Replevin against Edmund Brach and others the Defendant made Conulance as Baily to John Levison and said that long time before the taking c. one William Coup was seised of a house and eight acres of Meadow c. whereof the place is parcell in his Demesne as of Fee and did demise the same to Richard Coup for one and twenty years reserving Rent and the Lessee died and the Land came to his Wife as his Executrix who married Roger Owseley and that William Coup did levy a Fine of the Premisses to Stephen Noke and others to the use of Stephen and his Heires and after Stephen entred and outed the Termor and infeoffed John Leveson and his Heires and then the Termor re-enters claiming his Terme and for Rent arreare the Defendant made Counsans as aforesaid and it was adjudged against the Defendant because this entry and Feoffment by Noke to Leveson and the re-entry of the Termor is no Attornment and this varies from Littleberries case where the Lessor entred and made a Feoffment and the Lessee re-entred for Noke the Lessor had not any Attornment and can have no Distresse and his Feoffee cannot be in better case then he himself And if the first Feoffee makes Feoffment to B. who enfeoffs C. and the Lessee re-enters that is Attornment but to the first Feoffee and not the other for he may be misconusant of it because he was outed by the Lessor but note Iudgment was not given till Trin. 36 Eliz. Pasch 36 Eliz. in C. B. Owens Case EDward Owen brought an Action of Waste against Peerce for land in ancient Demesne the Defendant made defence and pleaded to the Iurisdiction of the Court because the land was ancient Demesne and the Defendant was ruled to plead over for it is but a personall Action and the Statute is a beneficiall Statute for the Common-wealth and by the opinion of all the Court except Walmsley does extent to ancient Demesne 40 Ed. 3.4 Ancient Demesne is a good plea in Replevin 2 H. 7.17.21 Ed. 4.3 it is no good plea in an action upon the Statute or Glocester Mich. 33 and 34 Eliz. in C. B. Rot. 2122. Sir Edward Cleeres Case SIr Edward Cleere brought a Quare Impedit against the Bishop of Norwich Edward Peacock and Robert Hinston Clerk to present to an Addowson holden in Capite Anderson A Devise of an Addowson in grosse is void because it is of annuall value whereof the King shall have the third part But Owen Beaumont and Walmsley held the contrary and so it it was adjudged See the Case of the Earle of Huntington against the Lord of Montjoy of a Devise of Liberties of Cramford which were not of any annuall value and yet the opinion of Wray and Anderson Iustices was certified to some of the Councell being Arbitrators that the Devise was not good Trin. 36 Eliz. in C. B. Rot. 2145. Brownes Case ANthony Brown brought an Action of Trespasse against Richard Pease the Case was this John Warren was seised in fee of the Mannor of Warners and of the Mannor of Cherchall and demised his Mannor of Warners to the youngest Son of Richard Foster his Cosin in fee. at which time Richard the Father had issue George Foster and John Foster And he demised his Mannor of Cherchall in haec verba I will my Mannor of Cherchall to Margery Water for her life and if she die and then any of my Cosin Fosters Sons then living then I will my foresaid Mannor of Cherchall unto him that shall have my Manner of Warners and after the Devisor died without issue and the Reversion of the Mannor of Cherchall discended to Henry Warner as Brother and Heire of the Devisor And after the said Henry Warner by Deed Inrolled did bargain and sell the Mannor of Cherchall to Anthony Browne who devised it to the Plaintiff And then George Foster dies without issue and the Mannor of Warners does discend to Iohn Foster his Brother and Heire who enters and enfeoffs the Lord Rich and after marriage the Tenant for life of the Mannor of Cherchall dies and the Plaintiff enters and the Defendant enters upon him as Servant to Iohn Foster whereupon the Plaintiff brought this Action And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff because that the words and the intent of the Devise was that the Mannors of Warners and Cherchall should go together and therefore the Mannor of Warners was sold before the death of Margery by John Foster and after the death of Margery John can take nothing by the Devise Mich. 29 and 30 Eliz. Rot. 2325. or 2929. Hambletons Case JOhn Hambleton had issued foure Sons John the eldest Robert the second Richard the third and Thomas the fourth and devised to each of them a parcell of land to them and the Heirs Males of their body begotten and if it happen that any of their Heirs dye without issue Male of his body lawfully begotten then the Survivor to be each others Heire If these words make a Remainder or are void was the question And it was adjudged against the Plaintiff for the Court held that all those that survived were Ioynt-tenants and one Ioynt-Tenant cannot have a Trespasse against the other for by the intent of the Will it appears that the Survivors should have that part and the survivority of each other Heire each Survivor that is all that survive shall be each others Heire and so the remainder should be to every one of them 29 Eliz. Fenners Case argued before the Lord Mayor of London at Guildhall IN this Case it was adjudged that if a man Covenants that his Son then within age and infra annos nubiles before such a day shall marry the Daughter of I.S. and he does marry her accordingly and after at the age of consent he disagrees to the marriage yet is the Covenant performed for it is a marriage and such a one as the Covenantee would have untill the disagreement vide 7 H. 6.12 Dyer 143.313 369. 25 Eliz. Webbe against Potter IN an Ejectione firmae by Webbe against Potter the Case was Harris gave Land in Frank-marriage to one White and the Deed was Dedi concessi Iohan. White in liberum maritagium Iohannae filiae meae habend dictae Ioannae heredibus in perpetuum tenend de capitalibus Dominis feodi illius with Warranty to Iohn White and his Heires Periam The usuall words in Frank-marriage shall not be destroyed for the words of Frank-marriage are Liberum maritagium cum Ioanna filia mea in the Ablative case and although here it be in the Dative case it is good And of the same opinion were all the Iudges Also a Gift in Frank-marriage made after the Espousals was held good by all the Iustices 2 H. 3. Donor 199.4 Ed 3.8 Dyer 262 B. And a Gift in Frank-marriage before the Statute was a Fee-simple but now speciall taile and if it be not a Frank-marriage he shall have an Estate for life and to prove this his
therefore the Action shall continue And if a man be outlawed he may bring an Action as Executor and the Writ shall not abate Browne If I make I.S. my Attorney and he the Warrant of Attorney still continuing is made a Knight yet is not the Warrant of Attorney determined although the word Knight which is now part of his name be not in the Warrant therefore in this case the Writ is good Mich. 7 Eliz. NOte it was said by Browne that if H. does let the Cite of his Mannor with all his Lands to the said Mannor appurtenant hereby all the Demesne lands do passe but if it were with all the Lands appertaining to the said Cite nothing passeth but the Mannor-place Pasch 6 Eliz. A Man seised of the Mannor of Dale doth let the same with all the Members and Appurtenances to the same to have and to hold all the members of the said Mannor to the Lessee for terme of years Walsh and Weston were of opinion that this was a Lease for years of the Mannor onely and that the limitation of the word Members being after the Habendum was void But Dyer and Browne were of the contrary opinion And Browne said that when the Habendum is used by way of limitation it shall not be void As if he let his Mannor of Dale to have and to hold one acre parcell thereof for a terme of years the Lease is void for all but if there had been no Habendum but the Lease for years had been limited in the Premisses of the Lease that is good enough And if the Lease had been Habendum every part thereof that had been a good Lease of the Mannor for all the parts comprehend all the Mannor And Dyer said that the word Members shall be taken for the Townes and Hamblets wherein the Mannor hath Iurisdiction Note it was said by Dyer that if partition be made by the Sheriff although the Writ be not returned yet it is good enough and none of the parties shall except against it and so was the better opinion concerning the Estate of Culpeper and Navall in the County of Kent Sutton brought a Writ of Ravishment of a Ward against Robinson wherein it was resolved by Dyer Carus Weston and Benlowes That if the Tenant enfeoff his Lord and others all the Seigniory is extinct also if the Tenant does infeoff the Lord but of a Moyety yet is all the Seigniory extinct And Dyer said that if the Tenant does infeoff the Lord and a stranger to the use of another and his Heires and makes Livery to the stranger this is no extinguishment of the Seigniory but if the Livery were made to the Lord it is otherwise and yet is the possession instantly carried away to the stranger by the Statute of 2 H. 7.13 A man seised of lands devises the same to his Wife to dispose and imploy them for her self and her Son according to her will and pleasure Dyer Weston and Walson held that the Wife had a Fee-simple by the Intendment of the Will and the Estate is conditionall for ea intentione will make a Condition in a Devise but not in Grant vide Dyer 2â— 6 A woman Tenant in taile makes a Lease for one and thirty years and after takes a Husband who have issue the Husband being Tenant by the Curtesie surrenders the Heirs doth oust the Lessee and the Lessee brings an Ejectment And it was held that the Surrender was good and that the Privity was sufficient Mich. 40 Eliz. IN an Action of the Case for calling one Bastard Dyer and Walsh said an Action would lye but Browne on the contrary because it shall be tried in the Spirituall Court And Dyer said That at Barwick Assises a Formedon in the Discender was brought and one said that his Father by whom he claimed was a Bastard and thereupon he brought an Action against him for those words and recovered Catlin said That if Lands be given to a man and to the Heires he shall engender on the body of an English woman and he marries a French woman and she dies and then he marries an English woman that now this is a good Estate in special taile Pasch 7 Eliz. THe Prior and Monks of the Charter-house before the dissolution made a Lease for foure years reserving the ancient rent of twenty five Quarters of Wheat per annum and then the house was surrendered into the hands of King Henry the eighth and then the Lord Chancellor did let the said rent of twenty five Quarters of Wheat to I.S. for foure and twenty years And it came into question between I.S. and the Termor if this was warranted by the 27 H 8.28 Harper and Portrell it is not for the Statute is that they may make Leases of any Mannors Lands Tenements and Hereditaments for one and twenty years c. and this Wheat is neither Land Tenement nor Hereditament but a Chattell and shall be demanded in an Action of debt But the opinion of all the Court was that the Lease was good and they did agree that it was directly within the word Hereditaments for it may discend or escheat and the wife shall be endowed thereof Also upon a Lease of Corne a Rent may be referved for a man may reserve a Rent upon a Lease of a Rent and the Rent is not parcell of the Reversion but onely incident thereunto and the Lessor hath the same inheritance therein as he hath in the Reversion Trin. 7 Eliz. AN assurance was made to a woman to the intent it should be for her Ioynture but it was not so expressed in the Deed. And the opinion of the Court was that it might be averred that it was for a Ioynture and that such averment was not traversable and so was it in the case between the Queen and Dame Beaumont Winter brought an Action of the Case against Barnam for these words viz. Thou Murtherer Dyer and Walsh said that the Action would lye for there are some words that cannot be qualified as Murtherer Theef Extortioner false Knave and in such Case an Action will lye but contrary where such words are spoken in a jesting way Note by Dyer that the Lord Fitz-James late Lord chief Iustice of England did devise his land to Nicholas Fitz-James in taile with divers remainders over and in the same devise he devised divers Iewels and peeces of Plate viz. the use of them to the said Nicholas Fitz-James and the Heires Males of his body In this case it was the opinion of the Court that the said Nicholas had no property in the said plate but onely the use and occupation And the same Law where the Devise was that his Wife should inhabit in one of his houses which he had for terme of years during her life because the Wife takes no interest in the terme but onely an occupation and usage out of which the Executors cannot eject her during her life but Walsh held the contrary Hil. 8 Eliz. IF a Bishop
that when he is sued as King at armes in such case wherein his Office or other thing belonging to his Office comes in question then he ought to be named according to his Patent but when he is sued as I.S. then it is sufficient to name him by his proper name Popham Vpon the creation of any Deanery which is ordained and granted by Patent of the King the Dean shall sue and be sued by the name of Dean of such a place yet if such Dean doth sue or is sued about any matter concerning his naturall capacity it is not necessary to name him Dean Fenner But this is a name of dignity and by his installation is made parcell of his name and if a man be made a Knight in all Actions he shall be so named wherefore it seemed to him that the Writ ought to abate Et Adjournetur Hil. 37 Eliz. Hugo against Paine HUgo brought a Writ of Error against Paine upon a Iudgment given in the Common Pleas upon a Verdict the Error assigned was That one Tippet was returned in the Venire facias but in the Habeas Corpus and the Distringas he was named Tipper and so another person then was named in the Venire tryed the issue Curia Examine what person was sworne and what was his true name to which it was answered that his name was Tippet according to the Venire facias and that he was summoned to appeare to be of the Iury and he inhabits in the same place where Tipper was named and that no such man as Tipper inhabited there and therefore it was awarded by the Court that the Habeas Corpus and Distringas should be amended and his true name put in and Iudgment was affirmed c. Hil. 38 Eliz. Rot. 944. Rainer against Grimston RAiner brought an Action of the case against Grimston in the Kings Bench for these words He was perjured and I will prove him so by two Witnesses without speaking in what Court he was perjured and the Plaintiff had Iudgment and upon Error brought by the Defendant it was moved that the words were not actionable But in the Exchequer Chamber the first Iudgment was affirmed Hil. 39 Eliz. Rot. 859. Chandler against Grills IN a Trespasse the parties were at issue and a Venire facias was awarded on the Roll returnable Octabis Trinitat and the Venire was made six daies after the day of Octabis returnable at a day out of the terme and the Distringas was made and the Iury Impanelled and a Verdict and Iudgment for the Plaintiff And in a Writ of Error brought this matter was assigned And the first Iudgment affirmed for this is aided by the Statute being it is the default of the Clark and the case was cited between Thorne and Fulshaw in the Exchequer Chamber Mich. 38 39 Eliz. where the Roll being viewed and the Venire not good it was mended and made according to the Roll being that which warrants it and is the act of the Court and the other matter but the mistake of the Clarks But if the Roll were naught then it is erroneous because the Venire is without warrant and no Record to uphold it and so was it held in the case of Water Hungerford and Besie Hil. 39 Eliz. During against Kettle DUring brought an Action against Kettle after a Tryall by Verdict in London and in Arrest of Iudgment it was alledged that the Venire facias is Regina vicecomit London salut praecipimus tibi quod c. where it should be praecipimus vobis c. But ruled by the Court that this Venire being as it were a Iudiciall Writ that ought to ensue the other proceedings it was holden to be amendable and so it was accordingly Pasch 39 Eliz. East against Harding IT was moved Whether if a Lord of a Mannor makes a Lease for years after a Copyholder commits a Forfeiture the Lessee for years shall take advantage hereof and it was said by Popham that the Feoffee or Lessee shall have advantage of all Forfeitures belonging to Land as in case of Feoffment and the like but on the contrary for not doing of Fealty Mich. 39 Eliz. Collins against Willes THe Father makes a promise to Willes that if he would marry his Daughter to pay him 80 l. for her portion but Willes demanded a 100 l. or else did refuse to marry her wherupon the daughter prayed her Father to pay the 100 l. and in consideration therof she did assure him to pay him 20 l. back again The 100 l. is paid and the marriage took effect And the Father brought his Action on the case against the Husband and Wife for the 20 l. Gawdy and Fenner said that the Action would lye but Popham held the consideration void Mich. 39 and 40 Eliz. Penn against Merivall IN an Ejectment the Case was If a Copyholder makes a Lease for years which is a forfeiture at the Common Law and after the Lord of a Mannor makes a Feoffment or a Lease for years of the Freehold of this Copyhold to another if the Feoffee or Lessee shall take advantage hereof was the question Popham He shall not for the lease of the Freehold made by the Lord before entry is an assent that the Lessee of the Copyholder shall continue his Estate and so is in nature of an affirmance and confirmation of the Lease to which Clench and Fenner agreed and therefore upon motion made by Yelverton Serjeant and Speaker of the Parliament Iudgment was given Quod querens nihil caplat per Billam Mich. 6 Eliz. ONe enters a plaint in a base Court to pursue in the nature of a writ of entry in the Post and had Summons against the party untill such a day at which time and after Sun-set the Steward came and held the Court and the Summons was returned served and the party made default and Iudgment given the question was If the Iudgment was good Dyer Welch and Benlowes held the Iudgment good although the Court was held at night and Dyer said that if it were erroneous he could have no remedy by Writ of false Iudgment nor otherwise but onely by way of petition to the Lord and he ought in such case to do right according to conscience for he hath power as a Chancellor within his own Court Lane against Coups IN an Ejectment by John Lane against Coup and the Plaintiff declared on a Lease made by William Humpheston the Case was William Humpheston being seised of land in see suffered a common recovery to the use of himself and his wife for life the remainder Seniori puero de corpore Gulielmi Humpheston and to the Heirs Males of the body dicti senioris pueri Plowden One point is that when a remainder is limitted Seniori puero in tail if Puer shall be intended a Son or a Daughter also and methinks it shall be intended a Son onely for so are the words in common and usuall speech and words in Deeds ought to be
Devise did occupy land for 20 years and after the Devise was adjudged voyd he that had right to the land brought an account against him and adjudged that it does not lye Harper contr For an account does lye against a Proctor and the Plaintiff may charge him as Proctor and it is no Plea for him to say that he did not occupy as Proctor no more than it is a Plea for him who occupies as Guardian to say he was not the prochein amy Dyer There are three Actions of Account 1. Against a Baily 2. Against a Receiver 3. Against a Guardian in socage and if an Account be brought against one as Receiver he ought to charge him with the receipt of money and I conceive that there ought to be a privity to charge one with the receipt of money but if one claim as Baily or as Guardian in socage he is chargeable in account but an Abator or a Disseisor is not because they pretend to be owners and in this case because by the setting forth the Tithes the property is in the Parson therefore he being Lessee for years he shall have an ejectione firma and not an Account Hillar 32 34 Eliz. Carter against Kungstead in C. B. Rotulo 120. IN a Trespass the Iury gave this special Verdict John Berry was seizin of the Mannour of Stapeley in Odiam and of other lands in Odiam and the 32 H. 8. suffered a common recovery of all his lands in Odiam Stapeley and Winkfield to the use of himself and his wife for life the remainder to the heirs males of his body quod â—lterius starent of the Mannour of Stapeley with the appurtenances to the use of himself for life the remainder to the heirs males of his body whereby they were seized prout Lex postulat The husband dyes the wife makes a Lease for 19 years and whether the Mannour of Stapeley were conveyed or not was the question Harris She shall have all for when the whole estate is limited at the beginning of a Deed it shall not be abridged afterwards Periam The estate is by way of use which shall be expounded according to the intent and will of the Limiter and if this had been done by will it is clear the woman should not have the Mannour of Stapeley Anderson If I devise my land to J.S. and afterwards by the same Will I devise it to J.D. now J.S. shall have nothing because it was my last Will that J.D. should have it But otherwise it is of a use for if I do limit an estate to the use of J.S. and in the last clause do limit the same estate to J.D. the limitation to J.D. is voyd for the repugnancy Periam As to the case of the Will I conceive it is voyd to both because it cannot be known who shall have it Anderson I am sure the Law hath been taken as I have said and there was a Case in the Vpper Bench where a man one day made part of his Will and another day made another part which was repugnant to the first part and adjudged that the last was good and the first voyd Periam I agree to this Case for here is a difference in time Anderson So is there in my Case for when I am writing my Will I am thinking how I shall dispose of my estate and it shall be intended that I have least advised concerning that which I have done last Walmesley A Vse is not to be compared to a Will for the Statute of 27 H. 8. hath made it an estate and then by the 19 of Edw. 3. If a man limits an estate at the beginning of a Deed he cannot after abridge it Periam I put this Case If a man covenants upon consideration to be seized to the use of himself for life and after to the use of his son but he further sayes that his meaning is his wife shall have it for her life this is not a voyd Clause but good to the wife and the Case was adjourned till next Term. And Harris argued again and said that a Vse was but matter of trust and for that it is apparent that the intention was that the wife should have nothing there is no reason that another construction should be made Walmesley The limitation of the Vse is but a declaration how the Vse shall be and does not give any thing and the opinion of the Court was against the Plaintiff who was Lessee of the woman and that the last Clause does countermand the first as to the Mannour of Stapeley Michael 31 32 Eliz. Brokesbyes Case in C. B. Rot. 18.15 BArtholomew Brokesby brought a Quare impedit and it appeared by his Declaration that the next avoydance was granted to him and one Humphrey Brokesby and then the Church became voyd and Humphrey did release to Bartholomew totum statum titulum c. and then Bartholomew being disturbed brought a Quare impedit in his name alone Harris The Plaintiff shall be barred for the other shall be named with him for the Release is voyd for when the Church becomes voyd it is a thing in action and of privity and confidence and cannot be released nor transferred Dyer 283. a. 28 H. 8.26 a. Where it is said that it cannot be granted over no more than an Executor may release his Executorship to his companion Beaumont In my opinion it is not a Chose in action but an interest which the Executors have and by the 14 H. 4. and 14 H. 6. If a man be seized of an Advowson in the right of his wife and the Church is voyd and the wife dyes yet the husband shall present which proves it is not a Chose in action for in the 49 Edw. 3.23 the husband shall not have an obligation that was made to his wife and in our case by this avoydance the Church is become an interest and a Chattell and therefore one Ioyntenant may release to another by reason of their privity although they have no possession Fenner The release is Totum Statum jus titulum but here he hath no estate nor possession and therefore the release is void And to prove that there is no estate nor possession it is proved by the pleadings of the grant of the next avoydance for he shews that the Church became voyd and that ea ratione pertinet ad ipsum presentare and not by force whereof he was possest and if none hath the advowson which becomes voyd and the Lord claymes the advowson yet he shall not have the present avoydance and as to the case of the Ioyntenants one cannot release to the other for default of possession for the release inanes by reason of their joynt possession which is out of them but release of the Demandant to the Vouchee is good by reason of the privity of Law that is betwixt them and in 11 H. 4. He who hath right after the Incumbent is instituted and inducted may confirme his
that it was enacted by the Major of London and common Councel that if any Citizen takes the Son of an Alien to be his Apprentice that the Covenants and Obligations shall be void and he shewed that he was the Son of an Alien and became an Apprentice to the Plaintiff who is a Citizen and made the Covenants with him for his Apprentiship And demanded Iudgment And it was held no Bar for notwithstanding the Act the Covenant is good for it is the Act of the Defendant although the Act of the Common Councell be against it but the said Act may inflict punishment on any Citizen that breakes it And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Trin. 41 Eliz. in B. R. Knotts against Everstead LEssee for life the remainder for life the remainder in taile he in the reversion who had the fee does enter and enfooffs the Lessee for years and adjudged that by this Feoffment Nihil operatur Popham said that he who hath a term cannot license another that hath nothing in the land to make a Feoffment for he who hath the Freehold wants nothing but possession to make a good Livery but in this case he who makes the Livery had not the Freehold and therefore the license is void But Tanfeild said that if Lessee for life gives leave to a stranger to make Livery it is void but if he consent that the stranger shall make a Feoffment it shall amount to a Disseisin and the Feoffment is good Which was denied by the Court. And Clench said if a Lessee for ten years makes a Lease for one year to him in reversion there he in the reversion who hath the land for a year may make a Feoffment to the Lessee for ten years and it is good Trin. 41 Eliz. Moyle against Mayle MOyle brought an Action of Waste against Mayle and declared that he had leased to him a Mannor and a Warren and that he had destroyed a Cony-borough and subverted it and assigned otherwastes in cutting down certain Thornes Williams The Action of waste will well lye and said that a Warren consisted or two things of a place of Game and of liberty and to prove that a waste did lye for a liberty he cited the Statute of Magna Charta Cap. 5. in which a Warren is intended also the Statute of Marlebridge cap. 24. and the Statute Articuli super Chartas cap. 18. by which Statutes it is evident that a waste does lie for Warrens and a Warren is more then a liberty for a Writ lies Quare warrenam suam intravit and by the 12 H. 8. if Lessee of a Warren does break the Pale it is a waste also if Lessee of a Pigeon-house stop the holes so that the Pigeons cannot build a waste doth lye as it hath been adjudged Also if Lessee of a Hop yard ploweth it up and sowes Graine there it is waste as it hath been adjudged Also the breaking a Weare is waste and so of the Banks of a Fish-pond so that the water and fish run out To all which cases the Court agreed except to the principal For the Court held it was not waste to destroy Cony-boroughs for wast will not lye for Conies because a man hath not inheritance in them and a man can have no property in them but only possession and although by a speciall Law Keepers are to preserve the land they keep in the same plight they found it yet thiâ— does not bind every Lessee of land Walmsley The subversion of Cony-boroughs is not waste and it was usuall to have a waste against those who made holes in land but not against those who stop them up because therby the land is made better And it was said that to dig for stones was a waste unlesse in an ancient Quarry although the Lessee fill it up againe And Walmsley said that in Lancashire it is waste to dig Marle unlesse it be imployed upon the land And said it was not waste to cut thornes unlesse they be in a Wood stubbed and digged up by the roots but if they grow upon the land then they may be stubbed and it is no waste But to cut down Thorne-trees that have stood sixty or a hundred years it is waste Hil. 32 Eliz. in B. R. Sir George Farmer against Brook IN an Action of the Case the Plaintiff claimeth such a Custome in the Town of B. that he and his Ancestors had a bake-house within the Town to bake white bread and houshold-bread and that he had served all the Town with bread that no other could use the Trade without his license and that the Defendant had used the Trade without his license upon which the Defendant demuâ—'d Morgan This is a good Prescription and it is reason that a Prescription should bind a stranger vide 11 H. 6.13 A. prescribed to have a Market and that none should sel but in a Stall which A. had made and was to pay for the Stall and held there a good Prescription And the Arch-bishop of Yorks Case in the Register 186. is a good case A man prescribed that he had a Mill and he found a horse to carry the Corn thither and that therfore they ought to grind there and because they did not he brough his Action on the case Buckley contra It cannot be intended to have any commencement by any Tenure 11 H 4. A. procured a Patent that none should sell any thing in London without paying him a penny adjudged not good and the case of the Arch-bishop was good because he had it ratione dominii tenuri And adjudged the principall case that the action will not lye 23 Eliz. in C. B. Farrington against Charnock KIng Henry the 8 granted Turbariam suam in D. at Farrington rendring rent sur 21. years and then the Lessee imployed part of it in arable land and relinquisht part of it in Turbary and then Q. Mary grants Totam illam TurbariaÌ„ before demised to Farrington and adjudged that that passed only which was Turbary and the other part that was converted into Tillage did not passe Mich. 18 Eliz. in B. R. SIr Arthur Henningham brought an Action of Error against Francis Windham to reverse a common recovery had against Henry Henningham his brother and the Error assigned was that there was no warrant of Attorney of the Record And it was agreed by the Bar and Bench and adjudged error But the great point was if the Plaintiff could have a writ of Error The Case was Henry the Father had Henry his Son and three Daughters by one Venter and the Plaintiff by another Venter and died seised of the land intailed to him and the Heirs Males of his body Henry enters and makes a Feoffment the Feoffee is impleaded and voucheth Henry who looseth by default in the recovery and dies without issue and whether the Daughters which are Heirs generall or the Plaintiff which is Heir in tail shall have the Error Gawdy and Baker for the Defendant who said
propertie To which it was answered that if the ancient stock of Sheepe were still it had been godd but it was not and therefore the grant is voyd Walmesley Although the first stock was changed yet the new stock does supply it and is in place thereof and shall be in the same condition as the other stock is and therefore the Lessor shall have propertie in it But the whole Court was against him for they said that the increase of the stock of Sheepe should be to the Lessee and the Lessor shall never have them at the end of the terme but they agreed that if the lease were of the stock with Lambs Calves and Piggs there the increase belongs to the Lessor And all the Court took this difference sc when a lease is made of dead goods and when of living for when the lease is of dead goods and any thing is added to them for reparations or otherwise the Lessor shall have this addition at the end of the terme because it belongs to the principle but in case of a stock of Cattle which hath an increase as Calves and Lambs there these things are severed from the principle and Lessor shall never have them for then the Lessor shall have the Rent and the Lessee shall have no profit Trinit 29 VViseman against Rolfe in in C. B. Rot. 1454. IN a Writ of right the Case was thus A man selfed of Land in Fee makes his will and gives to D. his wife such Land for life the remainder to T. his son and heires of his body and also gives to T. his son his Land in B. and also his Land in C. and also he gives his Land called Odyum to the seed of his son habendum all the demised premisses to his T. son and the heires males of his body The Question was it T. should have an estate in Taile in B. and C. or if the last words shall relate only to that which was last named Fenner for the Plaintiff For the last Clause is a new Clause and shall not be preferred to the first for it begins with a verbe viz. I give my Land called Odyum and therefore the limitation afterward shall be referred only to this And 10 H. 7.8 There was a grant by Dedi custodiam Parci Arbores vento prostrat The Grantee shall have the trees by this Clause and 14 Eliz. A man deviseth thus I give my Mannour of C. to my second son Item I give my Mannor of S. to my second son to have and to hold to him and to his heirs And by Dyer Welsh and Weston he had an estate but for life but Brown cont for if a Lease be made to A. B. and C. successively it is adjudged that they are Ioyntenants but if it be to them as they are named they shall have it one after the other and if a devise be to one and his heirs and after to another for life the Law will conster that the estate for life is to procede for that words of Relation in Wills shall be taken stricttly as if a devise be to A. and his heirs of his body and he does devise other land in Forma praedicta this shall be but for life Walmesley cont and said that this limitation did go to all whereof no limitation was made before for the rules of reason are uncertain and therefore such matters shall be expounded according to the best sense that may be and here the sense is most naturall to refer it to all and the word all imports this and the Case of the fourth of Elizabeth under favour accords with this viz. that the Devisee shall have Fee in both But if the Devise had been I devise D. to my son Thomas and also to him and his heirs the Mannor of S. there he shall have D. but for life And if a man devise to his 4. sons A. B. C. and D. to have to the persons last named to them and their heirs there all shall have Fee 19 Ed. 4. In a precipe of a house and an acre of land in three severall Towns and that the Defendant Ibidem ingressus est and did not say into the house and land and yet it was held good Periam and Rhodes He shall have an estate Taile in all and the relation shall be to all Anderson doubted at first but agreed afterwards and Iudgement was given accordingly 32 33 Eliz. Mathewson against Trott in C. B. Rot. 1904. UPon a speciall verduit the Case was this A man seised of land in soccage devised it to his yonger son and died seised the elder son enters and dies seised and his heir enters and the yonger son enters upon him the Question was if his entry be taken away by this descent VValmesley It is not and he compar'd this case to a title of entry for a condition broken or a Conusee of a Fine upon grant and render c. in which Cases no descent shall take away entry Anderson The Devisee hath interest presently and the land does not descend for the devise prevents the descent and the Freehold is presently in the Devisee and the Statute 32 H. 8. which gives power to Devise lands does make a Title in the Devisee as a Title of entry for condition of Mortmaine and the Devisee shall not have an ex gravi querela upon this Statute but he must enter Walmesley The Devisee hath not a Freehold presently for if it were so the Devisee at the Common Law ought not to sue an Ex gravi Querela but certainly if the freehold be in the Devisee his entry is taken away And afterwards Iudgment was given by Anderson that descent does not take away the entry of the Devisee but delivered no reason for it Hillar 33 Eliz. Mosgrave against Agden Rot. 2529. IN an action of the Case on a Trover and conversion of six barrells of Butter The count was that they came to the hands of the Defendant and after the trover they were impared and decayed ratione negligentis custodiae And the Court held cleerly that the action would not lie for he who finds goods is not bound to preserve them from putrefaction but it was agreed that if the goods were used and by usage made worse the action would lie 44 Eliz. Ayer against Joyner in C. B. Rot. 2529. IN a second Deliverance it was said by the Court that if Lessee for years does assign over his terme and yet continues possession that he hath but a naked possession and no interest nor estate but the estate and interest does remain in the grantee so that he may grant it over And Walmesley said that if the Lessee makes waste the Lessor may have an action of waste against him and there is a casâ— that if a man makes a Lease and the Lessee waves the possession and a stranger commits waste the Lessor shall have an action of waste against the Lessee but the principall question
the 32 H. 8. And the Court held that an Assignee of part of the reversion might take advantage of the condition or covenants so that he hath part of the reversion of all the thing demised And Cook Chief Iustice said that the opinion of Mourson 14 Eliz. 309. a. is good Law Pasch 36 Eliz. Butler against Archer IF two Ioyntenants be of land holden by Herriot service and one dies the other shall not pay Herriot service for there is no change of the tenant but the survivor continues tenant of the whole land But if a man seised of land in Fee makes a feofment to the use of himself and his wife and the heires of their two bodyes begotten the remainder to the right heires of the husband and the husband dyes a Herriot shall be paid for the ancient use of the reversion was never out of the husband Michaelm 29 30 Elizab. Stephens Case in C. B. IN an Ejectment the Case was Sir William Beale made a Lease by Indenture to William Pile and Philip his wife et primogenito proli Habendum to them and the longer liver of them successively during their lives and then the husband and wife had issue a daughter And it was holden by three of the Iustices that the daughter had no estate for that she was not in esse at the time of the grant Michaelm 30 31. Eliz. Lewin against Mandy in C. B. Rot. 2529. IN a Replevin the Defendant avowed for 20 l. Rent which was pleaded to be granted by Lovelace and Rutland by Fine to Stukeley and his heires who being seized thereof did recite that he with 7 others were Plaintiffs in a Writ of Covenant against Lovelace and Rutland upon which a Fine was levyed by which Fine the said Lovelace and Rutland amongst other things did grant a rent of 20 l. out of the Mannor of D. and other Lands to the said Stukely who granted it to Hoveden under whom the Defendant claymes in Taile The Question was if this were a good grant because there are many misrecitalls in the Indenture for whereas he recited that in the Writ of Covenant for the fine Lovelace and Rutland were Defendants in truth they were Plaintiffs and Stukely and the others Defendants and whereas he recited that the said grant was made to him it was made to him and his heires also he said that the said Rent Charge amongst other things was granted whereas nothing but the 20 l. Rent was granted and that only out of the Mannor of D. and not out of other Lands Anderson If a man recites that he hath a Rent of 10 l. of the grant of J.S. whereas he hath this of the grant of J.D. yet is the grant good And at last it was adjudged that the grant was good Note that Fenner at this time said that it had been resolved by Anderson and Gawdy and other Iustices very lately That if the Kings Tenant dies his heir within age yet the heir at full age before livery sued may bargain and sell by Deed inrolled or make a Lease for years and it is good but if he makes a feofment or leavie a fine â—ur conusance de droit come ceo c. this is voyd because it cannot be without intrusion upon the King Trinit 39 Eliz. Oldfeild against VVilmore in C. B Rot. 2715. IN Debt upon a Bond to performe the award of J.S. who did award that the Defendant should pay 10 l. or cause two strangers to be bound for the payment thereof the Defendant pleaded performance the Plaintiff replyed that he had not payed the money and the Defendant demurred Walmesley for the Plaintiff For although the award be in the disjunctive yet forasmuch as it is voyd as to one part now upon the matter it is single and on the non payment of the ten pound is forfeit 17 Ed. 4.5 Windham and Rhodes held that the Plaintiff should have pleaded so much of the award as was for it is a thing intire and the Law will adjudge that one is only to be done because the other is contrary to the Law Anderson and Peryam The plea is good for a man shall not be compelled to shew a voyd matter and although the Defendant had caused the two strangers to be bound the obligation is broken for as to this arbitrement it is meerely voyd and at another day the Plaintiff had judgment Goodridge against VVarburton IN an Ejectment The Iury gave a speciall verdict that Francis was seised of the land in Tayle and suffered a Recovery to the use of him and his heirs and afterwards did devise the same lands to his wife Margery untill his daughter Prudence came to the age of 19. years and then that Prudence should have the Land to her and the heirs of her body upon condition to pay twelve pound per annum to the said Margaret during her life in recompence of her dower and if she failed of payment then Margaret should enter and hold the Land during her life and afterwards it shall go to Prudence as before And after this John Francis the heire did reverse this recovery by a Writ of Errour and entred upon Margaret and she brought her Writ of Dower and was indowed of the third part and then she levyed a Fine of that third part to the said John Francis and he infeoft Tyndall who made the Lease to Goldsing and then Margaret marryed Warburton and Prudence came to the age of 19. years the Rent of twelve pound is not payd and Warburton and his wife entred and Goldsing brought this action VValmesley By the recovery of the third part in the Writ of Dower the Rent of twelve pound which was in recompence thereof is gone For at the Common Law if a woman recover in Dower she hath waived that which was assigned to her in lien of her Dower as in case of Dower ad ostium Ecclesiae and 10 Edw. 4. If the husband discontinues the Land of his wise and she brings a Writ of Dower she is concluded to have a Cui in vita Shuttleworth cont By this recovery the estate taile is revived yet as this case it is is not materiall for because he entred without a sult he is a Disseisor and that was agreed by all at the Bar and the Bench. And he cited 26 H. 8. 3d. 4th H. 7.11 And I conceive that the Dower will not conclude her of the twelve pound per annum for it is not a Rent and the title to have the Land for her Ioynture for non-payment the Rent was not in esse at the time of the recovery of her Dower but afterwards as if a Lease he made to a woman who marries the Lessor who dies within the terme and the wise enters this shall not conclude her Dower after the Lease is expired by the eleventh of H. 4. Also the twelve pound is not appointed to be issuing out of the Land and so it cannot be a Ioynture and therefore
Oathes and they who had eaten were fined five pounds and committed to the Fleet. And some of the Iustices did doubt if the Verdict were good and upon many Presidents had it was adjudged good and they relyed much on the President of the 12 H. 8. Rot. 102. where one of the Iury did eat before they were agreed and yet the Verdict was good And after a Writ of Error was brought and the Iudgment affirmed 20 H. 7.3 13 H 4.13 Pasch 27 Eliz. A Man gives land to I.S. in the Premisses Habendum to him and three others for their lives Et eorum diutius viventium successive The question was what Estate I.S. had and whether there be any occupancy in the case Coke hâ—ld that I.S. had but an Estate for his own life because he cannot have an Estate for his own and anothers life where the interest of both begin at one instant and the Habendum by no means can make a Remainder as if a Lease be made to one for life habendum to him and his first begotten Son this makes no remainder to the Son although some have held to the contrary so of a Lease to one for years habendum to him and another does not make any remainder to the other also the word Successive will not make a remainder as in the 30 H 8. Br. Joynt-tenant 53. Also one cannot have an Estate for life and for anothers life also in present interest for the greater doth drowne the lesse but if the greater be present and the other future as a Lease to him for life the remainder to him for anothers life or a Lease for life and three years over this is good but if a Lease be made for life and for years the Lease for years is drowned 19 Ed. 3. Surrender 8. where Tenant for life of a Mannor did surrender to him in the Reversion c. Gawdy If a Lease be made to one for life and so long as another shall live quaere what Estate he hath And as to the second point certainly there cannot be an Occupancy for if the Estate be void the Limitation is void also the Occupancy is pleaded Que un tiel and does not say Claymant comme occupant c. for if a man comes a hawking on Land he is not an Occupant and the Book of Entries is that he ought to plead it Clinch Iustice every Occupant ought to be in possession at the time of the death of the Tenant for otherwise the Law casts the Interest upon him in the Reversion But Gawdy and Chute denied this and after viz. 29 Eliz. the Case was moved again by Popham and he made three points 1. If the other three had a joynt Estate 2. If they had a Remainder 3. If there be an Occupancy And he was of opinion that they had nothing by the habendum for they were not named in the Premisses they cannot have a Remainder for the incertainty but if those three had been named in the Premisses habendum to them Successive as they had been named there they had a Remainder for there the certainty appeared 30 H. 8.8 Dyer 361. Also there can be no Occupancy during the lives of the other three but he agreed to the Book of the 18 Ed. 3.34 that a Lease for life the Remainder to him for anothers life was good And that if a Lease be made to I.S. and a Monk it is void to the Monk and the other hath all and that during the life of the Monk there can be no Occupancy And if I make a Lease to I. S. for the life of a Monk it is a good Lease And till the same terme Iudgment was given that they could take nothing in possession joyntly nor by way of Remainder and that no Occupancy could be in the Case and that I.S. had Estate for terme of his owne life onely Stile against Miles STile Parson did suggest that the Land was parcell of the Glebe of the Parsonage and that the said Stile did let the said Glebe being foure and twenty acres to Miles for years rendring thirteen shillings foure pence Rent and in a Prohibition the case was if Tythes were to be paid And Wray said that although it was parcell of the Glebe yet when it was leased out Tythes ought to be paid and if no Rent be reserved Tythes ought to be paid without question but there may be a doubt where the Rent is reserved to the true value of the Land but here the Rent is of small value wherefore Tythes shall be paid also And the Reservation of the Rent was Pro omnibus exactionibus demandis yet the Iustices took no regard of those words But Godfrey said that those words would discharge him but Wray on the contrary for that this Tythe is not issuing out of the Land but is a thing collaterall and if a Parson do release to his Parishioners all demands in the Land yet Tythes are not thereby released for such generall words will not extend to such a speciall matter And in the 15 of R. 2. Avowry 99. one held of another by ten shillings for all Services Suits and Demands yet the Tenant shall pay Relief because it is incident to the Rent and 8 Ed. 3.26 Mich. 29 Eliz. Rot. 2574. or 2375. Stephens against Layton IN an Ejectione firmae upon issue joyned the case in a speciall Verdict was that a Lease by Indenture was made by William Beale to one William Pyle and Philip his Wife primogenito habend to them diutius eorum viventi successive for terme of their lives and then the Husband and Wife had issue a Daughter The question was if the Daughter had any Estate And three Iustices held that she had no Estate because she was not in being at the time of the Lease made and a person that is not in esse cannot take any thing by Livery for Livery ought to carry a present Estate where the Estate is not limited by way of Remainder 18 Ed. 3.3 17 Ed. 3.29 30. adjudged but it was said at the Bar that if the Estate had been conveyed by way of use it is otherwise And the said Iustices held clearly that the word Successive would not alter the case And the case was further found that William Beale and Sampson Beale did covenant with one Lendall that if Tho. Beale Son of Sampson Beale should marry Margaret the Daughter of the said Lendall if she would assent and also that the said Lendall did covenant that the said Margaret should marry the said Thomas if he would assent Pro quo quidem Maritagio sic tum postea habendo the said William Beale covenanted that he would make or cause to be made an Estate to the said Thomas and Margaret and to the Heirs of their bodies for the Ioynture of the said Margaret and it was further found that afterward a Fine was levied between the said Thomas and Margaret Plaintiffs and Sampson Beale and William Beale
expounded as they are commonly taken and not to go to any strict construction of the words as Heirs in the Latine is used also for goods by the Civill Law but we use it only for lands and so Libra in Latine signifies a Weight and yet if I am bound in Vigint Libris if I forfeit my Bond I must pay money and not Lead or the like And so the word Puer is somtimes taken for a servant Claudite jam rivos pueri c. and the same reason that it may be intended for a Daughter may be for a Servant also Gawdy I suppose the Son shall have it and not the Daughter for although Pueri was taken for Male and Female yet now it is taken for Male in any Modern Author but to omit curiosity of words we ought to consider rather the intent of the parties and there are many circumstances to prove that he intended this to his Son and not to his Daughter for he made it for setling his Inheritance and it shall not be supposed that he intended his Daughter should have it Also where the case may be taken two waies the most usuall shall be intended as in case of a reservation of a Rent at Michaelmas that shall be intended at the chiefest Feast also in this case it shall be intended that he would advance the most worthy of his blood and therefore to that purpose the conveyance shall be expounded for if there be two I. S. and I give land to I.S. it shall be intended to my next Neighbour but if one be my Cosin although he dwells forty miles from me yet he shal have the land And to this Southcote accorded 31 Eliz. in B. R. Hone against Clerk A Woman Lessee for life takes Husband who by Indenture makes a Feoffment of the land to I.S. for these words Sciant per Servantes Richardum How Katherin uxor ejus dedisse I.S. unum messuagium habendum praedict I.S. heredibus suis ad solum opus usum of the said I.S. and his Heirs during the life of Katherine The question was if this was a forfeiture because the wife was Tenant for life and the Attorney argued that it was for the words Pro termino vitae Katherin are referred to the use only and not to the estate for by these words habendum to him and his Heirs the estate is limited and therefore it is a forfeiture but after comes the limitation of the use ad usum I.S. and his Heirs during the life of the woman and after the death of the woman the use remaines in the Feoffor and he cited the Lord Sturtons case in the beginning of the Queens Raign The Lord Sturton gave land to Clerk and his Heirs to the use of Clerk and the Heirs of his body and adjudged that it was not an estate in taile for the limitation of the estate was before in the Premises Coke on the contrary and said that those words For life of the wife are to be referred to the limitation of the Estate for if a double sense be in words such sense shall be taken as shall avoid all wrong and therefore it shall not be so expounded as that the Grant shall not take effect and that a forfeiture shall ensue 4 Ed. 2. and see a notable case for exposition of words and for relation of words and sentences 34 Ed. 3. Avowry 58.28 H. 8. Dyer Gawdy It is a forfeiture Clench said he would advise but afterwards it was adjudged a forfeiture for as Wray said the estate given was forfeit Mich. 36 37 Eliz. Bagnall against Porter in B. R. Rot. 353. A Man by Indenture bargains and sells his land and if the Bargainor pay 100 l. at such a day that then he shall be seised to the use of the Bargainor and his heirs and did assume to make such assurance for the security of the land as should be advised by the Councell of the Bargainor and the Bargainee bound himself in a Recognizance to performe the said Covenants And in debt upon the Recognizance it was shewn that the Bargainor paid the money at the day and had tendred to the Bargainee a Deed in which was comprised an acquittance of payment of the money and also a release of all his right and the Bargainee refused to seale it Coke was of clear opinion that he ought to have sealed it for it is necessary to have the Deed to mention payment of the money for otherwise the Bargainee and his heirs may claim the land for default of payment Gawdy of the same opinion and cited 19 Ed. 4. Popham The case is not so clear for if he had tendered an acquittance only there is no doubt but the Bargainee might refuse to seale it and by the same reason he may refuse when it is joyned to a thing that he is bound not to do viz. to seal the release but at last the matter was referred to Arbitration Hillar 37 Eliz. COke demanded this question A man having two Daughters his Heires does demise his Land to them in Fee What estate had they by this Demise For if a man deviseth Land to his eldest Son it is voyd and he is in by descent That it was holden by the Court that they shall hold by the Devise because that he gives another estate to them then descended for by the descent each of them had a distinct moyety but by the Devise they are Joyn-renants and the survivor shall have all And Fenner sayd If a man had Land in Burrow-English and Guildable Lands and devised all his Land to his two Sons and dyes both of them shall take joyntly and the younger shall not have a distinct moiety in the Burrow-English nor the elder in the Guildable Land but they are both Joyn-tenants Pasch 37 Eliz. Carrell against Read in B. R. Rot. 270. A Lease for years was made of divers Fenny grounds in Cambridge ss and the Lessee covenanted to defend the ground for being surrounded with water and to drain the water out of other lands that were demised to him in the said County And upon an Action of Covenant for not performing the Defendant pleaded that the Plaintiff had entred in the land demised And adjudged no plea by the Court because the Covenant was not in respect that the Lessee should enjoy the land nor was it a Covenant abhering to the land but to a collaterall thing but if it had been in respect of enjoying the land there it is a good plea to say that the Plaintiff had entred but where the thing to be done is collaterall it is otherwise and also if he did plead such plea yet it is not a bar unlesse he holds him out of possession Coke lib. 3.221 4 Ed. 3.29 the Lord shall not have a Cessavit after entry in parcel 10 Ed. 4.11.35 H. 6. Bar 162.19 Ed. 4.2 Trin. 37 Eliz. in B. R. Rot. 1076. Dogrell against Perks IN an Action of Covenant The Defendant pleaded
Estoppell otherwise if it were by Deed. Vid. 1 H. 7.12 Mich. 32 33 Eliz. Marshes Case in B. R. Rot. 1011. MArsh and his wife brought a Writ of Errour as Executors to Nicholson to reverse an Outlawry upon an Indictment of Felony pronounc'd against the Testator Altham of Grayes-Inne The sole point was whether the Executors may have a Writ of Errour and I hold that they may for if there be no heir it is great reason that the Executors should have it for otherwise the erroneous judgement cannot be at all reverst and every one shall have a Writ of Errour that is damaged by the erroneous judgement and Executors have right to the personal estate to have Errour For if a man recovers damages in a Writ of Cosenage and the land also and dyes his heir shall have Execution for the land and the Executors Execution for the damages by the 19 Ed. 4.5 43 Eâ— 3. 13 Ed. 4.2 If a man does recover my villain by a false Verdict the heir shall have an attaint for the villany and the Executors for the damages and a Writ of Errour shall be given to him to whom the right of the thing lost doth descend as it was adjudged in the Case of Sir Arthur Henningham and he cited two presidents in the point 1 Tâ—…ity 11 H. 8. Rot. 3. where an Administrator brought a Writ of Errour to reverse a Iudgement given in an exigent Vid. 2 Rep. 41. a. Cook contr In Natura Brevium 21 M. he sayes an Executor shall have a Writ of Errour upon a Iudgement given in Debt against the Testator and the heir shall have Error to reverse Outlawry in Felony and to restore him in his blood and he said that it was part of the punishment in Felony to have the blood corrupted sic filius portat iniquitatem patris and by reason of the attainder he cannot inherit any Ancestor wherefore he having the damage it is reason that he should reverse it And although Executors shall have a Writ of Errour for Chattels personal yet they shall not have one when they are mixt with things real 5 H. 7.15.18 Ed. 4. If Writings be in a Box the heir shall have the Box because real things are more regarded than personal Nevertheless in this Case the Writ of Errour is in a real Action for the Law sayes that it is in the same nature as in original action whereupon it is brought as if Errour be brought to reverse a Iudgement given in a personal action the Writ of Errour is personal and so in like manner is it real if the first action be real 47 Ed. 3.35 35 H. 6.19 23. and although the first action be mixt yet the Law does rather respect the reality 30 H. 6. Barr. 59. where two brought an assize and one did release and there it was said that although this were a mixt action yet it shall be according to the most worthy and that is the reality and 16 Assi 14. divers Disseisors being barr'd in an assize did bring a Writ of attaint for the damages and summons and severance was suffered for damages were joyned with the reality and Stanford 184. If a man be indicted before a Coroner quod fugam fecit if he after reverse the Indictment yet he shall have his goods for de minimis non curat Lex But note that the Iustices said that the fugam fecit was the cause of forfeiture of the goods and not the Felony And as to the presidents he agreed to the Case of the 18 H. 7. for an Executor shall have a Writ of Errour to reverse Iudgement given in an exigent for there nothing but the goods are forfeit 30 H. 6. Forfeiture 31. and for the president in 11 H. 8. it cannot be proved that the Outlawry was for Felony Vid. Rep. fol. 3. 33 Eliz. Lilly against Taylor in B. R. Rot. 467. MArsh seized of the land in question did devise this to Rose Lilly for life and if she fortun'd to marry and after her decease should have any heirs of her body lawfully begotten then that heir should have the land and the heirs of the body of such heir and for default of such issue the land shall revert to Philip Marsh his son and his heirs and the question was if the husband of Rose shall be Tenant by the curtesy or not and so if Rose had estate Tail or for life onely Godfrey She hath estate but for life and he cited a Case adjudged in Benlowes Reports 40 Eliz. where lands are devised to A for life and after his decease to the male children of his body and it was adjudged that the male children have an estate Tail by purchase and nothing by descent and so A had nothing but for life Gawdy agreed for she hath but for life and when she dyes her issue shall have it Popham agreed if the words were that if she had issue that he should have it But Clench held that she had an estate in Tail executed and that her husband shall be Tenant by the curtesy Fenner The issue is as a Purchaser for the Devisor intended that Rose should not have a greater estate than for life And also it was agreed by all the Iustices that a Devise to a man and his heir shall be accounted a Foe-simple for that the word heir is collective and so is the 29 Assi where land was given to a man and to the heir of his body uno haeredi ejusdem haeredis this is an estate Tail Popham He shall be Tenant by the curtesy and he agreed that heir of the body was a good name of purchase but if a Frank-tenement be limited to his Ancestor and by the same Deed it is also limited to his heir the heir shall be in by descent But Fenner on the contrary Pasch 38 Eliz. Bolton against Bolton Rot. 882. 582. TEnant for life being impleaded doth pray in aid of him in the Reversion who joyn and lose c. and the Tenant for life brings a Writ of Errour and the Record is removed and he in the remainder brings a Writ of Errour also De Recordo quod coram vobis residet and the question was upon which Writ of Errour the Iudgement should be reverst and it was objected that if it should be reverst by the Tenant for life that he in the remainder should be restored But Gawdy Fenner and Clench contr Who held that it should be reverst at his suit who first brings the Writ as in case of Interpleader it shall be alwayes upon the first Writ And notwithstanding the removing of the Record by the Tenant for life at the next term the Court said it was at their discretion to reverse this at suit of anâ— of the parties as they pleased and because they observed some indirect practices by him in the remainder it was reverst at suit of Tenant for life Pasch 5 Jacob. Sir Henry Dimmocks Case in the