But by the Court it is after verdict For the Original for part cannot be applyed to this Declaration and it shall not be taken as the Original for it And then there is no Original which is aided by the Statute and so it had been frequently ruled By Harvey it was one Blackwells Case here where the Writ was bona catalla cepit and the Declaration was viz. unicum discum plumbi And that was ruled to be no Original The Wife of Cloborn against her Husband THe Wife complains against her Husband in the Spiritual Court Causa saevitiae For that he gave her a box on the ear and spat in her face and whirled her about and called her damned whore Which was not by Libel but by verbal accusation after reduced to writing The Husband denies it the Court ordered the Husband to give to his Wife 4 l. every week pro expensis litis and Alimony Barkley and Henden moved for a Prohibition The Sute is originally Causa saevitiae and as a Case that they assesse Alimony And now for a ground of a Prohibition It was said that Cloborn chastised his wife for a reasonable Cause by the Law of the Land as he might which they denyed and said that they had Iurisdiction in these matters de saevitia c. And afterwards that the wife departed and that they were reconciled again And then that reconciliation took away that saevitia before as reconciliation after elopement Richardson It was said here that the Sute was now held and without Libel but that is no ground of a Prohibition for he proceeded upon that matter reduced in Articles and we cannot grant a Prohibition if they proceed to their form For we are not Iudges of their form But if they will deny a Copy of the libell a Prohibition lies by the Statute And you you 'l say that an Husband may give reasonable chastisement to his Wife and we have nothing to do with it But only that the Husband may be bound to his good behaviour by the Common law And the sentence in causa saevitiae is a mensa thoro and we cannot examine what is Cruelty and what not And certainly the matter alleged is Cruelty For spitting in the face is punishable by the Star-chamber But if Mr. Cloborn had pleaded a Iustification and set forth a Provocation to him by the wife to give her reasonable castigation Then there would be some colour of a Prohibition Henden We have made such an Obligation as it is absolutely refused Hutton Perhaps he is in contempc and then they will not admit any Plea As if one be out-lawed at Common law be cannot bring an Action But the Plaintiff they advised to tender a Iustification and if they refused it then to move for a Prohibition Bachus and Hiltons Case HUtton cited one Bachus and Hiltons Case in the Kings Bench Where a Bill was of Lands 17 Maii and the Declaration 20 Mail which was after and so the Original before the trespass and after verdict Because it was mistaken Iudgement was stayed Mortimores Case AMhurst desired the opinion of the Court in this Case Copiholder is ousted and so the Lord disseised and the Copiholder releases all his right to the Disseisor and dies his Heir enters and brings trespass against the Disseisor who pleads his Franktenement And by the Court the Release is clearly void the Disseisor never being admitted Copiholder But they ought not to teach him how to plead And Hitcham cited a Case in which he was of Councel Two Copiholders in fee the one release to the other by Deed. And that was adjudged a good Release which was now also agreed by the Court. Earl of Mulgrave Ratcliffes Case Intratur Exchequer Chamber 18 Iac. Rot. Argued by Sergeant Atthowe D' e Mercurii post festum Sanctae Margaret 17 Edwardi 2d Iohn de Malo lacu gave to Peter de Malo lacu and the Heirs of his body the Castle and Mannor of Mulgrave by divers mean conveiances the Land came to Sr. Ralph Bigod 11 Ian. 6 H. 8. Sr. Ralph Bigot made a Feoffment to William Euer and others to the use of his last Will and died and the right of the Land together with the Entayl and the use also after the Will performed descended to Sr. Francis Bigot 10 Dec. 28 H. 8. Sir Francis Bigod made a Feoffment to Iohn and others to the use of himself and Katherine his wife and the Heirs of their bodies and they had issue Ralph Bigod and Dorothy then the Statute 16 H. 8. cap. 13. for forfeiture for treason is made and 26 Maii 29 H. 8. Sir Francis Bigod was attainted of Treason committed 7 Ian. 28 H. 8. and was executed and Katherine survived H. 8. by the special act of attainder of Sir Francis Bigod and his forfeiture is made 4 Novem. E. 6. Ralph Bigod Son of Katherine and Sir Francis was restored in blood and died without issue Dorothy maried Boger Ratcliff and they had Issue Francis Ratcliff 5 Octob. 8 Eliz. Katherine died and Francis Ratcliff died having issue Roger Ratcliff 1 Febr. 34 Eliz. Francis Ratcliff Roger Ratcliff entred 11 Aug. 33 Eliz. Office found for the Quéen 28 April 34 Eliz. The Quéen by Letters Patents granted the same to Edward Lord Sheffield and the Heirs males of his body begotten at the rate of 9. 18. 3 d. Roger Ratcliff upon the whole matter sued his Monstrare de droit in the Exchequer and had Iudgement for him and Writ of Error being brought by the Lord Sheffield to reverse the Iudgement formerly given in the Case Points 2. First whether Francis Bigod who had Estate in special tayl in possession had also any right in the antient entayl left in him at the time of his Attainder or whether it were not in abeiance in respect of the Feoffment made 21 H. 8. and whether that right did accew unto the King by the Attainder of Francis and the general Statute of 26 H. 8. cap. 13. or by the particular act of Attainder of 31 H. 8. and I am of opinion that there was a right of the old entayl remaining in him and that the King ought to have it together with that estate in special entayl in possession freed and discharged thereof as long as the Estate entayl endured In the handling of this point I shall occasionally speak of rights of Actions real given or not given to the King upon Attainder of Treason by force of Statute 26 of H. 8. or of the general Statute of 33 H. 8. for this Statute is so near of kin to that conservation of antient Rights that we must foresee that we do not in the Iudgement of this Cause prejudice the Statute ex aliqua Secondly Whether there be a Remitter in the Case after Attainder of Treason and if there be such a Remitter here when the Remitter begins and in whom whereas nothing hath as yet been distinctly said I am of opinion that there
of Entries If one said of a Chirurgion he did poyson the wound of his patient That is not actionable for it might be for the cure of it But if he said as it was in 33 and 34 Eliz. Com. Banc. He did poyson the wound of his patient to get money That is actionable And the words here are allayed if they be joyned with the first For being spoken of a Iustice his power and greatness may oppresse him without fault in the Plaintiff One said M. 37 Eliz. of a Iustice of Peace That he was a Bloodsucker and thirsteth after blood yet if you 'll give him a couple of Capons he 'll take them Not actionable for they are too general As to the Iustification all is justified clearly It was objected then is omitted in our justification It is true if he complain of oppression one time and we justifie at another time it shall be insufficient But the matters of Iustification here well enough meet with the time By which c. Gosse against Brown Gosse brought an action upon an Obligation against Brown dated 23 Feb. 20 Iac. to pay money upon the 30 of December following It was then said that the money was not to be paid until the 30 day of December For it is all one as if the bond had been without date But if the condition had been to have béen paid the 33 Febr. It was then presently due upon demand because it was an impossible date Gibbs against Ienkins GIbbs brought an action upon the case for scandalous welch words spoken in the presence of divers understanding the language And witnesses were sworn to the Iury who deposed that the signification of those words were to steal or at least to carry away Which words in English not being able to bear an action Iudgement was given against the Plaintiff Ravyes Case A Sheriff had taken one by capias ad satisfac a Stranger assumes to him that if he will let him goe at large that he would pay him what damages he should sustain thereby No action upon the case will lie for that promise because it is against the Common Law And 23 H. 6. 2 H. 5. If a man oblige another in a bond not to follow his trade It is void Darlyes Case SErgeant Atthow shewed to the Court that an action upon the case was brought by the Sheriff of S. And declares that the Defendant assumed that if he would put such an one in Execution into the Castle of which he had recovered against him to save him harmless And shews that he did take him in execution and that for that he was indicted for a forceabie entry and sues in the Star-chamber ad damnum 500 l. And the Court séemed that it was not a sufficient consideration For it was no more than by his office he ought to doe But if it was upon an other matter otherwise it should be And for that they said to the Serjeant that he might have demurred to the Declaration NOte that it was said that an Ejectione firm does not lie de una pecia terrae although that it was added conteining by estimation half an acre of land vocat It is not good But he ought to shew the longitude and latitude And it is otherwise in an assize and that for the view And so it was held by the Court. Hadves against Levit. AN action upon the case was brought That in consideration the Plaintiff would consent that his Son should marry the Daughter of the Defendant and that after the Coverture upon request of the Defendant the Plaintiff shall make a joynture of 20 l. to the wife That the Defendant should give 200 l. to the Son in marriage they are married the mony is not payed the Father of the Son brings this action and shews how he is indamaged by it because that he is constreined to give more to the Son and his Wife for to allow them maintenance then otherwise with an averement that be is forced to make that Ioynture if the other will make the request Richardson This action should have béen more properly brought by the Son for he is the person in whom the interest is And he put the case 22 Eliz. A man had a license to transport Herrings to Spain and the Daughter one of the parties had a license And a stranger comes to the Father and says to him procure me that license and I 'll give you 100 l. and 100 l. to your daughter It was held that the Daughter should have the action for the one 100 l. for more specially it concerns her And put the case of lorning Iorning 37 Eliz. Where A. was indebted to B. a stranger follows the sute for B. A. comes to the stranger and says to him leave the sute and I 'll pay your Master The Master shall have the action upon the case And now in our case the father does not demand the 200 l. but only the damages which will happen to him by the non-payment to the Son Hutton There is a difference when the promise is to perform to one who is not interessed in the cause and when he hath interest In the first case he to whom the promise is made shall have the action and not he to whom the promise is to be performed If A. promise B. to pay I. S. 10 l. upon a consideration which is not done B. shall have the action and not I. S. If there be two joynt of a Horse and the one conditions with the other to goe to Market to sell it who does it and appoints the payment to be made to another In this case he only to whom the payment is to be made shall have the action So also if my servant by my command sell my Horse the money to be paid to me I shall have the action and not my Servant for the interest is in me So here the interest is in the Son and he is to have the money It was said at the bar betwéen one Cardinal and Lewis It was adjudged that where two fathers promise upon marriage betwéen the daughter of the one and the Son of the other that the Father of the Son will give 100 l. stock and the Father of the Daughter 100 l. in money The money was paid and the stock not delivered And the action was maintained by the Father And the Iustices said that they would see that Record viz. 27 H. 8. Tathams case of a promise made to the wife c. They put at the bar one Cores Case That a man promised to one to make satisfaction of all debts in which he was indebted to another who was then absent He to whom the satisfaction was to be made brought the action upon the Case and well maintainable ve Mich. 43 44 Eliz. in t Rixon Horton Stone against Tiddersly THe action was brought upon an Obligation the condition whereof was that a conveyance of a Mannor shall be made to one P. and two others to the use of Richard Tiddersly and the heirs males of his body The remainder to the heirs males of Rob. Tid Vpon issue whether conditions were performed And it was found by verdict that it was to the use of the heirs males of his body the remainder to Rob. Tid and the heirs males of his body Held no performance for they agréed not to the words of the Condition IT was agreed by all That antient Demesne was a good plea in Ejectione firm but not after imparlance Crosses Case THere was errour brought because the appearance was by Anthony Goodwin Attornat suum And there was not any such in rerum natura The Court said that this averment shall not be received against the Recorder of the Court. FINIS
30 l. by the year to the use of Richard and Anne Daughter of the Bishop after mariage for their lives Which Lands and Tenements to the value of 30 l. per annum shall be appointed and limitted out by meets and bounds and put in writing before Hillary Term next and delivered to the use of Edward Thomas and Walter Thomas for their lives which were Vncles of Richard if Richard and Anne had Issue male When the Survivor of them dyes without Issue male or if all the Issue male dye without Issue male Then the use to Edward and Thomas to cease Also there be two Conditions the one Precedent the other Subsequent And the precedent Condition makes that a contingent Remainder But Atthow would have that settled without Issue born to Richard c. But if all their Issues dye before the Survivor It can never be setled For the words scil at the death of the Survivor c And then before the contingency happen it cannot be setled If the contingency had been void at the time of the limitations I agree it should be void Now if the particular Estate be contingent all that depends upon it is contingent also And Edward and Walter took nothing but after the death of the Survivor of Richard and Anne without Issue And then it is as in the Case of Cook 10. 85. A Feoffment to the use of A. for life and after the death of B. to the use of C. and his Heirs That Remainder is contingent Because that B. ought to dye in the life of A. or the Remainder shall never vest So also to Richard and Anne for their lives and after their deaths without Issue to Edward and Walter And if they ever take an Estate it ought to be after their deaths c. Secondly For the uses of the Residue To the use of Richard for life and if he dye living A. without Issue male ingendred of the body of A. Then to A. for life that is contingent then of the residue after the death of Richard to the use of Edward Walter if Richard had not issue of Anne at the time of his death Whether it vests after his death see before c. That is contingent also And it is contingent whether he will dye without Issue male As if a Feoffement be made to the use of one for life and if he had no Heir of his body to another in fee that is contingent during the life And he had not but an Estate for life by that limitation and then that is destroyed by the Fine also And now if nothing was in Edward nothing can be setled in his Son And then those contigent Remainders being destroyed there is a good estate in the Purchasors and this special verdict was not found for any doubt but for the intricacy of the Indenture And therefore he prayed Iudgement for the Defendant Harvey against Fitton HArvy the Administrator of Edward Fitton brought an Action of debt upon an Obligation of 200 l. against Edward Fitton and declares of Letters of Administration committed to him by the Archbishop of Canterby c. The Defendant says That the Intestate became possessed of Goods in Chester within the County of York And before the purchase of the Writ and after the death of the Intestate I. S. Chancelor of Chester committed Administration to Richard Fitton of all the goods c. And that he released to him and upon that de murs Bramston He doth not shew what person that Chancellor was or how he had that Authority to grant Administration quod fuit concessum per Cur. That for that it was naught And it was agreed that the Prerogative of Canterbury does not extend to York Dame Buttons Case DAme Button was Administratrix of Goods and Chattels of her Husband And the Sisters of the Husband would compell her in the Prerogative Court to make Distribution And after sentence given prays a Prohibition and divers causes were alleged But Richardson rejected all unlesse it was upon the Statute 21 H. 8. And upon that Statute he said that upon conference with the Iudges He conceived that it was in the discretion of the Court to grant a Prohibition in such Cases or not c. Hutton said That a Prohibition in such cases ought to be granted For he said if Sisters may come in for portions by Distributions where Cousins cannot And Sisters have not any colour to have Distribution For although that the Statute of Magna Charta cap. 18. extend a pueris Yet not All Freres or Sisters And the Ordinary although heretofore would compell an Executor to make Distribution yet now they never meddle with an Executor And hath not an Administrator the same power as an Executor And in Isabel Towers Case a Prohibition was granted For when they have executed their Authority one time lawfully they cannot make a Distribution Harvy to the same intent The Ordinary had not such a power upon the Goods of any especially where Administration is granted For then they have put the Property in the Administrator to pay debts c. And there may be a sleeping debt which by that means shall never be satisfied For if the Ordinary might grant Administration and afterwards make Distribution His Authority is not warranted and he does and undoes and so mocks the Statute In Flames Case it was said that if they are not permitted to make Distribution They will compell it before Administration shall be granted But they have not any such power for he ought to commit Administration if it be demanded And it was so in one Clarks case In which the whole Court was of opinion But Yelverton would not shew his op'nion in the power of the Ordinary But he consented to a Prohibition without other cause Iohn Owens Case Mich. 3. Car. Com. Banc. IOhn Owen lived apart from his wife And upon petition of the Wife to the Iustices of Assise for maintenance they refer'd it to the Bishop of Bangor who ordered that he should pay to his Wife 10 l. per annum which was afterwards confirmed by decree in the Councel of Marches of Wales And because that Iohn Owen disobeyed that Decree and did not pay the 10 l. per annum the Councel sent a Messenger to apprehend his body and caused his Goods and the profits of his Lands to be sequestred And Henden prayed a Prohibition for that that Alimony was not within their instructions Richardson demanded of him if they could grant Prohibitions If they meddle with a thing which belongs to Ecclesiastical power where they themselves have power Harvey was of the same opinion For this Court should preserve other Courts in order Yelverton said For the sequestration of the Lands they could not do that Richardson They have not any power to sell the goods The Ecclesiasticall Court is the proper Court for Alimony And if the person will not obey they cannot but excommunicate him And by Yelverton when that comes to them
payment of 72 l. And he alleges that the Defendant did not become bound in the Statute but that he himself delivered possession as soon as he could And upon non-assumpsit pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff And Atthowe moved in Arrest of Iudgement It is not a good consideration or promise He said that there was a Colloquium and an Agreement and in Consideration thereof c. That is not a good Consideration And the second Consideration that he delivered c. tam citius quam potuit It is not good for it is uncertain For it may be a year or two years or a day after And the other promise to pay 8 l. in the hundred deferendo diem And there is not any deferring the day for it is not shewn that it is due before and that he shall be bound in a Statute and that no sum is expressed which is uncertain Richardson There is a good Consideration and a good promise There was an Agreement touching the sale of a Banck and an acre of Land and take all alike and that perfects the Agreement And it is plain that the Agreement was for 72 l. and the delivery of the possession or making of assurance is not any Consideration But the promise is all the Consideration And he might have omitted the averment of the delivery of the possession But there is a cross and mutual promise upon which the Action might lye As many times it had been adjudged in this Court and in the Kings Bench. And for the words tam citius quam potuit the Law appoints the time scilicet so soon as he can go remove his goods things out of the House c. As in Case where one sels goods for mony the Vendee shall have for telling the mony And so here at the most till request be made And although it is not expressed in what sum he shall be bound by the Statute Yet it appears that it is for the payment of 72 l. And then the sum ought to be double in which he is bound As if one arbitrate that he pay 72 l. and enters into an Obligation for the payment of it That shall be in the double sum In which Case he said that he could shew several Iudgements of it Crook If one promise to me divers things some of which are certain It is good But also for the time of the delivery there the Law adjudges of that And the sum of the Statute shall be double as it had been said But for the Case of the Arbitrament it is adjudged contrary as 5 Salmons Case And admit that it be uncertain It is a reciprocal Assumpsit and an Action will lye upon that Hutton If a promise to enter into an Obligation there ought to be a reasonable sum as the Case requires for it And in this Case it being in a Statute which is more penal than an Obligation I conceive the same sum of 72 l. will serve And for the time of the delivery of the possession It ought to be in convenient time or upon request As 2 H. 6. And the Law adjudges of the inconveniences of time And although that he fails in the sum of his promises the end of his promise is good enough and the other is not concluded by that Action But he might allege other considerations in actions brought by him Yelverton There is but one promise against another And the sum in the Statute ought to be the same sum As the Case where an Annuity is granted of 20 l. untill the Grantee be advanced to a benefice That ought to be a benefice of the same value But I doubt whether it should be double Harvey It is there by way of promise And then one promise is the consideration of another and there is no breach for it ought to be upon request And then the Action being brought upon that side the request cannot be alleged and one promise good against another Then be the sum what it will ought the Defendant to be bound single or double The Assumpsit not being performed all agreed that the Action well lies A Verdict against an Infant NOte that it was said If a verdict pass against an Infant and the Defendant dies after verdict and it is shewn Iudgement shall not be given against him For the Court does not give Iudgement against a dead man and that is matter apparent and the other is doubtfull matter Fortescue against Jobson A Man seised of certain Lands hath Issue two Sons and devises one part of his Land to the eldest Son and his Heirs and the residue to the youngest Son and his Heirs And if both dye without Issue that then it shall be sold by his Executors and dyes The eldest Son dies without Issue And the opinion of Hutton That the Executors could not sell any part before that both are dead For the youngest Son hath an Estate tayl in Remainder in the part of his eldest Brother So that the Executors cannot sell it And if they do sell it yet that shall not prejudice the younger Brother So long as he hath Heirs of his Body Richardson said That although that the eldest Son aliens and after dies without Issue That the Exâ—…cutors may make sale For that that no interest was given to them But only an Authority to sell the Lands Dicksons Case A Writ de partitione fac against two the one appears and grants the Partition the other makes default Hutton said a Writ shall issue to the Sheriff to make Partition but cesset executio untill the other comes For Partition cannot be by Writ but between the whole Otherwise it is of Partition by agreement Rothwells Case IF a Man makes a Lease for life and the Lessee for life makes a Lease for years And afterwards purchases the reversion and dies within the Term yet the Lease for years is determined And the Heir in reversion may oust him and avoid But if one will make a Lease for years where he had nothing and afterwards purchases the Land and the Lessor dies If that be by Deed indented The Heir shall be estopped to avoid it By Hutton Crook and Richardson Sir Charles Foxes Case THe Case of Sir Charles Fox was now moved again by Henden It was objected that there ought to be an express demand at the day or otherwise he ought not to distreyn But first it appears that he had a good Title to the Rent then there being a verdict found he ought to have Iudgement upon the Statute But not admit that Yet the Demand is good for the words are legitime petit and no time expressed And although the Demand is after the day yet it is sufficient for all the arrerages for the words are tunc et ibidem but c. And the Difference is between the Demand which intitles to the Action and to the thing it self Maunds Case 7 Rep. 20. 40 Eliz. between Stanley and Read Where it was agreed That the day
Rent 5 R. 2. Annuity 21. Debitum Judex non leperat Then when it does not appear that the Action lyes for the 15. s. for the half year and the Iury assessed Damages intirely it is voyd as 10 Rep. 130. Osborns Case And it appears that by his computation of time it is not a year and an half from the time of the Assumpsit made Richardson said That it is not secundum ratum for then he might divide the Rent and no day is limited for the payment of it for if a Lease be made for two years or at will paying annually at Michaelmas 30. s. and the Lease is determined after half of the year although that it be by the Lessee himself he cannot make any Rent But Yelverton said that that is not a Rent but a collaterall sum And debt does not lye for that And in the Declaration it is said Quod permisit ipsum reentrare and does not say what time which was nought by all but Hutton And it ought to be also that he did de facto re-enter Hutton said There being it is said So long as you shall occupy the Land you shall pay annually c. That he may demand half of the year But the whole Court against him and so Pro hoc tempore judgement was stayed Grange and his Wife against Dixon A Lease was made by Baron and Feme and another Feme and the Lessee Covenants by the same Indenture to find sufficient mans meat and horse meat to the Baron and Feme and to the other Feme or to their Servants at their coming to London at his house in Southwark The Baron and Feme dye and the other Feme takes an husband The Opinion of the Iustices was that he was not bound to find sustenance for the husband but only for the wife or for her servants and not for both at one and the same time because the Covenant was in the disjunctive But it was doubted if he shall find them Victualls for one meal only at their coming or for all the time of their staying there Johnson against Williams and Uxor IT wad said If an Obligation be made by a Feme sole and afterwards she takes an husband and an Action of debt be brought upon that Obligation against the Baron and Feme and they deny the Deed the Baron shall be taken for the Fine as well as the wife for the wife had nothing whereof to pay the Fine And so in Trespasse against Baron and Feme dum sola fuit and they are both found guilty both shall be taken for the Fine which the Prothonotaryes agreed Jeakill against Linne IN a Writ of Covenant the Plaintiff counts upon an Indenture of Lease of the Parsonage of Dale by which the Defendant Covenanted to pay him the Rent the which he had not payed And the Defendant said that before any day of payment of the said Rent incurred one A. Ordinary of the same place sequestred the said Parsonage for non payment of the first fruits Iudgement If an Action c. And by the Court that is not a Plea for he does not shew that any Act was done by the Plaintiff himself in his default Nor he does not confesse and avoid the interest of the Lessor as to say that the Lessor was a disseisor and made a Lease to him after that the disseisee re-entred and so he might confesse and avoid the Lease notwithstanding the Deed indented But he cannot say that the Lessor had nothing at the time of the Lease made And if the Defendant had been bound in an Obligation for the payment of the said Rent in debt brought upon that that should not have been a Plea for he had bound himself to pay the said Rent And the occupation is not materiall where the Lease is for years or for life But otherwise of a Lease at will Davies against Fortescue IF a man it was said be seised of a Mannor whereof there are divers Copy-holders admittable for life or for years and he Leases the Mannor to another for term of life the Lessor may make a Demise by Copy in reversion to commence after the death of the first Copy-holders and that is good enough But the custome of some Mannors is to the contrary and that is allowed Doyly an Infants Case A Man seised of Lands makes a Feoffment in Fee by Deed indented rendring a Rent with a clause of Distresse and afterwards he is bound in a Statute and the day is incurred Vpon which an Execution is awarded to the Conusee and upon the Extent the Sheriff returns that the party was dead and that he had extended the said Rent And the heir of the Conusor being within age because the Rent was extended during his nonage brought an Audita querela and Hutton said That it is maintainable enough because there is an Exception in the Writ of Extent That if Land be descended to any Infant that the Sheriff shall surcease to extend And although that Writ issued against the party himself who made the Conisance yet when it appears by the return of the Sheriff that he is dead the Infant shall be aided by an Audita querela or otherwise the Extent shall be void which is made upon the possession of the Infant Jeffryes Case IN a Formedon the Plaintiff counts of a gift to his Father and to his heirs of his body ingendred during the life of I. S. and makes the descent to him during the life of I. S. And Yelverton seemed that the Writ is good enough for a Tayle may be made so determinable as well as a Fee simple And if a man Warrant Lands to the Feoffee and his heirs against him and his heirs during the life of I. S. That he had a Fee simple in the Warranty determinable upon the life of I. S. So here Warberlyes Case IN a Writ De valore maritagii it was moved by Henden If the Lord shall recover his Damages according to the value of the Land held of him only or according to all his Lands held also of others And Hutton and Crook said that the value of the Marriage shall be accounted as well in respect of the lands held of him as of other lands held of other Lords by Posteriority or in Soccage for there the woman by the Marriage to him shall be more advanced And the better the advancement is the better is the Marriage of the heir and the person more to be esteemed Norbery against Watkins ONe Devises the Mannor of S. to two and their heirs betwéen them to be equally divided so that they shall have part and portion alike If by that they have a Ioynt-tenancy or a Tenancy in common was the Question because there was an Act to be done for making the division And if the words had béen equally to be divided by I. S. it had béen clear that they had béen Ioynt-Tenants But Harvey said That upon such a gift made to them if the
stollen from him and that was sold in a Scriveners Shop Resolved that there was no change of the property For by intendment if a man had Drapery stollen from him he would not seck it there So if a man fells stollen Plate and sells it in the High street under his Cloak It does not change property And if a man sells a thing in a Silkmans Shop in London the Curtain being drawn That does not change the property And now to the principal Case Although he said that he was a Goldsmith and that that was his Shop It is not necessary to be intended that he used the Trade of a Goldsmith in it And that ought to be averred For every Shop is a Market overt for these Causes only which appertain to the same trade Williams against Bickerton VVIlliams brought an action upon the Case against Bickerton for saying He hath forsworn himself and I le teach him the price of an Oath for I will have his Ears cropt And it séemed that it lay For although it was not said at the beginning where it was that he forswore himself Yet by the circumstance it shews that he was in such a place for which it was punishable And M. 29 30 Eliz. Dantsleys Case Thou art a Pillary Knave remember that thou hast deserved the Pillary and the Action maintainable And the Plaintiff paid the Box for his Iudgement Bradyes against Johnson BRadye brought an Eject firm against Johnson and declared upon a Lease of Land habend a die dat Indentur praedict And does not speak of any Indenture before And for that the Declaration adjudged naught And so it was betwéen Bell and March. And this same term between Spark Where it was shewed quod concessit per eandem Indent Where he had not spoke of any Indenture before Lowen against Cocks IN Debt by Lowen against Cocks the Case was thus A man seised of an house in St. Edmonds Parish in Lumbard-street in London devises it to his wife for life the remainder to his Son George and if he dye without Issue then to Iohn and Thomas his Sons equally and to their Heirs The wife dyes George dyes without Issue l. and T. make a Lease for years rendring 5. l. to the one and 5. l. to the other l. devises the reversion to his wife and dyes and for that Rent the Action was brought by the Wife And the Question was if they shall be Ioynt or Tenants in Common For if joynt the devise of the Reversion is void And Secondly If by any Act which makes partition viz. the several Limitations of the rent to them If séemed to Hutton that they are Tenents in Common By reason of that word equally which in it self makes a Division In 33 Eliz. in Boucher against Marsh It was held that where a man devises Lands to three Children equally to be divided they are Tenents in Common And so it was 14 lac in case of Goods And it is clear as it is said If a Man devise 100 l. to two equally the Executors shall pay 50 l. to the one and 50 l. to the other For if that word equally does not make tenancy in Common it shall be all otherwise void And every word of a Will ought to be of some force And in these Cases the word divided was not the force of the matter but only equally And it was the Case of a Shepheard in the Courts of Wards Where a man devises that after the death of his Son all my woods shall remain equally to his Daughters and their Heirs of their bodies And it was there held by Dyer and Manwood that they were Tenents in Common If Parceners agrée to hold by That is sufficient partition And if the one Ioyntenant confirms to the other that does not give any thing but severs the Ioynture Harvey to the contrary First They are Ioint For Ioynture is the greatest equality for every one is seised by himself and the one hath as much of the profits as the other And so equal interest and equal benefit to the Survivor 6 E. 6. in Dyer A difference was taken between a Demise to two when it is said equally divided That they shall be Tenents in Common If equally to be divided they shall be joynt But it was never adjudged 17 Eliz. A man having 3 Sons devises Lands to them equally to be divided The Question was what estate they had For if the younger had not a fee they could not have an Estate equal with the eldest for he had a fee. Resolved that they shall have a fee-simple and also that they shall be Tenents in Common And held that to be divided and divided was all one And it was held also that the word divided makes the Tenancy in Common and not equally 2. As to that reserve of 50 l. to the one and 50 l. to the other clearly being a joynt Lease and a joynt reversion And the Rent as accessary to the reversion and shall not change the nature of it Yelverton They are Tenents in Common A Will shall be construed according to the intent of the Testator And exposition shall be made of the words to supply his intent Tomlins's Case IT was agreed by all That if one sojourn in the House of another and the House is broken in the night and the Stranger robbed in the House without being put in fear of his life In law He that robbed shall have his Clergy notwithstanding the Burglary For it is out of the Statute of 5 6 of E. 6. cap. 9. Dicksons Case AT Sergeants Inne in Chancery lane this Question was debated If a man steal Goods and the very Owner makes fresh sute to take the felon So that he waives the Goods and flies And before the Owner comes the Goods are seised as Goods waived and af-the Owner comes and challenges them Now if he shall have them or they shall be forfeited was the Question And it was held by Harvey and Crook That they are not at all forfeited for that the Owner had done his endeavour and pursued from village And that the Goods shall not be said to be waived but where it cannot be known to whom the property is Hutton Chief Iustice and Yellerton said That Goods waived shall be said those which are stollen and that the Felon being pursued for danger of apprehension waives and flies Now if they are seised before that the Owner comes the property is presently altered out of the Owner in the Lord although that he made fresh sute If that Sute was not within the view of the Felon allwaies But they all agreed if the Felon do as not flye but is apprehended with the Goods That then the Owner shall have his Goods without Question Or if the Owner comes and challenges the Goods before seisure and after the flight of the Felon Harvey said The Statute of 21 H. 8. cap. 13. does not remedy any thing as to the restitution of the Goods stollen But upon
the evidence of the party or by others by his procurement in the same manner As it was in an appeal upon a fresh sute at the Common-law It was said by all That although the custome was of Burgage lands in soccage Yet if the Lands came by gift or otherwise to tenure in Chief or service of Chivalry That that now changes not the Custome which alwaies goes with the Land and not with the tenure As the Lands in Gavelkind by the Custome are soccage tenure Yet if they are changed to service of Chivalry the Custome is not altered But that all the heirs shall inherit It was agreed by all That if sir persons compass and imagine to levy war against the King And there is an agreement betwéen them that two shall do such an act in such a Country and the other two another act in such a County And so divers acts by divers in several Counties for to assemble the people against the King And after two do the Act according to their purpose and assemble the people and the other do nothing Yet the Act done by two upon the agreement is Treason in all But otherwise it is if there had been only a compassing c. and not any agreement and afterwards one of them does the act unknowing to the others there it is not Treason but in those that doe the fact and not in the others As it happened in the Case betwéen the King and an other Wilkins against Thomas IT was adjudged upon good advise That if an Infant he impleaded by any precipe of his Lands And loses by defending Now he shall have a Writ of Error And because that he was within age at the time of the Iudgement it shall be reversed And the Infant shall be restored to all that he lost As it happened in the Case of John Ware against Anderson and others in the County of York lost while they were infra aetatem Where it appeared that they appeared by their Guardian admitted to them by the Court to the Grand cape and that they were within age But there was an inspection by Nurses and Friends and they were found not to be within age John Symons against Thomas Symons NOte it was said by all the Iustices That if the Disseisee enter upon the Feoffee or Lessee of the Disseisor That he shall not have an Action of the Trespass for the same Trespass against the Feoffee or Lessee Because that they come in by a Title And at Common law before the Statute of Gloc. No dammages for mean occupation against the Feoffee or Lessee Bromleys Case IF a man steal goods and be arraigned upon an Indictment of felony and the goods are valued to 6 s. and the Iury upon their verdict say That he is guilty of the said goods but that the value was but 6 d. That is a good verdict And the Iustices shall vanish him as for patty Larcenny In the same manner it is If a man be arraigned for willfull murther and the Iury find it but Manslaughter That is a good verdict by all the Iustices Pease against Thompson A Man seised of Lands in see makes a feoffment from that day to divers to the use of his Wife for her life and after to the use of the heirs of the body of the Feoffor The Feme dies and the Feoffor makes a Lease for years and dies Now her Issue shall not avoid that Lease because a man cannot have Heirs in his life So that at the time of the death of the Feme there was none to take by the remainder And for that the Feoffor had the fee the Lease is good and shall bind the Heir As if a Lease be made for life the Remainder to the right Heirs of I. S. and I. S. dies in the life of the Lessee then the remainder is good otherwise not but it shall revert But otherwise it shall be peradventure in such a Case in a demise Hillary 3 Car. Com. Banc. Skore against Randall SKore brought Debt against Randall and recovered and had execution by Elegit and it was found by the Inquisition that the Defendant was seised of the moyety of a Messuage and Lands for life and other Lands in right of his Wife And the Sheriff returns that virtute brevis et deliberat feci meditatem omnium praemissorum cum pertinentiis c. Nec non duo pomaria nec non unum clausum vocat c. And that he had delivered the moyety of the Lands in right of his Wife and his Chattells and recites them and that Elegit was filed And the Question was whether he might have a new Elegit Because that the Sheriff ought to have delivered to him the moyety of the moyetic of the Lands held in Ioint-tenancy So that the Tenent by Elegit might be Tenant in Common for a fourth part with the Ioynt tenants as it was agreed But also by that Delivery he had but in effect the eighth part For the other Ioynt-tenants may occupy the Land delivered with him in Common Richardson said For part of the Lands and goods in right of his Wife the return is good And being filed he cannot have a new Election For if part shall be evicted you cannot have a new Extent upon the Estate But if it had been in the Genitive Case Duorum pomorariorum c. it had been good But it was granted by the Court That the Plaintiff makes a surmise that the Sheriff male se gessit in the Execution of that Elegit and then he may have a new Elegit at his peril c. Edward Thomas against John Morgan et al. EDward Thomas brought an Ejectione firmae against Morgan Kemmis and others and upon Not guilty pleaded a speciall Verdict was given to this effect for Morgan and Kemmis for the other some were dead before issue and the other not guilty and they found a Iudgement dated 12 Sept. 23 Eliz. and deliver'd the 15 Iunii next ensuing Which was between the then Bishop of St. Davids of the one part and Richard Thomas of the other part And it was in consideration of a Marriage to be had between him and the Daughter of the Bishop That before the end of Hillary Term next ensuing he would levy a Fine of all those Lands and all the other lands in Mountmouth and that should be to Thomas Morgan and Roger Sise of Lincoln-Inne And that he suffered a recovery with double voucher to the uses in the Indenture But the words are that the Conusees should stand seised to the use And by Atthowe the Recovery is idle for the uses shall be executed and then there shall be no Tenant to the Precipe viz. That of all the Lands mentioned in the Indenture Morgain and Sise shall stand seised to the only uses hereafter c. that is to say They shall be seised of in part of the Lands and Tenements that is so much thereof as shall amount to the clear value of
arrear that the Remainder shall be to a Stranger that Remainder is not good Hutton said that in my opinion my Brother Atthow spoke well and so it was affirmed Bateman against Ford. AN action of the Case was brought against Ford who had called the Plaintiff Thief and that he had stollen from him a yard of Velvet and a yard of Damask The Defendant said that he said that the Plaintiff had taken and bribed from him as much mony as he had for a yard of Velvet and Damask and justifies Hitcham said that the Iustification is not good For the words that he justifies do not amount to so much as to affirm a Felony in the Plaintiff where the Plaintiff counts that the Defendant slandered him of a Felony Hutton said What difference is there when you say that I have bribed your Horse and when you say that I have robbed you of your Horse Henden one may take Goods and yet it is not felony Termino Pasc Anno 4. Car. Regis Com. Banc. Norris against Isham IN an Eject firm by Norris against Isham These things happened in Evidence to the Iury. First it was cited by Richardson and Hutton to be Hurtltons Case That an Eject firm cannot be of a Mannor Because that there cannot be an Ejectment of the Services But if they do express further a quantity of acres it is sufficient It was said by Crook Iustice and not denyed That if a Lease is made of 5 acres to try a Title in an â—…eject firm And of the 3 acres he will make a lease But in the other a he will not If the livery be in the 3 acres the other 2 does not pass Part of the Evidence was That the Countess of Salisbury being seised of the Lands in Question makes a Lease of them by words of Demise Bargain and Sale to Iudge Crook for a Month to begin the 29 September habendum a datu and it was deliveted the 3 of September And the same day he bargains and sells the Reversion Davenport Because that no Entry appears by the Lessees by vertue of the Demise he submitted to the Court If there was any such Reversion in the Grantor he bring in possession And this difference was a greed That if one demises Lands for years and Grants the Reversion before Entry of the Lessée The Grant is void As it is in Saffins Case Cook 5. 12. 46. But if a man bargain and sell for years and grants the Reversion before Entry of the Lessee it is good For the Statute transfers the Possession to the use As if a man bargain and sells in fee or for life and the Deed is inrolled The Bargainee is in possession of the Frank-tenement And so it is of a Lease for years which is a Chattell And by Crook In the Court of Wards that very point was resolved Davenport Also there are words of Demise and Bargain and Sale before which the Lessee had his Election to take by which he would As Sir Rowland Heyards Case is But by Hutton and it was not denyed He should be in by the Bargain and Sale before Election For that is more for his advantage Further the Evidence was That George Earl of Salisbury made a Lease of those Lands which were a Mannor And makes a Conveyance from himself for life with divers Remainders and then to the use of the Daughter or Daughters of the said George And the heirs males of thrir bodies the remainder to the heirs of the body of the said George c. and had 3 Daughters to whom the Remainder The first dyed without Issue the 2 d. dyed having Issue male the 3 d. bargains sells all her half part and pur part to Edw. Earl of Salisbury Who now being seised of a third part of the Estate of Inheritance and of the other two parts for his life and the lives of the 3 Daughters suffers a common recovery by the name of the moyety of the Mannor And the doubt was what passed Richardson By that there is not passed but the moyety of the third part Hutton Crook and Yeiverton were on the contrary opinion and said that by that All the third part passed also Yelverton If a man be seised of the mannor of Dale and buys half for life of another in fee and makes a Feoffment of the half of the Mannor The moyety which he had in Fee shall pass And there shall be a forfeiture for no part Which was agreed by the Court. If a man be seised of the third part and grants the moyety perhaps the moyety of the third part only passes But he is seised of all Richardson There are several Estates and moyety goes to that Estate which he had in the Mannor For when I grant more than I can grant that which passes passes Crook I had the third part of a Mannor and grant the moyety of the Mannor all my third part passes But in the Bargain and Sale the words were part et pur part Which as it was passed all And also the Covenant to the Lessor The Recovery was of the half part pur part And by Hutton Crook Yelverton All was intended to be recovered And then the word Moyety carries that tresbien Richardson That Indentures of Covenant much mends the Case Another Question upon the Evidence was Whether when a Bargain and sale is made of Lands And the Bargainee before inrollment makes a Lease for years and afterwards it is enrolled If the Lease now be good Richardson and Yelverton It shall be that although it be after acknowledgement and before inrollment yet it is naught And by Yelverton and Crook it was so adjudged in Bellingham and Hortons Case That if one sells in fee and before inrollment the Bargainee bargains and sells to another And afterwards comes an Inrollment That second Bargain and sale is void And an other Question was Pasc 4. Car. Com. Banc. If one makes a Lease for years by Indenture of Lands which he had not If the Iury be estopped to find that no Lease And by Richardson If the finding that no Lease be subject to an attaint But they should find the special matter And then the Iudges would judge that a good Lease And Sergeant Barkley cited Rawlins's Case Coo. 4. 43. to that purpose Crook and Hutton against him And Crook said That it was adjudged in London in Samms case That that is not an Estoppel to the Iury. Which was affirmed by Hutton And that they may find the special matter And then the Iudges ought to find that it is not a good Lease And Hutton said That there is a difference between a special Verdict and pleading in that case For in speciall pleading and Verdict is confost by all parties That he had not any thing in the Lease And then the Iudges gave Iudgment accordingly The King against Clough IN the case of a Quare impedit by the King against Clough before Richardson shewed how the Quare