts she ought to have shewed them certain and pleaded payment of them and she should have shewed that T. administred with the other Executor Agar and Bishop of Peterborough's Case 44. Quare Imp. And for Title to the Avoidance the Statute of 21 Hen. 8. taking a second Benefice with Cure was pleaded Issue was upon the Induction By which it seemed to be admitted That Admission and Institution did not make the first Benefice void without Induction 45. Resolved That upon an Appeal of Manslaughter the Party may challenge 20. peremptorily as well as upon an Indictment 46. Upon an Habere facias seisinam upon Recovery of Dower of 3. Mannors Resolved The Sheriff cannot give her seisin of one Mannor but he must give her seisin of the third part of every Mannor But if the Recovery be of all Lands viz Meadow c. Pasture the Sheriff may assign her her Dower in the Meadow only The Queen and Deans Case 47. Writ of Disceit by the King and Queen upon a Fine levyed by C. to D. of Lands in antient Demesne who rendred to C. for life reversion to K. D. dyed pendent the Writ Resolved The Writ shall not abate because it is in the nature of a Trespasse which doth not demand the Land but is to punish the Disceit Tuck and Frenchman's Case 48. A. seized of Lands in Fee holden in soccage devised the same to C. F. and the Heirs males of his body and if he dyed without Heirs males of his body the Remainder c. C. F. dyed without Issue male of his body Resolved That C. F. had not general tail but special tail to him and the Heirs males of his body Joslin and Chelstons Case 49. Assumpsit In consideration of a Marriage of the Son of the plaintiff with the Defendants Daughter the Defendant assumed to pay to the Plaintiff 40 l. in 7. years next following by equal portions Found upon Non Assumpsit for the Plaintiff and because one of the 7. years was to come at the time of Action brought the Judgement was stayed 3 4. Ma. Eaton Colledge Case 50. A Lease was made by the Dean and Chapter of the Colledge was of Eaton whereas they were incorporated by the name of Dean and Chapter of the Colledge of St. Maryes of Eaton Resolved the Lease was void for the Misnosmer Stokes and Porters Case 51. Debt upon an Obligation against the Defendant Executor of I. S. who pleaded that he was not Executor nor administred as Executor It was found that he received a Debt of 7 l. which was due to the Testator and made an Acquittance thereof and took possession of other Goods of the Testator and converted them to his own use Adjudged That it was an Administration Hill 2 Eliz. Helior and Okedens Case 52. A Lease was made to I. S. of the Mannor of F. Habend from Mich. last past for 20. years and by the same Deed it was agreed That after hold expiration of the 20 years that the said Lessee his Wife and their Son should have hold and enjoy the Mannor Habend for their lives cuilibet diutius vivent and he made a Letter of Attorney to make Livery secundum formam of the said Grant and Lease Resolved If the Deed was delivered by the Attorney and Livery made at one time it was a good Lease for years with a Remainder for their Lives but if the Deed was first delivered by the Lessor to the Lessee and after Livery and Seisin by the Attorney there the Livery was void Thorn and Rolfes Case 53. Dower The Defendant pleaded that the Husband of the Demandant was alive at Canterbury in Com. Kent The Defendant said her Husband dyed at F. in the Parish of P. in the said County of K. upon which they were at Issue Day given to make Proofs the Plaintiffe examined her Witnesses in Court the Defendant examined no Witnesses Judgement was the Plaintiffe should â—â—cover her Dower Hill 3 Eliz. Corket and Sheldons Case 54. A. in consideration of a Marriage intended betwixt him and B. by Deed covenants with S. to execute an Estate in Fee to the use of the said A. for life and after to the use of the said B. for by and untill the Son or one of the Sons of the said A. of the body of the said B. begotten shall accomplish the age of 21. years The Marriage takes effect A. dyed without Issue between them and before any Issue had Resolved That B. had a good Estate for life before any Issue and in Case there was no Issue But if there had been Issue which had accomplisht 21. years the Estate of B. had been abridged 3 4 Eliz. in C. B. Gower and Andrews Case 55. In Trespass for cutting down of Trees the Case was A. a Woman in her Widdow-hood by Indenture bargained and sold to B. and C. all those Woods Underwoods and Hedgerowes as have accustomedly been used to be fallen and sold standing growing and being in upon and within the Mannor of D. to have and to hold for the life of the said A. B. dyed C. survived and cut down by vertue of the said Bargain the VVoods and Underwoods growing and standing at the time of the making of the said Deed. Resolved upon this Bargain
and if they had imployed nothing that way then nothing was given to the Crown In the principal Case it was adjudged against the Queen and Informer Bossevile and the Corporation of Bridgwaters Case 263. King H. 8. Anno 33. of his Raign made a Lease to the Earl of Bath of the Rectory of Bridgewater and of the Tythes of 2. Hamlets in W. parcell of the said Rectory at the Rent of 10 l. which lease continued till 2. Eliz. in which year Bossevile purchases from the Queen the Rectory of W. of the value of 10 l. yearly and had general Words of the Tythes within the 2. Hamlets but the Lease to the Earl of Bath that was then in esse was not recited and afterwards 3. Eliz. the Queen granted the Rectory of Bridgwater and the Tythes of the 2. Hamlets and all which was in the Earl of Baths Lease to the Corporation of Bridgwater Bossevile by vertue of the Statute of 18. Eliz. of Non Recitals and Misrecitals which had retrospect to the beginning of the Raâ—gn of the said Queen claymed the Tythes within the said 2. Hamlets against the Corporation After a long Argument upon a Reference out of the Court of Wards to the Chief Justices Wray and Anderson it was Resolved by them That the Patent was good without recital to Bossevile against the Queen by relation of the Statute of 18. Eliz. which makes Patents good from 2. November in the first year of the Queen and should binde the Queen her Heirs and Successors but should not be good against the Corporation of Bridgwater and therefore the Case in the Court of Wards was decreed against Bossevile Diggs Case 264. An Annuity was granted in fee at the first day of payment the Annuity was paid to the Grantee and the Grantee made an Acquittance thereof to the Grantor and in the end of the Acquittance he released to the Grantor all Actions and after at the next payment the same was behind and the Grantee brought a VVrit of Annuity against which the Grantor pleaded the Release in Barre It was strongly objected that by the Release the Annuity was determined being a personal thing and a thing in Action But it was resolved by the Court That for an Annuity before the day of payment an Action did not lye and that before it was not therefore resolved by the Release of all Actions before the day of payment and although an Annuity be a Personal thing for which the Grantee hath not any remedy but by way of Action yet it is not a thing in Action It was adjudged for the Plaintiff that the Action was well brought notwithstanding the Release Stantons Case 265. S. at the age of 16. years bound himself an Apprentice in London to I. S. by Indenture containing the ordinary words of every Indenture for Apprentices and afterwards by the command of his Master who was Baily of an Hospital in London and with those Moneys and other Moneys of his Masters he went away and had not discharged his Master against the Hospital for which he brought Covenant upon the Indenture The Defendant pleaded that he was within age in Barre of the Action and also said that upon this Custome the Defendant was impleadâ—â—â—e only in London and not in this Court The Court seemed to be of opinion That the Custome was a good Custome and the Defendant was lyable to the Action within the Custom and that he was impleadable within any place of England as well as in London and therefore that the Action was well brought 266. A Custome in London was set forth to be That if many are bounden in an Obligation as Sureties that if the Principal fail of payment so as that it one of the Sureties be sued upon the Obligation that he might have a VVrit De Contributione facienda against the Sureties and said that such VVrit was brought in London which was removed in C. B. It was remanded into London because the Common Pleas could not doe right upon the Custome Shelleyes Case 267. Upon a Special Verdict in Ejectione firme the Case was Ed. Shelley and Joan his VVife Tenants in special Tayle the Remainder in fee to Ed. had Issue then Hen and Richard Joan dyed Hen. dyed in the life of Ed. having Issue Mary It was found that Ed. by Indenture 1 2 Phil. Mar. covenanted with I. S. and others to suffer a common Recovery to the use of himself for life and after to I. B. for 24. years and after the years expired to the use of the Heirs Males of the Body of the said Ed. and the Heirs Males of the Body of such Heirs Males and for want of such Issue to the use of the Heirs Males of the Body of John Shelly of M. c. and 9. Oct. the first day of the Term Ed. dyed between the hours of 5. and 6. in the morning and afterwards the same day the Recovery passed and that by a VVarrant of Attorney made in the life of Ed. Execution was the 19. day of October by Habere facias seisinam and it was found that 5. December following the wife of Hen. Shelly was delivered of Hen. the now Defendant The Land was also found to be in Lease for years at the time of the Recovery and that Richard Shelley the younger Son of Edward entred and made the Lease to the Plaintiff In this Case there were these points 1. If the Recovery suffered by Ed. the day he dyed was good 2ly If being suffered by him Tenant in tayle it might be executed after his decease upon the Issue 3ly If any use did rise upon the Recovery before Execution 4ly If Richard the youngest Son before the birth of Hen. the Infant took the Land by purchase or by Discent This Case was many times argued at the Barre and afterwards for Difficulty was by the Command of the Queen adjourned into the Exchequer Chamber where it was argued by all the Judges of England and at last it was resolved against the Plaintiff and the reasons of their Judgements were these 1. Because they all agreed that Richard Shelley was in by Discent and not by Purchase after the death of Ed. and before the birth of Hen. the Defendant 2ly That the Recovery was good although that Ed. dyed the same day before the sitting of the Court 3ly That Execution might be sued against the Issue in tayle but that no Seisin was in the Recoverors nor any use raysed till Execution sued 268. A Lease for years was made upon Condition to re-enter for not payment of the Rent A man of ill fame out-lawed in 40. Action at the last instant of the day demanded the rent The Lessee asked him what authority he had to receive it he said he was senr thither by the Lessor but did not shew any warrant from him or that he was his Servant This was the opinion of the Justices that if any one would swear that was true against the Party who demanded
Lawfull before he had a discharge of this Office or perfect notice of a new Sherff Johnson and Smiths Case 318. Action upon the Case for slandring of his Title and declared That he was seised of Lands by discent from hâ—s Father and was agreed with I. S. for a sale of the same Lands and I. S. went to the Defendant being an Attorney and prayed his advice for the making the Assurance and that the Defendant said to I. S. that he had heard that the Father of the Plaintiff had granted a Rent Charge out of the Lands in Fee by reason of which words I. S. refused to buy the Lands and all other persons for fear of the said Incumbrance to his damage c. The Defendant said he was an Attorney at Law and I. S. came to him for Counsell in secret he said the words spoken in the Declaration It was strongly urged that although he was an Attorney that would not excuse him because an Attorney is allowed to give Counsell and the utterance of the words in private did not excuse being spoken to the buyer himself But it was Resolved the Action did not lye and adjudged against the Plantiff Dawbney and Goores Case 319. In Disceit D. G. and G. were Joynt Merchants they made F. and S. their Factors in Barbary G. and G. conspired with S. to demand allowance of 1000 l. which was allowed them upon accompt by which D. was damnified for that the money was not due and the truth was S. only made the Account The poynt was if one Factor might make an Account for both and if the two Merchants might take an Account for them all three It was said that they all ought to joyn in Account but one solely might Assigne Auditours to take the Account on the other side it was said there was no Joynture in Merchandize and that one Merchant shall have an Account against his Companion Quaere the Case was not Resolved Hill and Morses Case 320. It was Resolved in this Case That a Copyhold without a special Custome could not be entailed 321. An Enfant acknowledge a Fine before the Cheif Justice but the Conusee would not have the Fine ingrâ—ssed till his full age The Enfant came now with the Note of the Conusance and prayed a Wriâ— of Error and examination of his age which the Justice agreed unto and that an Entry be made thereof and by that save to him his advantage 322. A man sold his Land and Covenanted to save the Vendee harmlesse upon request It was said if the Land be extended by force of a Statute before the request the Covenant is not broken for that now the Covenant is become impossible by the negligence of the Covenantee himself but if he had made request before the extent there the Covenant should be broken for default of saving harmelesse Foreman and Bobâ—ams Case 323. Repâ—evin The Defendant avowed for a Rent charge of 3 s. 4 d. â—issâ—ing out of the place where c. which was one parcell of the Mannor of W. of whâ—ch Mannor I. S. was seised in Fee and 33 H. 6. made a Feoffment of the said Close rendering Rent with distresse and dyed seâ—sed and it discended to his Son who bargained and sold the Mannor with all Lands Rents Reversions services and herediraments which are parcell or had been deemed reputed or taken as part parcell or member of the Mannor and the Defendant as Bayliff of the Heir of the Bargainee made Conusans for the Rent and whether the Rent did passe as parcell of the Mannor was the Question by the bargain and sale It was said it did nâ—t passe by the word parcell but it passed by the words reputed parcell if it were so reputed parcell at the time of the grant Quaere the Case is not Resolved in this Book but vide Pasch 26 Eliz. in B. R. Leon. 1. part 13. there the Judgment was given against the Avowant Justice Windhâ—ms Case 324. A Lease was made reciting that whereas he had made a Lease of one Close to the Lessee for â—0 years rendring 8 s. Rent and another Lease of another Close to the same Lessee for 40 years now he demised to the same Lessee both the said Closes for 40. year from and after the determination of the several demises It was a question if the last Lease was good because there is not any certain time of the begining of it Resolved the Lease was good and the Law shall make an Interpretation of the demise reddendâ— singula singulis how the Terme shall begin Vide Cook 5. part the same Case Dolman and Vavasors Case 325. A. seised in Fee of Lands 15 Eliz. suffered a Common Recovery to B. which Recovery was executed by Habere facias seisinam After the Recovery had it was declared by Indenture between the parties that the Recovery should be to the use of the said A for life without impeachment of Waste the remainder to the first begotten Child of his body and the Heirs male of such first begotten Child and so to his 9. Issues and for want of such Issue to V. the Tenant or Defendant and the Heirs male of his body and if these Indentures were sufficient to declare the uses of the Recovery was the Question It was Resolved that these Subsequent Indentures were sufficient to declare the uses of the said Recovery for so was the Intent of the parties as appeareth by the Indentures and it was adjudged that the declaration by the subsequent Indentures should stand good because there was not any other declaration of any other use Scroggs and Lady Greshams Case 326. Debt upon an Obligation against the Defendant Executrix of Sir Thomas Gresham The Defendant pleaded several Obligations made by the Testator to the Queen amounting to 8000 l. solvendum eidem Doâ—inae Reginae quando requisitus â—uisset ultra quam non habet upon which the Plaintiff demurred because the Obligation not being upon Record but taken in paâ—s was not good for that the Queen could not take but by matter of Record and also the solvendum is not to the Queen and Successors and the Queen is not to have the preferment of payment of her debts unlesse they be debts upon Record But yet in such Case if the Queen first sue she shall be preferred although she hath Judgement after another who sueth The Lord Pagetts Case 327. The Case was the Lord Pageâ—t seised of divers Mannors by deed Indented Covenanted with I. S. and others that in consideration of discharge of his Funerals payments of his Debts and Legacies and advancement of his Son and others of his blood to stand seised of the said Mannors to the use of the said I. S. and others for the Life of the Lord Pagett and after to the use of C. P. and other for 24. years and after the expiration of the said Term of 24. years to the use of William Pagett his Son in tail Afterwards the Lord Pagett
Praecipe but the Recovery as to the estate of the Husband took effect only by way of Estoppel but it was no bar as to him who was in Remainder and in this case it was said That if Lands be given to husband and wife and the heirs of their two bodies and the Husband alone suffers a common Recovery that the same should not bind the Estate tail although the husband doth survive the wife Martin and Wilks Case 335. It was adjudged in this Case in B. R. That Land in Antient Demesne is extendable upon a Statute Staple or Statute Merchant Hill 11. Jac. in t C. B. Cox and Barnesbyes Case adjudged accordingly Wolstan Dixies Case 336. A seised in Fee of Lands in London made a Lease to I. S. for years and after by Deed enrolled in the Chancery he sold the reversion to Dixie and his wife and afterwards the Rent was behind and he brought debt against I. S. The Defendant said That after the Lease and before the Sale to Dixie A. the Lessor by Deed enrolled in London bargained and sold the Land to him It was adjudged a forfeiture of the Term and judgment was for the Plantiff Rudhall and Milwards Case 337. Rudhall Serjeant at Law Cestuy que use before the Statute of 27. H. 8. Devised the use to C. his younger Son and the Heirs Males of his body the Remainder to I. his eldest Son and his Heirs upon condition that C. should not alien nor discontinue but for the Joynture of his Wife and only for the life of such wife C. after the death of his Father entred and levyed a fine to a stranger and declared the use to himself and his wife and to the Heirs Males of his own body the Remainder to the right Heirs of his Father afterwards C. having Issue male died the Wife died the Heir of I. the eldest Son entred upon the Lessee It was adjudged that because the Statute of 27. H. 8. gave the possession in quality and condition with the use and also gave to Cestuy que the same advantages as the Feoffees had that the said Heir was enabled to take advantage of the Condition be it a Condition or a Limitation The Vis-Countess Bindons Case 338. The Executors of Viscount Bindon brought Detinue against the Widdow of the deceased Viscount and declared upon the Detainer of certain Jewels The Defendant did justifie the Detainer of them as her Paraphronalia It was agreed in this Case by the Chief Baron and others That Paraphronalia ought to be allowed to a Widdow having regard to her Degree and in this Case the Husband of the Defendant being a Viscount that 500. Marks was but a good allowance for such a matter Mich. 28 Eliz. in Cur. Wardor Mounsons Case 339. A Commission in the Nature of Diem clausit extremum after the death of Robert Mounson issued to Enquire what Lands and Tenements he had the day of his death of whom by what services the yearly value of them who was his next Heir and of what age he was It was found that the Father of Robert was seised of the Mannor of B. in Fee and gave the same to Robert in tail the remainder to G. brother of Robert the Remainder to the right Heirs of the Father That G. died in the Life of Robert and Robert died without Issue and that F. the Son of G. was within age and the Lands holden of the Queen in Capite and that Robert long before his death was seised in tail of H. Farm and N. and 17. Eliz. levied a Fine to the use of himself in tail the Remainder to F. the Son of G. in tail and died such a day without Issue of his body and upon this Office one Mounson the Heir general prayed a new Office for it was said that the said Office was insufficient to entitle the Queen to the Wardship of F. the Son of G. It was the opinion of the Court that the Office was good to entitle the Queen to the Wardship of F. the Son of G. But if it was not then a Melius inâ—quirendum should issue forth and not a New Office Branches Case 340. In the Case of a Prohibition It was Resolved that an Union of Copyhold Lands and of the Parsonage in the hands of the Parson as Parson Impersonce was no discharge of the Tythes of the Copyhold Lands and in this Case also it was adjudged That a Farmer of Lands might prescribe in modo Decimandi but not in non Decimando Moor and Williams Case 341. Assumpsit The Case was Lessee for years the reversion to M. the Lessee in defence of the Plantiffs Title spent such a Sum money and prayed contribution or recompence Moor said in consideration thereof he should have the like Lease after the expiration of the Term which Williams the Defendant required and the said Lessor refused to make upon which Williams brought Assumpsit Resolved it did not lie because the Consideration was executed before the promise Stanley and Bakers Case 342. A man possessed of a Lease for years devised the same to his eldest Son and the Heirs of his body and if he died without issue to his youngest Son and the heirs of his body and for want of such Issue that the Term should remain to his Daughters he died having two daughters and afterwards another daughter was born The eldest Son sold the Term and died without Issue the youngest Son died without Issue the three daughters entred It was adjudged they all three should have the Term although the youngest Daughter was not born at the time of the death of the Devisor Owens Case 343. Tenant in tail the Remainder in tail Tenant in tail bargained and sold to him and his Heirs and levied a Fine which was not alledged to be with Proclamation It was adjudged that the Bargainee was not such a Grantee of the Reversion as should maintain Wast because it was no discontinuance and but for the Life of Tenant in tail Higham and Harwoods Case 344. A man had houses and Land which had bin in the tenure of those who had the Houses and he devised his Lands with the appurtenances It was adjudged That the Lands did pass by the words with the appurtenances for that it was in a Will in which the intent of the Devisor shall be observed Watkins and Ashwels Case 345. A seised in Fee made a Feoffment upon condition that if he or his Heirs paid such a sum such a day to reenter He died his Son and Heir within the age of 14. years The Mother of the Infant without the privity of the Infant and who was not Guardian in Socage in the name of the Infant tendred the mony at the day It was resolved it was an Insufficient tender otherwise if she had been his Guardian in Socage Carewas Case 346. The Abbot of M. was seised and made a Lease for years De scitu Manerii Rectoriae suae de omnibus aedificis
a good sale by the intent of the Will 3. Resolved that the devise that his Excecutors might sell was a good sale within the Statute of Wills though the words of the Statute are That a man having Lands holden in socage might devise two parts of it and that by the Equity of the Statute Yelverton and Yelvertons Case 442. A man seised of Lands Covenanted to stand seised thereof to the use of his eldest Son and also of all the other Land which he after should purchase he Covenanted that he and his Heirs would stand seised to the use of his eldest Son Afterwards he purchased Lands to him and his Heirs by bargain and sale Adjudged that the purchase could not be intended to other use then to him and his Heirs Sir Hugh Cholmeleys Case 443. The Case is very long but is this in effect viz. Tenant in Tail the remainder in Tail he in the Remainder bargained and sold his Remainder to A. for the life of the Tenant in Tail and after his death the remainder to the Queen in Fee Tenant in Tail in possession suffered a Common Recovery The Queen granted her remainder to Tenant in Tail and his Heirs Afterwards he in the remainder bargained and sold his remainder to B. the remainder to the Queen upon Condition another Recovery was had Tenant in Tail dyed without Issue It was Resolved in this Case that he in the Remainder and all Claiming under him were barred by the Recovery 2. That the Common Recovery did bar the Tenant in Tail and the estate of A. in the remainder although the Remainder was in the Queen 3. That the grant of the Queen to the Tenant in Tail and his Heirs was a good grant Corbett and Marshes Case 444. Error brought upon a Recovery in Dower because the Tenant was not summoned by 15. dayes nor Proclamation made thereof at the Church door Because the party had remedy against the Sheriff the Court would not allow of the Error Crispe and Fryers Case 445. Copyholder in Fee rendring Rent at Mich. and our Lady-day The Lord at the last instant of the day of payment demands the Rent upon the Land and the Copyholder is not there to pay it Qu. If it be a forfeiture the better opinion of the Justices was that it was a forfeiture Paramour and Verwolds Case 446. False Imprisonment the Defendant justified by a Recovery in Debt in Warda de F. London and a Writ of Execution in Sandwich in Kent absque hoc that he was culpable in London The Plaintiff said that he was culpable at London absque hoc that there is tale Recordum in Sandwich Adjudge the Yraverse upon the Traverse was good because the place is material Pannell and Fens Case 447. A man seised of Lands and possessed of a Term devised all his Lands and Tenements to his Executors untill they had paid all his Debts and Legacies and levied all charges which they should expend against I. S. or others in Execution of his Will and made two Executors and died the Executors entred generally into the Land and Term and one of them sold the Term to one man and the other sold it to another It was adjudged they took the Term as Executors and not as Devisees and yet they took the Freehold as Devisees and they said that the words of the Will as to the Term was no more then the Law gave and that they should have it as Executors Blackwell and Eyres case 448. Issue was joyned betwixt the Lessee of the Plaintiff and the Defendant in an Ejectione firme which was to be tryed at the Assizes The Defendant in consideration the Plaintiff and his Lessee should forbear to enforce their Title and give slender evidence against the Defendants promised to pay a certain Sum of money to the Plaintiff Vpon Non assumpsit it was found there were two Issues joyned in the Suit and the Defendants had not joyned but one of them had pleaded the general Issue and the other a special Plea It was adjudged for the Plaintiffs because the common Speech is the Parties have joyned issue Walker and Harris Case 449. It was adjudged in this Case That although Lessee for years assignes over his Term yet Debt lyeth against himself for the Rent by the Lessor or his year Moss and Packs Case 450. A Recoverie was had against the Executor of I. D. of debt and damages And Fire fac issued de bonis testatoris si si non damna de bonis propriis the Executor dyed the Sheriff did execution of the Goods of the Testator before the Return of the Writ and adjudged good Portman and Willis Case 451. It was adjudged in the Case that by a Devise of omnia bona a Lease for years did pass if there be not other circumstances to guide the intent of the Devilor 2. Resolved That if a Copyholder for life or years surrender to an use that the surrender is good and the use void as a surrender rendring Rent with Warranty shall be a good Surrender and the Rent and Warranty void Beswick and Combdens Case 452. Action upon the Case for not keeping a Bank by reason of which the River drowned his Land It appeared upon the evidence that it was levyed and kept before by one who enfeoffed the Defendant Yet it was adjudged that the Action did lye against the Feoffee for the continuance of it Fuller and Fullers Case 453. The Case was A man had four Sons and devised his Land to his youngest Son named R. and the Heirs Males of his Body with the Remainder successively to the other three and the Heirs Males of their Bodies the first Devise dyed in the life of his Father having Issue Male After which the Father said I will that my Will stand good to the Children of R. as if he had over lived me but the words were not put in writing The point was If the Children did take by the devise or by discent Quaere The Court was divided in opinion The Dean and Canons of St. Pauls and others Case 454. King Edward the Fourth by his Letters Patent granted to the Dean and Canons and their Successors that they should be discharged of Purveyance the Charter was confirmed by King Henry the Seventh and also by King Henry the Eight The Statute of 27. H. 8. was made That Purveyors assigned by the Kings Commission for provision for him his Queen and Children might provide all Victual Corn c. as well within Liberties as without any Grants or Allowances to the contrary Queen Mary granted that no Purveyance should be taken of the Dean and Canons and their Successors against their Wills notwithstanding the Statute of 27. H. 8. and Queen Elizabeth reciting all the Patents granted to the Dean and Canons doth confirm them It was Resolved That the Charter granted to them was good Wherefore that they should be discharged from all Composition for Provisions for the Queen Preston and Hinds Case 455. Error
made Title by a Demise in Fee to himself the Plaintiff traversed the Custome and the Custom was found to demise in Fee or for Life but not in Tail It was adjudged that the Issue was found for the Defendant because the substance was found for him and the tail was but Inducement Ewer and Heydons Case 468. A. seised of three Houses and other Lands Pastures and Meadows in W. in the County of H. and of Land in the County of O. devised in this manner viz. I give my Capital Messuage in the County of O. and all other my Lands and Meadows and Pastures in the Parish of W. That the Houses passed by the Devise for that Land comprehends Houses The Bishop of Worcesters Case 469. The Bishop presented a Felon at the Sessions at Newgate who had stollen a Bason and Ewer from him for which the person was attainted and a Writ of Restitution awarded to the Bishop In Bar of the Restitution a Scrivener of London a Freeman came and said That every Shop in London is a Market overt and that he bought the Bason and Ewer in his Shop being a Scriveners Shop Adjudged the sale of it in the Scriveners shop did not alter the propriety of the Plate for it was not a Market overt for such things And it was said That any Shop in London by Custom was a Market overt for the buying of all things It was Resolved that such a Custom was an unreasonable Custome The Lord Norths Case 470. Christ Church in Oxon is incorporated by the Name of Dean and Chapter Ecclesiae Cathedralis Christi de Oxon and they made a Lease by the name of Dean and Chapter Ecclesiae Cathedralis Christi in Academia de Oxon and the Liberties de Accademia did extend further then the Liberties of the City yet it was adjudged a good Lease because the substance of the Corporation was inserted in the words of the Lease Bullen and Bullens Case 471. The case was S. B. being Cestuy que use before the Statute 27. H 8. devised to his Wife certain Lands for her Life and that after her decease R. B. his eldest Son shall have the Land 10 l. under the sum or price it cost and if he died without Issue F. â— his Second Son should have the Land 10. l. under the price it cost and if he died without Issue of his Body then his two Daughters A. and E. shall have the Land paying the value thereof to the Executors of his Wife The Question was if R. B. the Devisee had an Estate Tail or not It was argued it was an Estate tail and it was compared to Frenchams case 2. Eliz. Dyer where a man devised Lands to his Wife for use the Remainder to C. F. and the Heirs Males of his Body and if he die without Heirs of his Body the Remainder over and it was clearly taken that the general Limitation if he die without Heirs of his Body shall not alter the especial Tail On the other side it was said that the Estate was Fee-simple for that the words are That he shall have the Land 10. l. under the price and so the word paying implies a Fee-simple The Court enclined to be of opinion It should be a Fee-simple But the Case was not Resolved but Adjourned Germin and Ascotts Case 472. A. seised of Lands â—n Fee devised the same to his eldest Son and the Heirs males of his body the remainder to his second Son and the Heirs males the like remainder to his third Son the remainder to his Daughter in Tail with remainder over Proviso That if any of the Devisees or their Issues shall go about to alien discontinue and incumber the premisses that then and from the time they shall go about to alien discontinue c. their estate shall cease as if they were naturally dead and from thenceforth it should be Lawfull for him in the next remainder to enter and hold for the life of him who shall so alien c. and presently after his death the Land shall go to his Issue the Devisor dyeth the eldest Son and all the other but the second Son levy a Fine the second Son claimes the said Land by the Devisor It was Resolved in this Case by all the Justices that the Proviso of ceasing of the estates upon an attempt to alien or upon an Alienation was repugnant to the estate Tail and that remainder which was limited to the second Son upon such attempt was void in Law St. Johns Case 473. A. Capias ad satisfaciend was directed to the Sheriff who made a Warrant to a special Bayliff to execute it who arrested the party after a new Sheriff was elected but had not received his Writ of discharge adjudged the Writ was executed well but otherwise if the party had been arrested upon the Warrant after his Writ of discharge was delivered Godwin and Ishams Case 474. Error of a Judgment in debt upon an Oblation to perform Covenant in an Indenture The Covenant was That if the Plantiff pay the Defendant 100 l. at Mich. then the Defendant would pay him 10 l. yearly after during his life and it was alledged that the Defendant did not pay him the 10 l. yearly but did not mention the payment of the 100 l. by him which was assigned for Error It was adjudged No Error because the Defendant by pleading Conditions performed which he did plead had confessed the payment of the 100 l. to him by the Plaintiff The Judgement was affirmed Woodlife and Vaughans Case 475. Words viz. He hath forsworne himself and I will prove him perjured or else I will pay his charges Adjudged the words are actionable notwithstanding the Disjunctive or else I will pay his charges Barton and Lever and Brownloes Case 476. Tenant in tail upon a Recovery had came in as Vouchee It was Resolved that in such Case he had barred his Issue from any Writ of Error to reverse the Fine and it was said That it was adjudged Mich. 32 Eliz. in Carringtons Case That if Tenant in Tail levyeth an Erronious Fine and afterwards levyeth another Fine the Issue in Tail was barred of his Writ of Error upon the first Fine Rolls and Germins Case 477. It was Resolved in this Case where the Testator retained an Attorney of the Common Pleas to prosecute a Suite in that Court That an Action will lye for his Fees which be due to him in that Suit against the Executor of the Testator because the Testator in such Case could not wage his Law but for monies expended in Suites in other Courts by the Attorney the Action will not lye Welcombs Case 478. Debt brought to answer to Tho. Welcomb Excecutor of Joh. Welcomb The Judgment was Quod praedict Johis recuperet where it should have been Quod praedict Tho. recuperet Resolved it was not amendable because no default in the Judgment is amendable being the Act of the Judges and not of the Clarks 479. The Bargainee Covenanted
Devisees took their estates respectively by the Will or by the Feoffment if by the Will it was void for a third part and a Tenancy in common If by the Feoffment it was good for the whole 2. point when the use of the Feoffment is expressed to such persons as should be declared by the Will and he deviseth the Land if the same shall be said to be a limitation of the use according to the Authority The case not Resolved because the Justices were divided in their opinions It was adjourned Prat and Phanners Case 652. Debt upon Obligation The condition was Whereas Suits have bin brought prosecuted betwixt the Defendant and A his Wife which controversies are now finally to be ended betwixt them if the Defendant do not from henceforth commence and prosecute any Suit or Action in any Court or Courts Spiritual or Temporal against the said A. his Wife for any matter precedent or cause from the beginning of the World but shall from henceforth during the natural Lives of him the Defendant and A. his Wife account of use and maintaine the said A. as his lawful wife to all intents c. then c. The Defendant pleaded he had not brought any Action in any Court against the said A. after the said Obligation and that before A. was married to him she was married to I. S. who is yet alive for which cause he cannot accept of and maintain the said A. as his lawfull wife according to the Form of the Condition upon which it was demurred It was Resolved that the material part of the Condition did consist in the first part of the Condition if he do not prosecute any Suit and the Defendant having pleaded an Issuable Plea to that it is not material if he plead to the latter part of it or not and if his Justification be insufficient the Plaintiff ought not to have demurred upon it But the Court held his Justification to be good because the Condition as to that part is against the Law of God and so the Obligation void And whereas it was objected that he is estopped to plead the special matter of her former Marriage because in the Condition she is called A. his wife The Court said he was not estopped by it because he may confess and avoid it for she may be his Wife as to some purposes but as to use her as a lawfull wife she is not his wife Lloyd and Wilkingsons Case 653. In Ejectione firme the case was A. Rector of C. by Indenture between him of the one part and E. R. W. and T. of the other part devised the same to E. for 80. years if she should so long live and should not alien the premises and if she should die within the Term or should alien that then her Estate should cease and that then the same should remain to R. pro durant ' residuo praedicti termini praedict ' 80. annorum and if he should alien c. ut supra then his Estate should cease and then the same should remain to W. pro durant ' tot annis praedict termini 80. annorum si c. and if he should alien ut supra then his Estate should cease and then the said A. concessit praemissa durante tot annis praedict ' 80. annorum quod ad tunc continuarent remanerent in expiratis to T. his Executors and Assignes A. died F. died E. and R. died The Administrator of F. entred and assigned over the same In this Case it was Resolved That the Demise to R. and W. were void because that the Estate which E. had was not for 80. years absolutely but sub modo under a condition and then the Demise to them pro tot annis quot remanerent after the death of the said E. pro durante residuo termini praedict ' 80. annorum was void for there could not be a residue of the said Term because that determined by the death of E. 2. Resolved That the Lease and Limitation to F. was void for the uncertainty for it was uncertain at the making of the Lease how many years should be behind at the time of the death of E. 3. Resolved That the Demise and Limitation to T. was not good because that R. and W. survived F. which was against the express Limitation for his Estate was limited upon two Contingents Pigot and Hearns Case 654. In Trover and Conversion the case was this The Lord of the Mannor of B. in the Parish of D. did prescribe that he and his Ancestors and all those whose Estate c. had used from time to time whereof c. to pay to the Parson of D. the now Plaintiff and his Predecessors 6 l. per an for all manner of Tythes growing within the said Parish and that by reason thereof he and all those whose Estates c. Lords of the said Mannors had used time whereof c. to have Decimam garbam decimum cumulum garbarum of all of his Tenements within the said Mannor It was in this case Resolved that it was a good Prescription and that a Modus decimandi by the Lord for himself and all the Tenants of his Mannor from barring the Parson to demand tythes in kind is a good Prescription because it might have a lawful commencement 2. It was Resolved That it was a good Prescription to have Decimam garbam in or Decimum cumulum garbarum or gramorum or the tenth Shock for he hath it as a profit appender and not as Tythes 3. Resolved in this case that if the Queen be Lady of the Mannor she might prescribe to have Tythes for that she is capable of them she being Persona mixta capax Spiritualis Jurisdictionis Holcrofts Case 655. A seised of Lands in Fee levyed a Fine thereof to the use of himself for Life the Remainder to B. his Son for the Term of his Life only so long and untill he attempt to alien and then to the use of C. and the Heirs Males of his Body during the Life of B. and immediately after his death to the use of the first begotten Son of B. then after to be begotten and the Heirs Males of his Body and so successively to his Second Third or Fourth Son to be begotten in lawful Marriage and if it fortune the Fourth Son to die without Heir Male of his Body then to the use of C. and the Heirs Male of his Body with diverse Remainders over in tail the remainders to the right Heirs of A. A. dyed B. having only one Son born after the Indenture and Fine which dyed without Issue Male joyned in a Fine with C. to I. S. and I. D. who rendred the Land to B. for 80. years next following if the said B. so long lived and immediately after his Decease to the first begotten Son of the said B. or which afterwards he should beget and the Heirs Males of his Body and so successively to the Second or Third
he was not a person Qualified to take two benefices within the Statute of 21 H. 8. of Pluralities It was agreed that a Countesse a Widdow had power to retain two Chaplains who might purchase Dispensation for plurality But when she had once retained two she could not retain a third Chaplin who might purchase Dispensation within the Statute and therefore in the principal Case the Retainer of Priory being the third Chaplain was not good nor his dispensation good and so the Queen for want of Presentation of the Patron and Ordinary had good title to present Oldbery and Grogonds Case 729. Debt upon an Obligation for payment of certain money at a day certain The Defendant pleaded that the same was agreed to be paid for the Resignation of a Parson of his Benefices to the intent another might be presented unto it and so upon a Symoniacal agreement The Court held it no plea for that an averment shall not be that it was to be paid for other cause then the Obligation expresseth Agor and Candishes Case 730. An information was brought in the Exchequer by an Informer tam pro Domina Regina quam prose ipso upon the Statute of 8 E. 4. cap. 2. of Retainers and Judgment was there given the Informer to have one Moyety of the forfeiture and the Queen the other Moyety Error was brought upon the Judgment and assigned for Error that the Statute limits the party to sue in the Kings Kings Bench and divers other Courts but speaks not of the Exchequer It was the opinnion of the Justices that for that cause the Judgment was erroneous as to the Informer only Then it was moved that the Judgment might be and stand good for the whole forfeiture to the Queen for it was said that a Judgment might be reversed in part and stand for the other part and divers Presidents vouched to that purpose But the Court was of opinion because the first Judgment gave but a Moyery to the Queen this Court had not power to give more nor encrease it but only had power to affirme the Judgement Boddy and Hargraves Case 731. Debt upon a Lease for years was brought against the Administrator in the Debet detinet It was adjudged well brought because the Rent was encreased in the time of the Administrator himself But it was said That in all Cases where the Executor or Administrator brings an Action for a duty Testamentary it ought to be only in the Detinâ—t because the duty demanded ought to be Assets Layton and Garnonces Case 732. A man recovered Debt in Co. B. and had Judgment and he took forth Processe and the party was taken upon a Capias utlagatum within the year after the Judgment upon Processe continued without any discontinuance against him It was adjudged in this Case that he should be in Execution at the suit of the party without prayer because the processe was continued Parker and Sir Ed. cleeves Case 733. The Case was A. seised of three acres of equall value conveyed by act executed two of them for the Joynture of his Wife and the third he conveyed by act executed to the use of such persons and of such estates as he should declare by his last Will afterwards he devised the Land to one under whom the Plaintiff claimed In this Case it was amongst other poynts Resolved that he could not devise the Land because he had Conveyed two parts before by act executed in his life time Sydnam and Courtneys Case 734. Sir George Sydnam possessed of divers Leases for years gave them to his Daughter who was the Wife of C and to the Heirs of her body and if she dyed withot Issue that they should remain to such person of Combe Sydnam which Combe Sydnam he devised to his Cosen and his Heirs males in default of the Issue of the body of his daughter There was a Clause in the Will that his daughter should not alter the Leases but that they should remain according to the Will and made his Daughter his Executrix and dyed C. caused the Daughter to enter upon the Leases as Executrix and so waive the Legacy and afterwards the Daughter dyed without Issue Then C. caused an Administration to be taken of the goods of Sir George Sydenham which was at the Costs of C. and then to convey over the Leases to C. The Heir of Sir Geoâ—ge complained in Chancery and the Leases decreed unto him for the two fraudes which were used by C. in the Obliging of the Leases because the Daughter had them upon special trust and although it was said in this Case that the entail of the Leases was not good yet because there was a trust in the Daughter and expressed in the Will It was said the parties were compellable to execute the Trust and the Lord Chancellour resembled it to the Case where an Assignment was made of a Lease upon an expresse Trust to one and the Heirs of his body and afterwards to another and the Heirs of his body and the Assignes were Compelled to execute the Trust and to suffer the Issues in Tail to take the profits of the Lands The Countesse of Waâ—wicks Case 735. The Case was A. seised in Fee enfeoffed I. S. who dyed without Issue having Issue M. his Sister and Heir of the whole blood and T. of the half blood their Father being long before attainted of Felony dyed seised M. entred and enfeoffed the Countesse The point was if the Corruption of the blood of the Father had disabled the Course of discent and Inheritance between the Brother and Sister Quaere not Resolved Sprakes Case 736. A Copyholder makes a Lease for years Resolved that the Lessee may maintain Ejectione firme though the Lease be not warranted by the Custom Fisher and Smiths Case 737. Note It was Resolved in this Case That if a man plead a Bargain and Sale in which no consideration of mony is expressed there it must be averred that it was for mony and the words for divers considerations will not imply mony but if the deed be for a Competent sum of mony though the certainty of the sum be not expressed it is good enough Worsloy and Charnocks Case 738. A Statute Merchant was by Mâ—ttimus removed out of the Chancery in C. B. an execution awarded there super tenorem Recordi Resolved 1. That Error lyes in B. R. although the Original be in the Chancery and the Execution in C. B. 2. Resolved that in that Case the Conusor cannot alledge for Error that the Statute wants one of the Seales that ought to be to it because he hath admitted the same in C. B. 739. Debt in B. R. upon Mutuatas for 50 l. the Defendant pleaded an Attachment in London and had found pledges and because the pledges were not put in at the day of the last default but at another day it was holden No plea and Judgment was for the Plaintiff Washington and Burgons Case 740. It was holden by the
sold Lands to B. and C. by Deed enrolled they suffered a Recovery to the use of A. and his Wife who was the Daughter of B. for her Joynture the Remainder over in Tail to their Issues A. dyed his Heirs within age Resolved in this Case it was an Assurance by A. himself for the advancement of his Wife and her Issues within the Statute of 34 H. 8. and the Heir of A. should be in Ward for the third part of the Land The Earl of Bedfords Case 954. The Case was this Francis Earl of Bedford made a Feoffment in Fee of the Mannor of D. to the L. St. John and others to the use of himself for 40. years and after to the use of John his second Son and the Heirs males of his body and for want of such Issue to the use of the right Heirs of the Feoffor Afterward Edward Lord Russell Heir apparent of the Earl dyed without Issue male of his body having issue Eliz. and Anne Daughters Afterward Francis by Indenture between him and I. S. and others for the advancement of the Heirs males of the body of the said Earl and the establishing of his Mannors in his blood Covenanted to stand seised of the said Mannor to the use of himself for life and after his decease to the use of Francis Lord Russell his youngest Son and the Heirs males of his his body with divers Remainders over Afterwards Francis Lord Russell dyed having Issue Edward Lord Russell and after dyed and if the Daughters of the said John Lord Russell or the Earl of Bedford should have the Mannor of D. was the Question in the Court of Wards It was Resolved the Daughters should not have the said Mannor but the Earl because there was no right Heir to take as purchasor when the estate Tail was determined by the death of John Lord Russell without Issue male for the Remainder to the right Heirs cannot be preserved by the mean estate for years for it ought to be a Freehold at least which ought to preserve such a Remainder till there be one to take it by the name of a purchasor as right Heir Andrews and Sheffields Case 955. A. hath Issue three Sons B. C. and D. and seised of Lands in P. by Will deviseth them in this manner viz. I will that all my Lands in P. shall Remain after the death of my Wife to C. my Son and his Heirs and if it fortune that D. liveth untill the said Lands come to C. then I will that C pay to D. 10 l. every year as long as D. liveth A. dyeth C. commeth to the Lands and payeth the Rent hath Issue and dieth It was Resolved that in this Case the devise did enure as a Rent-seck for the life of D. and the Lands in the hands of the Heir or Assignes of C. should be chargeable with the same Wrotesleys Case 956. A. seised in Fee of the Mannors of N. and W. of the Mannor of D. in Tail Covenanted to stand seised to the use of himself and his Wife and to his own right Heirs Afterward he dyed seised of these Mannors and also sole seised of other Lands in Fee The Mannor of D. was holden in Capite It was found that A. dyed his Heirs within age the body and Lands of the Mannor of D. was committed to I. S. and I. D. the committee ousted the Wife of D. It was Resolved that the Wife of A. should have recompence to the value of the said Mannor of D. out of the other Lands of the Heir of which his Ancestors dyed seised Boydell and Walthalls Case 957. The Case was A. seised of Land in Fee an Indenture was made purporting a Feoffment to B. and C. with Waranty There was another Indenture bearing date the same day with the first between the Feoffees and the Feoffor whereby the Feoffer reciting the former Feoffment to them granted that immedâ—atly after the said Feoffees and their Heirs and Assignes have taken and received the profits of the Lands during the Terme of 100 years then it should be Lawfull for A. his Heirs and Assignes to reenter and have the said Lands in their first right and Title It was Resolved by the Justices in this Case that the Intent upon the Livery was that the Feoffor should have the Lands after the 100. years quit possession of the Feoffees and that the use did immediately arise to the Heirs of the Feoffor as soon as the Lands had been enjoyed for 100. years and that by the Statute of 27 H. 8. the Heir of the Feoffor might enter The Earl of Rutlands Case 958. Ed. Earl of R. seised in Fee of and in the Reversion or Remainder of the Mannor of E. expectant upon the death of B. Countesse of B. who held the same for life for the augmentation of the Joynture of I. his Wife Covenanted 21 Eliz. with I. S. and I. D. before the last day of Trinity Term next following by Fine or other assurance to assure the Reversion or Remainder of the said Mannors to them and their Heirs and the parties thereof seised should stand seised of and in the Reversion and Remainder of the said Mannor to the use of the said Earl and the said I. his Wife and the Heirs of the said Earl for ever Afterwards in the same year by another Indenture made between the said Earl the Lord Treasurer and the said I. S. and others of the other part for the advancement of him who should succeed him in the Earldom and the advancement of the Heirs male of T. late Earl of R. his Grandfather to convey the Castle and Honor of B. and the said Mannor of E. amongst other Lands to the said Lord Treasurer and others to the use of the said Earl and the Heirs males of his body and for want of such Issue to the Heirs males of Tho. his Grandfather with divers Remainders over and by the last Indenture further Covenanted that if the said Earl before the Feast of our Lady next should not sufficiently convey all the said Honors Mannors c. in the last Indenture in manner and forme as therein is mentioned that then he and all other persons seised should from thenceforth stand and be seised to the uses in the last Indenture No Fine was levyed of the Mannor of E. before the end of Trinity Term but in Mick Term a Fine was levyed of the said Mannor within the time limited in the last Indenture and another Fine was levyed of other Land but not of the Mannor of E. and after the Earl died The Quest on in this case only was whether I. the wife of the said Earl might during the Life of B. Countess of B trayerse the Office found after the death of the Earl viz. That the Fine levyed of the Mannor of E. was not to the uses limited in the latter Indenture Resolved that the Office was insufficient for the Incertainty where it found the Earl was seised of the Reversion
and after to the use of C. in tail and after to D. in tail and after to the right Heirs of A. and of the Mannor of B. immediately after he the said A. should die without Issue of his Body to the use of E. daughter of I. for her Life and afterwards to D in tail and afterwards to C. in tail and to the right Heirs of A. And of the moiety of the Mannor of W. and other the Premises of which no use was before declared to the use of the said A. and such Heirs of his Body and after to the use of the said E for Life the remainder to D. in tail the remainder to C. in tail the Remainder to his right Heirs Provided That if at any time after he should be minded to revoke the said Indenture or any use or estates therein contained or to raise and create any other use or Estate and should declare the same to any person c. in the presence of two Witnesses then the Remainders and all other Estates in the said Indenture to be void and the Conusees of the Fine to stand seised to the use of the said A. and his Heirs Afterwards A. reciting the former Indenture and the Proviso in consideration of a Marâ—iage between I. D. and the said E. did declare to I. N. in the presence of two Witnesses that he did revoke and make void the former Deed and every Article therein concerning the Mannor of B. but as touching the Mannor of M that the same should stand in force and by the last Indenture did covenant with I. D. and E. his Wife that the Conusees of the Fine c. should stand seised of the Mannor of B. and the moiety of the Mannor of V. to the use of the said I. D. and E. his Wife for their Lives and after to the Issue of the Body of the said I. D. and E. as should be then eldest living at the death of the Survivors of them for the Life of such Issue and after to the use of the said A. and of such the Heirs of his Body as he should after beget on the body of I. his Wife or on the Body of any other woman which he should marry and after to â— in tail and after to C. in tail the Remainder to the right Heirs of A. It was found that E. was the Daughter of I. but born before her marriage with A. A and I. his Wife died and found he married no other woman and that F. was Son and Heir of A. and was of full age The Questions in this long case were these 1. Whether all the use and agreements in the first Indenture as to the Mannors of B. and V. were revoked by the second Indenture 2. Whether the new uses limited by the second Indenture and such Revocation of the former uses were effectual to convey any Estate to I. D. and E his Wiâ—e with the Remainder over to take away the immediate discent from the Heir at Law The case was argued in B. R. and the Justices were divided in their opinions and afterwards it was adjourned into the Exchequer Chamber but whether there Resolved or not Quaere Sir Arthur Goâ—ges Case 967. The case was the Lord Viscount Brindon was seised of Lands holden of the Queen in capite he had Issue Douglasse his Daughter and Heir who was married to Sir Arthur Gorge and she by him had Issue Ambrosia Gorge Sir Arthur married his Daughter Ambrosia when she was above the age of eight years and before she was of the age of nine years to Francis Gorge Son and Heir of Sir Thomas Gorge who died before Ambrosia accomplished her age of eleven years The Question upon the whole matter was if the Wardship of the body of Ambâ—osia did belong to the Queen or not It was Resolved in this case amongst other points that the Queen should have the Wardship in regard the Marriage was not a compleat Marriage because the Husband died before the years of consent of Ambrosia Bartons Case 968. A seised of the Mannâ—rs of O. and R. and of Lands called F. in the counry of Lanc. holden in capite 16 Octob. 19 Eliz made a Writing purporting that he did give the said Mannors and Lands to B. C. D. and E. and their Heirs to the several uses and under the agreements contained in a Schedule to the said Deed annexed and by the Schedule he declared the uses to be to himself for Life without Impeachment of wast and afterwards of part of the Lands to M. his Wife for her life and then to the â—ight Heirs of A. with a Proviso that if at any time after his Life during the Life of the said M. the Heirs of â—he said A. or any claiming under his Heirs trouble or disturb the said M. that then the said B. and other the parties should stand seised of the Lands in which she should be disturbed to the use of the said M. and her Heirs for ever Afterwards the said A. made a Lease of the said Mannors and Lands to I. S. for 100 years to begin after the death of M. A. died M entred The Heir of A after his death entred and disturbed M. contrary to the Pâ—oviso it was Resolved by the Justices in this case that the future use was checked by the Lease although it was but interesse termini and that the use to M. and her Heirs could not rise upon her dusturbance but that it was destroyed for ever Vernons Case 969. Margaret Winter Widow the late wife of Henry Vernon seised of Lands in Fee holden in capite enfeoffed thereof I. S. and others to the use of herself for Life and after to B. her younger Son and the Heirs of his body with divers Remainders over with a Proviso if she should be minded to alter the uses and signâ—fie the same under her hand and Seal to her Feoffâ—es and tender to them 10 l. that then all the uses in the Indenture should be voâ—d and hâ—r Feâ—ffees should stand seâ—sed to sâ—ch new uses as should be limited by the said M. M. according â—o the Proviso signified her intent and tendred 10 l. to her Feoffees and then declared that her said Feoffees should stand seised thereof to the use of G. W. for Life the Remainder to the said M. for Life the Remainder to H. Vernon her Son and the Heirs of his Body Henry Vernon died having Issue a Daughter within age and after M. W. died It was holden clearly in the Court of Wards that because there is no mention of any entry by the eldest Son and Heir that the Estate which Henry Vernon had in Tail was not avoided and so by consequence the Daughter of Heary Vernon should be in Ward Sir Robert Remington and Savages Case 970. A levyed a Fine of Lands to the use of himself for Life the Remainder to his Executors for 20. years the Remainder to his Son in tail with diverse Remainders over Afterwards he
levyed another Fine to all the said uses but only the Estate for 20. years to his Executors and made his wife his Executrix the wife married Sir Robert Remington It was adjudged in this case that by the second Fine the Lease for 20 years to his Executors was extinct Littletons Case 971. A seised of Lands holden in copite in consideration of a Marriage of M. his Daughter with W. L. Son of Sir John and of 1300 l paid by Sir John the Father of W. levyed a Fine of part of the Lands to the use of himself for Life the Remainder to W. and M. and the Heirs of the Body of W. upon the Body of M. the Remainder to the right Heirs of W. and the residue to the use of himself for Life the Remainder to his first Son in Tail the Remainder to the right Heirs of W. with power to make a Joynture â—o his second Wife and to make Leases for Twenty one years or three Lives The marriage took effect A. took a wife and had Issue by her I. and died I. his Son and Heir within age W. died without Issue G. L. being his Brother and Heir the second wife of A. living and also M living It was upon â— Melius Inquirend found that M. was the Daughter of A. It was Resolved in this case that the Queen should have the Wardship of the third part of the whole Land during the minority of I. the Son of A. Also it was Resolved by them that although money was paid and so the consideration of the Marriage was a mixt consideration yet â—hat should not alter the Law for the duty to the Crown 1. and one Ciffias case was cited to have been so adjudged The Lord Ross and the Earl of Rutlands Case 972. H. Earl of Rutland 2 Elâ—z levyed a Fine with Proclamation to the use of himself and B. his Wife and the Heirs of his own Body and died B. married the Earl of Bedford they covenanted with Edward Earl of Rutland Son of H. Earl of Rutland to levy a Fine which Fine was levyed with Proclamation sur concâ—ssit of the said Mannors and Lands by the said Edward Earl to the said B. for Life Afterward Edward Earl of Rutland 29 Eliz. covenanted with the Lord Burâ—eigh and others to stand seised of the said Mannors to the use of himself and the Heirs Males of his Body the Remainder to the Heirs Males of the Body of Thomas Earl of Rutland his Grandfather Edward Earl 29 Eliz. died without Issue Male having a Daughter which was the Lady Roâ—s the Mother of the Lord Ross the plaintiff B. died the entail made by the Earl of Rutland and the discent to the Lord Ross the Plaintiff was found by Office It was Resolved by the Justices in this case That the Mannors did belong to the Plaintiff the Lord Ross as Issue in tail of Henry Earl of Rutland notwithstanding the Fine levyed by Edward Earl of Rutland because the Fine being sur concessit the same remained a Bar no longer then during the Life of B. Also they held the taking of the Fine by B. to be a surrender of her Estate but to be no discontinuance because not seised of the Tail at the time 3. Resolved the Lands should be in the King during the Minority of the Lord Ross Anno 1. Jacobi 973. It was Resolved by the Justices that Informations for the Queen alone in any Latin Court should not abate by the Demise of the Queen and so like of Informations tam pro the party quam for the Queen and so also it was of Informations in English Courts they were not discontinued by the Demise of the Queen Handall and his Wife and Browns Case in Chancery 974. The case was A. possessed of a Term for years had Issue a Son and two Daughters and by Will he devised his Term to John his Son and if he died to his two Daughters and if they died to his Wife he made his Son his whole Executor who entred claiming by the Will and after Probate he died Intestate his Wife took Letters of Administration and for mony sold the Term to Brown the Defendant It was the opinion of the Justices that the Assignee of the Administrator should have the Term and not the two Daughters and Decreed in Chancery accordingly 975. Upon the cases of claims at the Coronation of the King these points were Resolved by the Justices 1. That where a Barony or a Mannor or Land holden by grand Serjeanty to do special Service at the Coronation is come to many hands by purchase there each Tenant is chargable with the whole Service but the King may appoint which of them shall do the Service and he which doth the Service shall alone have the Fee but if the Division be by Copartners there the eldest is only to do the Service and the other shall contribute to the charge and the eldâ—st shall have the Fees but if each Sister sell her part the Feoffee of the eldest shall not have the preheminence 2. Resolved where Grand Serjeanty is to be done at the Coronation by Tenure and the Lands come to an ignoble person who is unmeet to do the Service the Lord Steward may appoint a Noble or meet person to do the Service as Deputy to the Tenant of the Land 3. Resolved where Land is given to hold as to be Hostiarius Câ—merae Regis or the like In such Case the Tenants are to make their claims yet they are not to be admitted to the said Services by the Commissioners for claims or the Lord Steward but they are to be referred to the King himself their Tenure being perpetual and continuing Leigh and Helyers Case 976. A man supposing he had Title to certain Lands which were in the possession of I. S. contracted to sell them to I. D. and sealed a Lease for years to a third person to the use of I. D. with whom the contract made and the year and day long before expired Resolved it was maintenance by the Common Law but not within the Statute of 32. H. 8. Foster and Kings Case 977. A man made his Will and gave diverse Legacies and devised that the rest and residue of his Goods after his Debts and Legacies paid to his wife and after in the same Will he devised that his Overseers should enter into the Lands and cut down so much of the Woods as would suffice to pay his Debts Quere in this case if the Debts and Legacies shall be paid of the Woods if the Goods be not sufficient to pay them Skipwiths Case 978. Tenant in tail and he in the Reversion bargaineth and sells the Lands to the King and before enrollment Tenant in tail suffers a common Recovery Quere if the Issue in tail be barred by the Recovery not Resolved Lucas Case 979 Resolved in this case that before the Statute of 13 R. 2â— Murder was pardonable by the name of Felony but since that Statute the
especial matter upon the division of the day ought to come on the other side otherwise it shall not be intended Bullock and Bibleys Case 771. A Woman Copyholder in Fee took Husband who without his Wife surrendred to the use of a Stranger who was admitted and surrendred to the use of D. the Defendant who was admitted the Husband died the wife survived and died the Heir before admittance made a Lease to trie the Title It was adjudged that the Surrender of the Husband alone made no discontinuance of the Copy-hold of the wife 2. Resolved that the Lease was good before Admittance otherwise it was of a Surrender before Admittance Gooles and Granes Case 772. An Infant surrendred Land which was Copyhold to the use of a Stranger who was admitted It was adjudged that the Infant at his full age might enter because it was no bar nor discontinuance Ford and Holborns Case 773. A. let the Mannor of D. to H. for 17. years rendring yearly to D. G. 10 l. and he was bound in an Obligee to A. to pay the said Rent to D. G. if she so long lived and the said H. or his Assignes should or might so long enjoy the Premises In Debt by the Executors of A. against H. he pleaded that after the Lease to him he himself surrendred the Lease to A. which he accepted and that till the Surrender no Rent was unpaid It was adjudged for the Plaintiff because the acceptance of the Surrender was no conclusion against the collateral payment to a Stranger and H. but for his own Act might have enjoyed the Land still Savage and Bechams Case 774. In Action upon the case for an Escape against the Prisoner brought by the Plaintiff Sheriff It was Resolved that upon a voluntary escape the Sheriff should not maintain an Action against the Prisoner but otherwise upon a negligent escape West and Blackwells Case 775. A. Outlawed after Judgment was taken upon the Capias utlagatum and afterwards escaped Resolved that he was not in Execution for the party without prayer Williams and Beathles Case 776. Debt upon an Obligation after Verdict and Judgment it was assigned for Error that the Teste of the Original was before the day of payment in the Condition It was holden Error and the Judgment for that cause reversed Wells and Dennyes Case 777. Upon a Recovery in Debt of 400 l. upon 2 Fieri fac 100 l. was levyed and returned Afterwards a Capias ad satisfaciend issued for the whole 400 l. It was the opinion of the Court it ought to issue forth but 300 l. and the Judgment for Execution was reversed May and Middletons Case 778. After Debt brought the Plaintiff attached in London a debt due by another man to the Defendant and had Judgment to recover Adjudged a good bar to the Action for so much Bufkin and Edmonds Case 779. It was adjudged in this Case That a Rent payable off the Land upon Cesser of an Estate ought to be demanded where no entry may be Hughton and Princes Case 780. Resolved Tythes shall not be paid of Turkies nor their Eggs nor of tame Patridges or Pheasants quia ferae naturae Beswick and Cundens Case 781. It was adjudged in this case That the Feoffee shall have Action upon the case for a Nusance continued though it was erected before his time Sharington and Fleetwoods Case 782. It was Resolved if a Parson Libells for Tythes and a Prohibition is granted and after he libelleth for the Tythes of another year the first Suit not being determined an Attachment upon Prohibition lieth against him Hall and Vaughans Case 783. If the Jurors eat and drink at their own proper costs before Verdict after their departure from the Bar it is fineable only but it shall not make their Verdict void Adams and Albons Case 784. Resolved that if a Venire facies bears date the day it is retornable it is amendable by the Roll. Gregory and Blasâ—fields Case 785. An Action upon the Statute of 4. and 5. Philip and Mary for using the Trade of a Clothier not having bin bound an Apprentice for seven years was brought by Plaint in the Court of Ludlow and Judgment there The Judgment was reversed because first it ought to be by Original or Information and Secondly because it ought to be brought in the Courts of Record at Westminster and not in Borough Courts Varrel and Wilsons Case 786. Conspiracy The Defendant pleaded his goods were Feloniously Stollen and he found them in the possession of the Plaintiff for which he Indicted him and gave evidence against him and upon the Tryal the Plaintiff was acquitted and traversed the Conspiracy aliter vel alio modo It was adjudged a good Justification because the finding of the goods in his possession was a sufficient cause of Suspition Marrow and Tarpins Case 787. Debt against two Administrators for Rent behind after the death of the Intestate they pleaded that before the Rent behind one of the Administraters assigned all his Interest to I. S. of which the Plaintiff had notice and accepted of the Rent by the hands of the Assignee before the day in which the Rent in arrear was due It was Resolved that the privity of contract as to the Action of debt was determined by the act of the Lessee and therefore the action of Debt after the Assignment did not lie against the Administrator Smith and Johnsons Case 788. Error of a Judgment in Action upon Assumpsit in the Court of Reding The certificate was Plita c. ad Cur. Dominae Reginae Burgisui de Reding tenend per consuctudinem Libertat Major Burgensibus concess I without saying per consuetudinem ex antiquo usitot or alledging by what person the Liberties were granted and for this cause the Judgment was reversed Corbet and Corbets Case 789. A seised of Lands for real affection covenanted to stand seised to the use of himself for Life and after to the use of R. and the Heirs Males of his Body the Remainder to C. and the Heirs Males of his Body Provided if R. or any Heir Male of his Body shall intend or go about any act to cut off the Estate tail then it shall be lawful for him that is next to enter A. died R. suffered a common Recovery Resolved the Proviso was repugnant to the Estate tail and that the Cesser of the Estate tail as if the party had bin dead was impossible and the going about it such a secret thing that an Issue cannot be upon it Grar Marshal and Marshals Case 790. A. levyed a Fine of five yard Land to the use of himself for Life the Remainder to the use of his eldest Son who was the Plaintiffs husband and the Plaintiff and the Heirs of the Body of the Husband Proviso if the Husband died living A. his Father then G. the Plaintiff his wife should have yard Land and a half for her Life in possession without shewing which Land the Husband died
A. granted a Rent to B. and his Heirs for the Life of I. S. B. devised the Rent to I. D. The Rent was behind I. S. died I. D. avowed for the Rent It was Resolved in this Case that by the Common Law such a Rent was not deviseable but by the Statute of 32 and 34 H. 8. it was though but a Freehold discendable 2. Agreed that no general Occupant could be of it and they held that if it be deviseable by Custome the devise did prevent the Occupancy Web and Webs Case 814. It was Decreed in Chancery in this Case That the Terre-Tenant should be compelled to pay a Rent seck devised by Will out of Land notwithstanding no seisin was had of it Sir Charles Rawleighs Case 815. A. seised of Curson Park executed an estate of it to the use of himself for Life and to the use of D. his Wife for life so long as she should be effectually ready to demise it to his Heir at 50 l. Rent when she should not dwell on ir her self and for so long as she should not dwell upon it A. dyed B. his Son entred because D. did not dwell upon it but removed with Sir Charles Rawleigh her Husband into Darset sheet and did not demise the Park to him 50 l. Rent There were many points in this Case but none of them particularly Resolved 1. If the Husband D. had taken was bound to performe the demise 2. If her taking of Husband had disabled her to make the demise 3. If she being a Feme Covert had made the demise which was void in Law if she had performed the Condition 4. If the Husband and Wife had joyned in a demise if that had been a performance of the Condition the words extending to her alone 5. If the Heir B. ought to demand the demise or D. the Wife ought to offer it 6. If the demand ought to be by word or by tender of a Writing with a Reservation of 50 l. Rent Agars Case 816. It was agreed in this Case That the Queens Attorny might have an Information in the Star Chamber against a Receiver of the Queens Rent for a perjury supposed in advantage of the Queen and so might any other person assigne perjury in an Oath for the advantage of the Queen if he be greived by it 2. That perjury is assignable at an Inquest of Office as a Misdemeanor but not upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. Wants Case 817. It was holden in Star Chamber in this Case by the Justices That a Libeller is punishable there although that the matter of the Libell be true and so is he who disperseth Libells although he doth not know the effect of them nor ever heard them read 818. Note it was said and agreed That if one exhibits an Information in the Star Chamber but as a Common Informer for a Misdemeanor although he hath not any particular grief and dyeth his Executor or administrator shall not Revive it by a Bill of Reviver but the Kings Attorney may Revive the Bill Carewes Case 819. A Justice of Peace was censured in the Star Chamber because he going to a place to view Riotors and to remove the force and the offenders being gone before his comming he was requested to go to the House where they were and he refused to do it Gellibrand and Habards Case 820. Gellibrand was sentenced in the Star Chamber for levying a Fine by the name of Gellibrand who was then beyond the Seas affirming himself to be the same person and the sentence of the Court further was that the Fine so levyed by him should be vacated upon Record 821. The Case was King Hen. 3. Anno. 41. of his Raign by Letters Patents did recite whereas R. N. held of him by money Rent Corne Cheese and Soccage Tenure he granted to him that from thence forth he should hold by 4 s. Rent and by Knights service for all services The point was if this acceptance of the Patent should make a Tenure by Knight service It was the opinion of the Justices that it did not unlesse the estate of the Land was then in the King because the King might discharge the services either in part or in all by his Patent but could not reserve services of a new nature where he did not give the Land Anthony Mildmay and Mildmays Case 822. Sir Walter Mildmay the Father in consideration of Love and Affâ—ction Covenanted to stand seised of Lands to the use of himself for life without impeachment of wast the remainder to A. his Son and the Heirs males of his body the remainder to H. and the Heirs males of his body Provided if any of the said partes shall go about to resolve determine or devise to do any act or shall consent to any act whereby the estates of them in remainder shall be aliened discontinued barred c. then his remainder shall cease as if he were naturally dead The Father dyed A. entred and suffered a Common Recovery Resolved that the Proviso was against Law and an estate Tail could not cease as if Tenant in Tail were naturally dead Wells and Fentons Case 822. A. seised in Fee executed an estate to the use of himself and his Wife for life the remainder to such Woman as he should afterward marry which should survive him the remainder to B. his Son in Tail his Wife dyed he took another Wife and they both reciting the former Conveyance granted the Lands to I. S. for 40. years by Fine if A. and his Wife or any of them should so long live Afterwards A. dyed the Wife entred It was the opinion of the Court That the Wife was barred of the possibility by Estopel and yet they agreed the Case that if a Lease be made for life the remainder to the right Heir of I. S. and the Heir Levies a fine in the life of his Father the same shall not bar the possibility Peck and Channells Case 823. A. seised in Fee devised the same to a Woman for life the Remainder in Tail to B. his Cosen the Remainder to his right Heirs the Woman and B. entermarried and levyed a Fine with Proclamation with a Render to them and the Heirs of the body of the Husband and after they suffered a Common Recovery of the Husband and his Heirs who enfeoffed the Defendant and dyed without Issue Resolved the Fine did not make any discontinuance because the Conusor was not seised in Tail in possession but in the right of his Wife and the Recovery did not bar the Issue in Tail nor the Remainder because the Tenant was in of another estate to whom the recompence was and not of the estate Tail anciently devised Rayman and Golds Case 824. A man possessed of a Terme for 80. years devised that after the death of his Wife who he made his Executrix his two Sons B. and C. shall have the whole profit of my Farm and the longest liver of them shall appoint who shall have the
Debt against Executors upon Obligation of 200 l. they pleaded a Recovery by a stranger of 200 l. upon another Obligation and averred it was a just and true Debt ultra which they had not in their hands the Plaintiff said the Recovery was by Covin It was adjudged in B. R for the Plaintiff Error brought and the Judgment reversed for it could not be by Covin if it was a just Debt and the Replication should have been absque hoc it was a just and true Debt Morses and Rosses Case 935. Assumpsit In consideration the Plaintiff would surcease his Suit which he had in Chancery against the Defendant the Defendant promised to save him harmlesse from all actions which should be brought against him for or Concerning a Lease which the Defendant had assigned to him and alledged he surceased his Suit and that a Stranger had brought an action against him in B. R. by reason of the said Lease and the Defendant did not save him harmlesse Judgment being for the Plaintiff in B. R. It was reversed because he did not shew the certainty of the Action brought against him nor that it was for any matter in esse at the time of the promise Wood and Bukleys Case 936. Action upon the Case whereas Wood exhibited his Bill against Buckley in Star Chamber containing he had nusselled Pirats Murtherers and other Malefactors he being a Justice of Peace and Vice-Admiral Wood afterwards in another place having speech with divers concerning as well of the ill carriage of the said Buckley as of the matter in his Bill against Buckley in the Star Chamber said I will Justify every matter therein to be true The Defendant Justified the speaking of the words being examined upon the truth of his Bill before I. S. and I. D. by Command of the Councell and traversed that he spake them at any other place or time upon demur being adjudged for the Plaintiff upon Error brought the Judgment was reversed because no action lying for the exhibiting of the Bill no action lay for saying the words of his Bill were true Sir Henry Berkley and Earle of Pembrooks Case 937. Action upon the Case by the Earl of Pembroke against Sir Henry Berkley and shewed he was seised of the Mannor of S. to which the Office of the Keeper of the Forrest of F. did appertain in Fee and to have omnia bona forfeited within the Forrest fugam facere bis per annum quicquid de hujusmodi fugatione accidere possit and to have Hony Wax mortuum boscum c. appertaining to his Office and the Defendant disturbed him to exercise the said Office The Defendant pleaded a Deed in Tail in Bar made by the Plaintiff In the Deed there was a Proviso viz. Provided alwayes and the said Sir Henry Berkley doth Covenant for him and the Heirs males of his body to and with the said Earl and his Heirs to preserve the game as far as commonly hath been used and that he nor his Heirs males shall cut or sell any woods there except for browse and necessary reparations and the Plaintiff said the Defendant had cut down four Oakes and converted them to his own use and averred they were not for browse nor reparations and that he entred for the forfeiture It was adjudged upon a demur in B. R. for the Plaintiff Error was brought upon the Exchequer Chamber upon the matter in Law that the Proviso was not a Condition but a Covenant but as to that point it was Resolved by all the Justices that the Proviso was a Condition 2. Error was that the damages were assessed entirely for divers things some of them being uncertainly and insufficiently alledged for he prescribed to have omnia bona forisfacta which could not be without Charter also to have de furgatione quicquid acciderit which was also uncertain and also the damages for them ought to have been severally assessed and not entirely The Court held that for that Cause the Judgment was erroneous and for that Cause only the Judgment was reversed Reymer and Grimstones Case 938. Assumpsit In Consideration he at the Defendants request had promised to wash the Defendants linnen and the linnen of his Servants and to provide meat and drink for the Defendant and his Servants the Defendant promised to pay so much money to the Plaintiff when he should require it so as it should not exceed the proportion used in O. for the like time and further declared that in Consideration the Defendant upon accompt between them made was in arrerage to the Plaintiff 18 l. the Defendant promised to pay him the said 18 l. and the Plaintiff shewed for how long time he had washed the Cloathes c. and that he required 8 l. which did not exceed the proportion in O. upon Non Assumpsit found for the Plaintiff and damages severally assessed for the Costs entirely Error was thereupon brought it was the opinion that the first Assumpsit was good and the second void and the Judgment given for the damages and Costs upon the first Assumpsit was good and the Judgment for them affirmed but for the damages assessed upon the second Assumpsit and for the damages de incremento entirely give for both the Judgment was reversed Goodall and Wyatts Case 939. In Ejectione firme The Case was A. made a Feoffment of Lands to B. in Fee upon Condition if A. paid within a year after the death of the Feoffee to his Heirs Executors or Administrators 100 l. that the Feoffment should be void B. made a Feoffment over to C. and dyed and afterwards within the year it was agreed betwixt A. and the Administrator of the Feoffee that the said A. should pay to the Administrator the 100 l. and that the Administrator should repay back all to A. the Feoffee but only 32 l. which was done accordingly and then A. entred into the Lands pretending the Condition was performed it was adjudged in B. R. that his entry was not Lawfull and that this fraudulent and Covenous payment was no performance of the Condition and upon a Writ of Error brought in the Exchequer Chamber all the Justices a greed that the Judgment given in B. R. should be affirmed Vitsey and Fermours Case 940. The King granted Manerium de H. in Parochia de R. omnia terras decimas haereditamenta sua in R A. in the tenur of I. S nec non omnia alia terras tenementa haereditamenta in R praedict ' It was adjudged in B. R. that the Tythes in H. which was a Town within the Parish of R. did passe But upon Errour brought the Judgment was reversed because R. praedict shall be intended R. the Town and not R. the Parish Adams and Dixons Case 941. Assumpsit the Plaintiff was Bail for I. S. in B. R. the Defendant in Consideration that he should pay him the Condemnation promised to deliver to him the Bond made for the principal Debt and a letter of
or the Remainder and therefore no traverse could be to it but they conceived if it was a Reversion a Traverse did presently lie if a Remainder that it did not lie till after the death of the Tenant for Life which was B. Countess of B. Worleys Case 959 A seised in Fee of the Mannor of D holden in capite with 500 l. to be sold having a long intent to sell the same that he might more freely dispose of his other Lands and satisfie a just debt of 60 l. which he owed to I. S. by Deed indented and enrolled in consideration of the said Debt and other considerations viz Vpon trust and confidence that he should pay to W. his Executors or Assigns within one year so much mony above the said 60 l. He bargained and sold the said Mannor of D to I. S. and his Heirs W. within one year died no mony paid his Heir within age It was Resolved his Heir should not be â—n Ward because neither the Land nor Surplusage of the same ought to come to his Heir by the Trust nor be paid to the children or wife oâ— W. Drowâ—s Case 960. A. seised of divers Messuages in the Parish of S. in London made a Lease thereof for 31. years to B. and M. his Wife paying yearly during the Term 60. l. at four Feasts viz. The Nativity c. or within 28 days after each of the said Feasts afterwards he covenanted to stand seised to the use of himself for Life and after to the use of his eldest Son and his Wife and the Heirs of their two Bedâ—es and then for mony he bargained and sold the Land by Deed enrolled to I. S. to hold to him and his Heirs during the Life of the Lessor I. S. dyed seised of that Land and of other Lands holden in capite his Heir within age It was found by Office that A. died after the Feast of the Nativity and within the 28 days next following Resolved the Rent was due to him in the Remainder and that the Wardship of the Land being but a Freehold discendable did not belong to the Queen Digbies Case 961. A Tenant in Tail in the Mannor of C in the County of W. the reversion in the Crown and in Fee of Lands in the County of D. and in C. aforesaid and of Lands in the County of B. by his Will devised that his Lands in D. which he appointed to be a third part of the whole should discend to his Heir the Manner of C. and all his Lands in B. he devised to his Wife in recompence of her Dower for Life so long as she should be Soâ—e and then to his Son and Heir and he charged his Lands in B. with Annuities to his younger Sons and portions to his Daughters Afterwards by a Codicill annexed to his Will he devised to I. S. and I. D. and their Heirs all and singular his Lands in C. whereof himself was then seised to him and his Heirâ— in Fee simple to the use of his Son and Heir so long as he and all claiming under him should suffer his wife and children to enjoy the Lands and Annuities devised to them and he should interrupt or deny it then he devised all his Fee-simple Land to his Wife and his younger Sons A. died his Son and Heir within age It was in this case Resolved that the Qâ—een by reason of the Wardship of the Heir should not have more of the Fee-simple Lands in D then so much as would make the entailed Land to be the third part of the whole Creswâ—lls Case 962. Certain Lands called S. were holden of the Mannor of P. by rent and Suit of Court P. was holden of the Mannor of G by Rent and Suit of Court the Mannor of G. came to the Crown by the Statute of Disâ—olutions The King H. 8. granted the Mannor of G. to I. S. and his Hâ—irs to hold by Knight Service in capite I. D. purchased the Mannor of G and afterwards he purchased the moiety of the Mannor of P. and the Lands called S. I. D. died the Lands purchased by him discended to his Son who purchased the other moiety of P. and afterwards enfeoffed C. of the Lands in S. It was Resolved in this case that I. D. held the Lands called S. by Knight Service in capâ—te by a whole Knights Fee Lâ—mâ—oâ—s Case 963. It was Resolved in this case in the Court of Wards that if the Jâ—ry do not find an Office according to the direction of the Court they shall be committed to the Fleâ—t vide diverse Presidents there accordingly Sir William Knoâ—ts Case 964. The case was A. died seised of Lands purchased by him and discendable to the Heis Males of his Body holden by Knight Service in capite of the value of 140 l. per annum and also of capite Land discendable to his Heirs general of the value of 13 l. per annum and an executed Estate for the advancement of his Sons of Soccage Land in capite to the value oâ— 48 l. B. was his Son and Heir Male and the two Daughters of his eldest Son deceased were his Heirs general It was Resolved that no Livery nor Primer Seisin should be of the Lands executed for advancement because the Queen was satisfied by the discent to the Heirs Males of the Livery and Primer Seisin of more then of a third part of the Lands Strangways and Sir Henry Newtons Case 965. The case is very long put but in effect was this The Father limited divers Mannors and Lands by Indenture to the use of himself and his Heirs untill the marriage of his Son with the Daughter of I. S. and after marriage to the use of the Father for Life only and after to his Sons Wife for Life for her Joynture The Father died before Marriage and afterwards the Marriage took effect The Question was if the use should rise to the first Wife Note That the Father before his death made his Will and thereby devised portions to his Daughters to be raised out of the said Land by his Executors and then died his Heir within age The two chief Justices doubted much this case but they enclined to be of opinion that if there was a devise of the Land that the same had interrupted the raising of the Future use for the Joynture c but they doubted of the Devise because he devised portions out of the Lands but did not devise the Lands themselves Framptons Case 966. A seised in Fee of the Mannors of M. and B. and of the moiety of the Mannor of V. covenanted to levy a Fine to I. S. and others of the said Mannors viz. of all the said Mannors to the use of himself for Life and afterwards of the Mannor of M. to the use of I. his wife for her Life and after to such Heirs of the Body of A. as be should afterwards beget of the Body of her or of any other woman which he should after marry
confessed the conveying to Friends in trust to his own use The points 1. Whether R. C. by the Will of his Father-in-law or equiiy be entituled to the possibility of the Term that shall remain after the death of J. M. 2. Whether he may sue during the Life of J. M. for this possibility It was decreed in Chancery 1. P. C. is Cestuy que trust and although the possibility be not grantable nor diviseable by Law yet cestuy que trust may declare his VVill and so the VVill of P. C. doth amount to a Declaration of the Trust and ought to bind J. M. the Executor 2. That the acts of the Executor tending to destroy the possibility were breaches of the Trust 3. That Suit for prevention of Fraud or breach of Trust might be before the Trust doth fall to the intent to preserve the possibility The Bishop of Sarums Case 1032. King Edward the Fourth created the Office of Chancellor of the Garâ—er but did not annex any Fee to it and constituted B. Bishop of Sarum to be the first Chancellor during his Life and further granted that the Successors of the Bishop of Sarum for and after should be Chancellors of the Garter B. was received and did execute the Office and died Bishop of Sarum 22 E. 4. It did not appear that any Successor of the Bishop was admitted to the said office but the Kings of England have placed Chancellors If the Bishop of Sarum by Succession had title to the Office was the question It was Resolved he had no title to it 1. because the Pattent was originally void to make the Successor of a Bishop Officer for B. took the Estate for his Life in his natural Capacity and not in his politick Capacity and he could not take both in his natural and his politick Capacity together 2. Because there had not bin any use or exercise of the Office by any Successors 3. In this Case it was agreed that the constitution of a new Office and Officer was good though no Fee was annexed or given to it Tatton and Sir Richard Mollineux Case 1033. A Lessee for 99. years of the Rectory of B. by the Bishop of C. assigned the same to the Defendant and others to the use of the said A for Life the Remainder to B. the Plaintiff and to the Heirs Males of the said B. the Remainder to A. and to those he should assign the same by his Will and for want of such Limitation to the Executors and Administrators of A. A. assigned his Use Interest and Trust to I. S. B. by Decree at Chester recovered the Rectory against the Assignee paying 500 l. B. required the Defendant to assign all the Term to him and to such as he should appoint It was in the Chancery Decreed that the Defendant should make the Assignment to B. or to such as he should name because the Limitation to B. of the Trust and the Heirs Males of his body resembled a Grant or Devise of the Term itself to one and the Heirs Males of his body which cannot be an entail because against the Rules of Law that a Term should be entailed and therefore the Term for such Grant or Devise rests wholly in the Donee or Devisee and he hath the whole disposition of it and such a Term shall not go to the Issue but to the Executors of the Donee or Devise Boldney and Curties Case 1034. A man covenanted to make farâ—her assurance upon request be it by Fine c. The Plaintiff delivered to him a note of a Fine and required the Defendant to acknowledge the same before the Justices of Assize and he did not acknowledge it because no VVrit of Covenant was first brought or depending Resolved the Covenant was broken because the acknowledgment of the Note for a Fine is an Act preparatory for the Fine itself upon which a Writ of Covenant may be after sued â—orth Trot and Spâ—rlings Case 1035. In Audita Querâ—la the case was B. acknowledged a Statute to S. There was a defeazance of it That if his Lands in the county of D. should be extended the Statute should be void Afterwards B. sold his Lands in the county of D. to F. the Plaintiff which being extended he brought Audita Querela It was Resolved in this case by the Justices that the Audita Querela did well lie and F. should be relieved upon it for they held the defeazance to be good and not repugnant They agreed that if the Condition of an Obligation be that the party shall not sue the Obligation that the condition is repugnant but a Defezance by another Deed to that effect is good It was adjudged for the Plaintiff Swaine and Becketts Case 1033. The Queen seised of the Mannor of D. made a Lease thereof for years to I. S. excepting the Trees King James granted the reversion to the Plaintiff the custome of the Mannor was that a Copyholder of the Mannor might top and lop Trees The Defendant being a Copyholder cut Trees for firewood for which Trespass was brought Resolved that the Action did not lie because the Copyholder was in by the custom which was paramount the exception of the Trees in the Lease and the exception should not hinder the custom although the Copyholder came to his Estate after the Exception The Countess of Cumberlands Case 1037. It was Resolved by the Justices in this case That great â—eeches of 200 years growth which were for use for Timber in the country where they did grow could not be felled or taken by Tenant for Life because they did belong to the Inheritance and so they said it was of Wind-falls which had Timber in them they did belong to the Inheritance otherwise if they were Dotards and had no Timber in them Lambs Case in the Star-Chamber 1038. It was Resolved by the Justices in this case 1. That the Procurer and also the VVriter of a Lâ—bel were both contrivers of it 2. That if a man read a Libel or heard it read the same is no publication of it but if after it is read he repeat it to another it is a publication of it 3. That he who writes a Libel by the commandment of his Master or Father is not a publisher of it Stone and Walters Case 1039. W. being robbed accused Stone being a Poulterer to be the party who robbed him but afterwards withdrew his accusation Stone not satisfied therewith brought his Action upon the case against W. W. then accused him again of the Felony for which he was bound over to the Sessions where W. swore directly that S. was the party that robbed him yet the Jury found an Ignoramus so as S. was never Indicted nor lawfully acquitted Yet for this conspiracy to accuse him W. and his conrederates were all fined and punished in the Star-chamber And in this case it was holden by the Justices that such Conspirators were punishable by Indictment although an Action upon the case did not lie for the party