Commission which is their authority but if it had been left out in their Commission then the Writ had been good enough And he said that when a man meddles with a thing which is but surplusage which he needed not to do he must recite the same substantially otherwise his plea will be vitious C. 4 par Palmers case And when he maketh Tho. Fleming Capit. Justic ad Placita indefinitely he varieth from the truth for the stile is Tho. Fleming Capit. Justic ad Placita coram Rege tent Haughton Justice acc ' and he said that in every Writ of Error which is to remove a Record three things ought to be expressed 1. Mention is to be made before what person it was taken as the book is in 28 H. 6. 11. 2. It is to mention betwixt whom it was 9 H. 6. 4. 3. The manner of the caption is to be mentioned whether by Writ or without Writ 2 R. 3. 2 3. and this Writ faileth in the first of them therefore he concluded that the VVrit should abate Cook Chief Justice was of the same opinion and agreed that Misnosmer and variance are not to be favoured if they be not substantial and essential quae dant esse rebus and he said that the variance in this case is of such nature For in many Records yet extant and in the time of King H. 3. it is to be found that the Chief Justice of England did sit and give Judgment in the Common-Pleas and in the Exchequer and so then Capital Justic ad Placita is too general because he might sit and give Judgment in any of the said Courts The second Exception was because that the VVrit saith Assisa capta c. and doth not say per breve nor sine breve nor doth say secundum legem consuetudinem c. For in 43 Eliz. in the Case betwixt Cromwell and Andrews it was adjudged not good to say That such an Action came into the Common-Pleas out of the Country and doth not shew that it came by adjournment or by Certlorari or Mittimus To which it was answered by Damport Councellor for the Plaintiff that it is a strong intendment that the Assise was taken per breve and therefore it needed not to be expressed because it is a general and not a special Assise Crook Justice The Exception is good for it is so general that it cannot be intended which Assise it was For put case there were two Assises betwixt the same parties it cannot be known which Assise is intended And of the same opinion was Haughton Justice Dodderidge contrary and he said Notwithstanding the Exception the Record ought to be removed by the Writ For the Judges Conscience may be well satisfied which Record is to be removed And here the Record which is to be removed is so precisely shewed that no body can doubt of it which ought to be certified And there are Records removed by Writs of Error which are more dubious then this is v. 19 Eliz. Dyer 356. 20 E. 3. But in this case the Writ is much enforced by the words Sommon Capt. For in every Assise there are four Commands to the Sheriffe 1. Facere tenementum esse in pace to quiet the possession 2. Facere recognitionem or Recognit videre tentam 3. Summoneas 4. Ponas eos per vadios c. For which cause of necessity it must be meant an Assise per Breve The third Exception was because in the Writ it was not shewed who was Plaintiffe and who Defendant Dodderidge It is generally to be agreed That the Writ of Error ought to agree with the Record which Rule is taken in 3 H. 6. 26. C. 3. par the Marquess of Wincbesters Case But yet every Variance doth not abate this VVrit For if the variance be only in matter of circumstance as it is in this Case the VVrit shall not abate vid. 9 H. 6. 4. 4 5 Phil. Ma. Dyer 164. 2 Eliz. Dyer 173. 180. 28 H. 6. 11. 12. The fourth Exception was because it doth not shew the place of the Caption of this Assise but sayes generall in Com. Norfolk Haughton held that rather to be examinable in the Parliament then here The last Exception was because the VVrit is directed to Cook Chief Justice that he certifie the Record sub sigillo suo whereas it was said the Record it self was to come in Parliament and there a Transcript thereof is to be made and the Record to be remanded V. 22 E. 3. 23 Eliz. Dyer 357. 1 H. 7. 29. against the Book of Entries 302. To which it was answered That it is at the pleasure of the Parliament to have either the one or the other 22 E. 3. 3. 8 H. 5. Error 88. To which Cook agreed And note that upon this VVrit of Error a Supersedeas was fraudulently procured and a VVrit of Attachment issued forth against Bacon who procured it And the Supersedeas was disallowed because that another Supersedeas was granted in the first VVrit of Error And a man can have but one Supersedeas But the Question in this Case was Admitting that the VVrit of Error be good and not abateable If the same be a Supersedeas in it self And the Court doubted of that point For Cook Chief Justice said That he had viewed 26 or 27 VVrits of Error which were brought in Parliament where the first Judgment was disaffirmed and but one where the Judgment was affirmed and that is in 23 Eliz. Dyer 357. the Record of which cannot be found Et quod in praxi est inusitatum in jure est suspectum The Books where Error was brought in Parliament are 2 E. 3. 34 40 in the old print 22 E. 3. 3. 42 Ass pl. 22. 9 H. 5. 23. 1 H. 7. 29. 23 Eliz. Dyer 375. And it should be mischievous for delay for a Parliament is only to be summoned at the Kings pleasure Haughton Dodderidge and Crook held cleerly That this VVrit of Error was a Supersedeas in it self and that upon the Book of 8 E. 2. Error 88. 1 H. 7. 19. where it is said That the Justices did proceed to Execution after the Judgment affirmed in Parliament and therefore ex consequente sequitur not before And therefore the VVrit of Error is a Supersedeas that they cannot proceed But there is no President of it in the Register but a Scire facias fo 70. And the Court held That if a Supersedeas be once granted and determined in default of the party himself that he shall never have another Supersedeas but otherwise if it fail by not coming of the Justices Also Cook Chief Justice held That by this VVrit of Error in Parliament Sir Christopher Heydon could not have the effect of his suit because it is to reverse a Judgment coram Rege and so the Judgment given in the Common-Pleas stands firm and Sir Christopher Heydon is put to a new VVrit of Error in this Court for the Judgment
afterward the Husband suffers the wood to grow five and twenty yeers and afterwards hee dieth The question was Whether the Wife being Tenant for life might cut that Underwood And it was moved What shall be said seasonable Underwood that a Termor or Tenant for life might cut Dyer Chief Justice and all the other Justices held That a Termor or Tenant for life might cut all Underwood which had been usually cut within twenty yeers In 11. H. 6. 1. Issue was taken If they were of the age of twenty yeers or no. But in the Wood-Countries they may fell seasonable wood which is called Sylva caedua at six and twenty eight and twenty thirty years by the custome of the Country And so the Usage makes the Law in severall Countries And so it is holden in the books of 11. H. 6. and 4. E. 6. But they agreed That the cutting of Oakes of the age of eight yeers or ten years is Waste But by Meade Justice the cutting of Hornbeams Hasels Willows or Sallows of the age of forty yeares is no Waste because at no time they will be Timber Another question which was moved was That at the time of the Feoffment it was seasonable Wood and but of the growth of fourteen or fifteen yeers If this suffering of the Husband of it to grow to 25 years during the Coverture should bind the Wife so as she cannot cut the Woods Gaudy Serjeant said That it should not bind the Wife For if a Warranty descend upon a Feme Covert it shall not bind her So if a man seized of Land in the Right of his Wife be disseised and a Descent be cast during the Coverture it shall not bind the Wife but that she may enter after the death of the Husband But by Dyer Chief Justice and all the other Justices This Permission of the Husband shall bind the Wife notwithstanding the Coverture for that the time is limited by the Law which cannot be altered if it be not the custome of the Country As in the case of 17. E. 3. Where a man makes a Lease for years and grants that the Lessee shall have as great commoditie of the Land as hee might have Notwithstanding these words he cannot dig the land for a Mine of Cole or Stone because that the Law forbids him to dig the land So in the principall Case The Wife cannot fell the Wood notwithstanding that at the time of her estate she might and afterwards by the permission of the Husband during the coverture the time is incurred so as she cannot fell it because the Law doth appoint a time which if it be not felled before such time that it shall not be felled by a Termor or a Tenant for life but it shall be Waste Hill 23. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 7. A Man makes a Lease of a Garden containing three Roodes of Land and the Lessee is ousted and he brings an Ejectione firme and declares that he was ejected of three Roods of Land Rodes Serjeant moved That by this Declaration it shall be intended that he was ejected of the Garden of which the Lease was made and so the Ejectione firme would lie And it was holden by the Lord Chief Justice Dyer That a Garden is a thing which ought to be demanded by the same name in all Precipes as the Register and Fitz. N. Brevium is And this Action is greater then an Action of Trespasse because by Recovery in this Action he shall be put into Possession But Meade and Windham Justices contrary And they agreed that in all reall Actions a Garden shall be demanded by the name Gardinum otherwise not But this Action of Ejectione firme is in the nature of Trespasse and it is in the Election of the Party to declare as here he doth or for to declare of the Ejectment of a Garden for a Garden may be used at one time for a Garden and at another time be ploughed and sowed with Corn. But they conceived that the better order of pleading had been if he had declared that he was ejected of a Garden containing three Roodes of Land as in the Lease it is specified Hill 23. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 8. SErgeant Fenner moved this case That Land is given to the Wife in tail for her Joynture according to the Statute of 11. H. 7. The Husband dieth the Wife accepts a fine Sur conusans de droit come ceo c. of a Stranger And by the same fine grants and renders the Land to him for an Hundred years whether this acceptance of a Fine and Render by the Wife were a forfeiture of her estate so as he in the Reversion or Remainder might enter by the Statute Mead and Dyer Justices it is a forfeiture and Mead resembled it to the Case in 1 H. 7. 12. where it is holden That if Tenant for life do accept of a Fine Sur conusans de droit come ceo c. that it is a forfeiture and the Lessor may enter But Fenner asked their opinions what they thought of the principall case But haesitavernut because they said it was a dangerous case and is done to defraud the Statute of 11. H. 7. Pasch 23. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 9. A Man made a Feoffment in Fee to two to the use of himself and his wife for the term of their lives without impeachment of waste during the life of the Husband the remainder after their decease to the use of I. his son for the term of his life And further by the same Deed Vult concedit that after their three lives viz. of the Husband Wife and Son that I. S. and I. D. two other Feoffees shall be seized of the same Land to them and their heirs to the use of the right Heirs of the body of the Son begotten It was moved That by this deed the two later Feoffees should be seized to the use of the right Heirs of the body of the Son begotten after the death of the Husband Wife and the Son But it was holden by all the Justices That the second Feoffees had not the Fee because by the first part of the Deed the Fee-Simple was given to the first Feoffees and one Fee-Simple cannot depend upon another Fee-Simple Notwithstanding that after the determination of the former uses for life the Fee-Simple should be vested again in the Heires of the Feoffer and that the words That the second Feoffees should be seized should be void But Dyer Chief Justice and the other Justices were against that because there wanted apt words to raise the later use As if a man bargain and sell his Reversion of Tenant for Life by words of Bargain and Sale only and the Deed is not Enrolled within the six months but afterwards the Tenant for Life doth attorne yet notwithstanding that the Reversion shall not passe because Bargain and Sell are not apt words to make a Grant And that Case was so adjudged in the Common Pleas as the
24. Eliz. in the Kings Bench. 19. IN an Action upon the Case upon a Promise The consideration was Where I. S. had granted a Term to I. D. That afterwards upon the request of I. S. I. D. did make to W. an Estate for four years upon which W. brought his Action And after Verdict it was moved in stay of Judgement that there was no good consideration and a difference taken where the Promise was upon the Grant and where afterwards If it were before then the Condition was good but if it were afterwards it was not good And it was adjudged That the Plaintiffe Nihil capiat per billam Pasch 24. Eliz. in the Kings Bench. 20. AN Action upon the Case upon a Promise was The Consideration was That in consideration that the Plaintiffe Daret diâ—m solutionis the Defendant Super se assumpsit and because he doth not say in facto that he had given day It was adjudged that no sufficient Consideration was alledged But if the Consideration were Quod cum indebitatus c. the same had been a good Consideration without any more for that implies a Consideration in it self Pasch 24. Eliz. in the Kings Bench. 21. IT was said by Cooke That the Chancellor or any Judge of any of the Courts of Record at Westminster may bring a Record one to another without a Writ of Certiorare because one Judge is sufficiently known one to the other as 5. H. 7. 31. where a Certificate was by the Chancellor alone and to this purpose is 11. H. 4. But that other Judges of base Courts cannot do nor Justices of the Peace as 3. H. 6. where the certificate by Suitors was held void Pasch 25. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 22. SKIPWITH'S Case IT was found upon a speciall verdict in an Action of Trespass that the place where c. was Copy-hold land And that the Custome is That quaelibet foemina viro cooperta poterit devise lands whereof she is seised in Fee according to the custome of the Manor to her Husband and surrender it in the presence of the Reeve and six other persons And that I. S. was seised of the land where c. and had issue two Daughters and died and that they married husbands and that one of them devised her part to her husband by Will in writing in the presence of the Reeve and six other persons and afterwards at another day shee surrendred to the Husband and he was admitted and she died and her Husband continued the possession And the Husband of the other Daughter brought an Action of Trespasse Rodes Serjeant The Custome is not good neither for the Surrender nor for the Will for two causes One for the uncertainty of what estate shee might make a Devise and because it is against reason that the Wife should surrender to the Husband Where the Custome shall not be good if it be uncertain he vouched 13. E. 3. Fitz. Dum fuit infra aetatem 3. The Tenant saith that the lands are in Dorset where the Custome is that an Enfant may make a Grant or Feoffment when he can number twelve pence And it was holden that because it is uncertain when he can so do the Custome is not good 19. E. 2. in a Ravishment of Ward the defendant pleaded that the custome is that when the Enfant can measure an ell of cloth or tell twelve pence as before that he should be out of Ward and it is holden no good custom for the cause aforesaid 22. H. 6. 51. a. there a man prescribed That the Lord of D. had used to have Common for him and all his Tenants And because it is not shewed what Lord whether the Lord mediate or immediate it is adjudged no good custome And as to the Surrender it is against reason that the Wife should give to the Husband for a Wife hath not any Will but the Will of her Husband For if the Husband seised in the right of his Wife make a Feoffment in Fee and the Wife being upon the land doth disagree unto it saying that shee will never depart with it during her life yet the Feoffment is good and shall binde during the life of the Husband as it is holden in 21. E. 3. And therefore it is holden in 3. E. 3. Tit. Devise Br. 43. That a Feme covert cannot devise to her Husband for that should be the Act of the Husband to convey the land to himself And in the old Natura Brevium in the Additions of Ex gravi quaerela it is holden so accordingly And the Case in 29. E. 3. differs much from this Case For there a woman seised of lands devisable took an Husband and had issue and devised the lands to the Husband for his life and died and a Writ of Waste was brought against him as Tenant by the Courtesie and it was holden that it did lie and that he is not in by the Devise for the reason there is because he was in before by the Courtesie But as I conceive that Case will disprove the Surrender for in as much as he had it in the Right of his wife he could not take it in his own Right Also he took another Exception in the principal Case because that the wife was not examined upon the Surrender but none of the Justices spake to that Exception but when the Record was viewed it appeared that it was so pleaded Further He said That the devise was void by the Statute of 34. H. 8. Cap. 5. where it is said It is enacted That Wills and Testaments made of any Lands Tenements c. by women Coverts or c. shall not be taken to be good or effectual in Law And he said That this Statute doth extend to customary Lands And as to that all the Justices did agree That it is not within the Statute And as to the Statute of Limitations Andâ—rson chief Justice said That if a Lease for years which perhaps will not indure sixty years shall be taken strong this shall Anderson moved That if the Lord Lease Copyhold land by Word Whether the Lessee might maintain an Ejectione firme and he conceived not for in an Ejectione firmâ— there ought to be a Right in Fact And although it be by conclusion it is not sufficient for that the Jury or Judge are not estopped or concluded And he conceived That if Tenant at Will make a Lease for years that it is no good lease betwixt him and the Lessor but that he may well plead that he had nothing in the land Meade contrary but they both agreed That the Book of 14. E. 4. which saith That if Tenant at Will make a lease for years that he shall be a Disseisor is not Law Anderson said That the prescription in the principal Case was not good for it is Quod quaelibet foemina viro cooperta poterit c. and it ought to be that feme Coverts possunt and by the Custome have used to devise to the
agree in the Services Walmesley He shall have the traverse for the mischief which otherwise would follow for if he should traverse the seisin thereby he should confesse the Tenure Periam concessit and said That the difference which is commonly taken in our Books is That where they agree in the Tenure there the Seisin is traversable but where they do not agree in the Tenure there the Tenure is traversable So is 26. H. 8. 6. 7. E. 4. 27. 12. E. 4. 7. 20. E. 4. 16. And he conceived here that the payment at two dayes doth alter the tenure so as now it is another tenure then before Also he said That if Wh. acre and Bl. acre be adjoyning and are holden the one of I. S. and the other of I. D. and I. S. distrein and avow for both acres that he may well traverse the tenure Meade 8. H. 7. 5. a. It is said by Brian That if avowry be made for a tenure of two acres by twenty shillings and the Plaintiffe saith that he holdeth these two and two other acres by twelve shillings without that that he holdeth the two acres by twenty shillings that that is good for that he cannot do otherwise And it is no reason that for a false avowry the Plaintiffe should be at a mischief But the Book is not ruled for Keble is contrary Vide Librum Trinit 26 Eliz. in the Kings Bench. 35 SAVELL and CORDELL's Case HEnry Savell Lessee for years of the Manor of M. grants the same Manor Habendum for so many years which should be to come after his death to Cordell Master of the Rolls if Dorothy his Wife so long should live And afterward Henry Savell and he in the Reversion levied a Fine The Case went by many Conveyances further But two points were here moved 1. If it were a good Grant for so many yeers c. Shuttleworth argued that it was But Cooke contrary And Cooke said to that which hath been said That Leases which have uncertain beginning may be by act of matter ex post facto made certain and so good As a lease for so many years as I. S. shall name if he name it is a certain lease but if the Lessor die before I. S. name and after hee name all is void as it is in the Commentaries put by Weston and granted by Dyer 273. And the reason is that it behoves that the interest passe out of the Lessor during his life and the Deed ought to have its perfection in the life of the Lessor But in our case here the Lessor or Grantor is dead before the certaintie of the beginning is known and before any perfection of interest out of him and therefore the reason in the common case 40 Ass and 16. E. 3. that there behoveth to be Attornment in the life of the Lessor proves our case for the reason of that is that it behoveth that some interest passe out of the Lessor or Grantor during his life and that perfection of his Grant be in his life or else the Grant is void Vide 31. E. 3. alb 20. and 33. E. 3. Confirmation 22. If the Chapter confirm the Grant of the Bishop after his death it is void for it ought to have perfection in the life of the Bishop otherwise it is void And upon that reason is the case put by Popham Com. 520. b. That where a man grants all his term which shall be to come after his death that it is a void Grant because no interest passeth during the life of the Grantor And to this purpose is 7. E. 6. Br. Leases 66. Temps H. 8. 339. If a man will take by Livery within the view it behoves the Feoffee to enter during the life of the Feoffor and yet that is a more strong case for by the Livery being a ceremony of the Law it is presumed that the land passed and yet there ought to be an entry to fortifie the Grant otherwise it is void The second point was If by the Fine levyed the possibilitie aswell as the right of possession of the term did passe And I conceive that it doth therefore we see in many cases a man may grant by his Deed a possibility to come As 19. H. 7. 1. where a man seised in the right of his Wife made a Feoffment in see and after they had issue and the Wife died that he should not be Tenant by the Courtesie and yet the Wife was remitted but by his own Grant he had granted from him the possibility he might have had to be Tenant by the courtesie And here If Cordell had entered and made a Feoffment in fee or levied a Fine the possibility which he had to have the term had been cleerly gone 39. H. 6. 43. If I disseise my Eather and make a Feoffment in fee and afterwards my Father dieth although that a new Right descends unto me yet I shall be barred of this possibilitie which I had at the time of the Grant But otherwise it had been if this discontinuance or grant had been defeated by entry or otherwise in my life by my Father or any other in that case I may shew the speciall matter as 15. E. 4. 5. is and so avoid my own Deed. And 44. E. 3. 4. is That tenant for years and he in the Reversion disclaim and it is holden a good Disclaimer which proves that a possibility may also pass by Disclaimer And 21. E. 3. and 35. H. 6. is That if he who hath cause to have a Writ of Error if he enter into the Land and make a Feoffment the Writ of Error is gon for ever so by these Cases it is proved and appeareth That a Possibility may passe by grant And so in the Principall Case the Possibility to have the terme is by this Fine granted and the Grant is a good Grant And it was adjourned Pasch 26. Eliz. in the Kings Beneh 36. LUDDINGTON and AMNER'S Case Intratur Mich. 25. Eliz. Rott 495. IN a Writ of Error the Case was this Perepoynt possessed of a Lease for 99 years devised the same unto his Wife for Life and that after her Decease that it should go to his Children unpreferred the Wife took Sir Thomas Fulster to her Husband and the Lease was put in Execution by Fiery facias for the Debt of Sir Thomas Fulster and afterwards Sir Thomas died and the Wife died The Administrators of Sir Thomas Fulster did reverse the Judgement upon which the Lease was taken in Execution And afterwards A. the Daughter of Perepoynt entred supposing her selfe to be the only Daughter of Perepoynt alive unpreferred by her Father in his life time And the Pleading was That the Wife of Perepoynt was his Executrix and that she entred into the Lease after the death of Perepoynt Virtute legationis donationis praedict Cook There is a difference in our Books That the Devise of the Occupation of a Term may be with the Remainder over but not a Devise
Assize brought against him the same shall be recowped in damages because that which was done was for his Commodity also it is incident to one who hath a way for to mend it All Prescriptions at the first did begin by Grants And if one grant to me his trees the Law saith That I may come upon the Land to fell them and carry them away off from the Land and I shall not be a Trespassor And by 9. E. 4. and Perkins If one grant to me liberty to lay a Conduit Pipe in his Land I may afterwards mend it toties quoties it shall want mending 32. E. 3. If one grant to me a way if he will interrupt me in it I may resist him and if he dig Trenches in the way to my hinderance in my way I may fill them up again The books of 12 13. H. 8. are not adjudged If Lessee for years be of a Meadow he may dig to avoid the water and may justifie so doing in Waste brought against him But it was said That in that Case the Lessee hath an interest in the soil so hath not he who claims the way in this Case Clenche Justice held That he could not dig the Soile Then the Defendant demanded What remedy he should have Suit Justice If he went that way before in his shooes let him now pluck on his boots Gawdy The pleading is not good for he saith That he could not use his way so well as before which is not good but he ought to plead that he could not use the way at all Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the Kings Bench. 58 IN an Ejectione firme The party ought to set forth the number of the Acres for although he give a name to the Close as Green Close or the like it is not sufficient because an habere facias seisinam shall be awarded But in Trespasse the same may be Quare clausum suum fregit c. without naming the number of the Acres And so it was said it was adjudged in a Shropshire Case Mich. 28 29. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 67. IN an Action upon the Case because that the Defendant had made a Gate in one Towne for which he could not go to his Close in another Town Cook took Exception that the Writ was Vi armis and it was agreed per curiam that for that cause it was not good Also the Visne was of one Towne only whereas it should have been of both for he said That in Hankford and Russels Case The Nusance was laid in one Town per quod his Mill in another Town could not grinde and upon Not guilty pleaded the Visne came from one Town only and it was adjudged that it was not good Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the King Bench. 68 JOHN JOYCE'S Case AN Action upon the Case was brought against John Joyce Inn-keeper of the Bell at Maidstone in Kent for not scowring of a Ditch which ran betwixt the house of the said John Joyce and of another man and Judgement was given for the Plaintiffe against the Defendant Joyce and a Writ of Error was brought to reverse the Judgement and divers Errors were assigned The first Error which was assigned was That the Plaintiffe doth prescribe That all the Inhabitants of the Bell c. had used to scowre the Gutter c. And it was said That that was no good forme of prescription as in 12. H. 4. 7. Br. Presâ—ription 16. Where the Plaintiffe said That the Defendant omnes alii tenuram illam priushabentes mundare debuere consuevere talem fossatam and therefore the Writ was abated for it ought to have been quod ipsi praedecessores sui de tempere cujus contrarium c. Or that such a one and his Ancestors or Predecessors whose Estate the Defendant hath c. Also if a Copy-holder prescribe That he and all his Tenants tenementi praedict ' have used to have estovers in such a Wood c. it is not good but he ought to prescribe in the Manor The second Error was That the Prescription was uncertain for it is That all Tenants c. which extendeth to Tenants in Fee in Taile for Life or years and the Prescription is the foundation and ground of the Action and therefore it ought to be certain As if one make Title for entry for Mortmaine he ought to shew that he hath entred within the year and day 7. E. 6. Br. Prescription 69. It is holden That Tenant for years or at will cannot prescribe for common for the prescription ought to be alledged in the Tenant of the Free hold or to alledge a Corporation or the like In reason Tenant for years cannot prescribe for his Estate hath a certain beginning and a certain end therefore it is not of long continuance The third Error was That the Plaintiffe hath not alledged That the Defendant was Tenant at the time of the Action brought as in the Case of Clerkenwell and Black-Friâ—rs where the Plaintiffe brought his Action upon the Case for that the Defendant had turned the course of the water of a Conduit Pipe and the Declaration was Quod cum querens seisâ—â—us existat and doth not say existitit and so the Plaintiffe was not supposed Owner of the Scite and Messuage of Black-Friers but only at the time of the Action brought and not at the time of the diversion of the Water But Judgement was given and Error brought upon it The fourth Error was Because it was for scowring a Gutter betwixt the houses c. and doth not say That the house was contigue adjacens to his house 22. H. 6. Where Cattell escape into the Plaintiffs Close and thereupon Trespasse brought the Defendant said That it was for want of Fence of the Plaintiffs Close and it was holden no Plea if he do not say that the Plaintiffes Close was adjacens Clench Justice The Prescription ought to be That such a one and all those whose Estate he hath c. have used for them and their Farmors to repair the Gutter Cowper When the Prescription runs with the Land then he may prescribe in the Land as all those who have holden such Lands have used to scowre such a ditch and the same is good Gawdy Justice If he had said All those who had occupied such a house had used to scowre it had been good Godfrey If a man will alledge a Prescription or Custome he ought to set forth That it was put in use within time of memory In the Prescription of Gavelkind the party ought to shew that the Land is partable and so hath been parted Also he prescribed That omnâ—â— illi qui tenuerunt and doth not alledge a Seisin but by way of Argument Suit Justice held the pleading not good because the words were not contigue adjacens And for these causes the first Judgment was reversed Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the Kings Bench. 69 GOMERSALL and GOMERSALLS Case IN an Action of Account the Plaintiffe charged
disseised and the Disseisor levieth a Fine with proclamations and five years passe and afterwards Tenant in tail dyeth there the issue in tail is barred for there after the Fine levied the Tenant in tail himself had right so as the issue in tail was not the first to whom the Right did accrue after the Fine levied C. 3. part 87. Com. 374. a. When Ralph Bigot made the Feoffment 6 H. 8. Francis Bigot had a Right by his own Feoffment 21 H. 8. his Right was extinguished The second Objection was upon the Form of pleading in a Formedon viz. Post cujus mortem discendere debet to him viz. the issue Then the Ancestor had such a Right which after his death might have discended to his issue Then that proveth that the Ancestor by his Feoffment hath not given away all the Right I answer The form is not Post cujus mortem but Per cujus mortem and the Post cujus mortem discendere debet is not traversable and therefore it is but matterof form and not of substance Old Entres 240. One dum non fuit compos mentis maketh a Feoffment he shall not avoid the Feoffment because that the Law doth not allow a man to stultifie himself C. 4. part 123. But his heir after his death may avoid the Feoffment of his Ancestor for de ipso discendit jus although the Father had not a Right in his life It was thirdly objected out of C. 4. part 166. b. where it is said That if an Ideot maketh a Feoffment the King shall avoid the same after Office found I answer That the Book it self doth cleer the objection For it is in regard of the Statute of Prerogativa Regis cap. 9. Ita quod nullatenus per eosdem fatuos alienentur c. and not in respect of any Right which the party hath who maketh the Feoffment By the Common Law Tenant in tail viz. He who had a Fee-simple conditional had not any right after his Feoffment Then the Act of West 2 cap. 1. makes such a Fee an Estate in tail and provides for the issue in tail for him in the Remaindor or in Reversion but not for the party who made the Feoffment or Grant for a Grant of Tenant in tail is not void as to himself Magdalen-Colledge Case A Lease by a Parson is good against himself but voidable against his Successor And so the same is no Exception Discendit jus post mortem c. The fourth Objection was That although Tenant in tail had made a Feoffment yet he remained Tenant to the Avowry of the Donor and therfore some right of the old estate tail did remain in him I answer 5 E. 4. 3 a. 48 E. 3. 8. b. 20 H. 6. 9. 14 H. 4. 38. b. C. 2. part 30. a. The matter of the Avowry doth not arise out of the Right or Interest which a man hath in the Land but out of the Privity As when the Tenant maketh a Feoffment he hath neither right nor interest in the Land yet the Lord is not compellable to avow upon the Alienee before notice In a Precipe quod reddat the Tenant alieneth yet he remaineth Tenant as to the Plaintiffe and yet he hath not either a Right or any Estate as to the Alienee The fifth Objection was upon the Statute of 1 R. 3. cap. 1. All Feoffments c. by Cestuy que use shall be effectual to him to whom it was made against the Feoffor and his heirs I answer The words of the Statute are to be considered All Feoffments c I desire to know how this affirmative Law doth take away the power of the Feoffees And the Feoffees are bound by the Feoffment of Cestuy que use and are seised to the use of such Alienees 27 H. 8. 23. b. by Fitzherbert If Cestuy que use enter and maketh a Feoffment with warrantie c. but there are not words that the old rights are given away The Feoffees to use before the Statute of 1 R. 3. c. 1. might only make Feoffments but after that Statute Cestuy que use might also make Feoffments of the Lands And so the Statute of 1 R. 3. did not take away the power of the Feoffees for they yet may make Feoffments but it did enlarge the power of Cestuy que use Com. 351 â—52 Then the Question further riseth If Francis Bigot had any Right in the Tail which might be forfeited by the Statutes by 26 H. 8. and 31 H. 8. A particular Act made for the Attaindor of the said Francis Bigot From the time of West 2. cap. 1â— untill the Statute of 26 H. 8. cap. 13. there were many Bills preferred in Parliament to make Lands which were entailed to be forfeited for high Treason but as long as such Bils were unmasked they were still rejected But Anno 26 H. 8. then at a Parliament a Bill was preferred That all Inheritances might be forfeited for Treason so that as under a vail lands in tail were forfeited for Treason which was accepted of The Statutes of 26 H. 8. 31 H. 8. are not to be taken or extended beyond the words of the Statute which are That every Offender hereafter lawfully convict of any manner of high Treason by Presentment confession Verdict or Process of Outlawry shall forfeit c. It doth not appear that Francis Bigot was attainted in any of these wayes For the Inquisition is That he was Indicted and convicted but Non sequitur that he was convict by any of those wayes viz. Verdict Confession or Outlawry And one may be attainted by other means 4 E. 4. in Placito Parliamenti Mortimer was attainted by Parliament 1 R. 2. Alice Percy was attainted by Judgment of the Lords and Peers of the House of Lords in Parliament It was objected That after an Indictment Verdict ought to follow I answer Non sequitur for it may be without Verdict viz. by standing mute And then the Statute of 26 H. 8. doth not extend unto it C. 3. part 10 11. Admit it were an Attaindor within the Statute of 2â— H. 8. yet Francis Bigot had not such lands which might be forfeited C. 3. part 10. For this Statute doth not extend to Conditions or Rights And C. 7. part 34. this Act of 26 H. 8. doth not extend to Rights and Titles And it is cleer that Francis Bigot had not any Estate within the letter of the Act. It was objected That if we have not set forth the full Title of the King in the Monstrans de Droit then is the Monstrans de Droit naught and void I answer 9 E. 4. 51. 16 E. 4. 6. I find no book that in a Monstrans de Droit we should be put to observe that Rule For a Petition were a going about The Statute of 2 E. 6. cap. 6. gives the Monstrans de Droit 16 E. 4. 7. If a Petition be void for want of instructing the King and if all his Title be not set forth in it
for years rendring Rent by an Enfant and afterwards at his full age he accepts the Rent of the particular Tenant it is a good comfirmation of the estate of him in the remainder Litt. 547. If he at full age confirm it is good which could not be if the Lease were void and yet in that Case it doth not appear that there was any Rent reserved The Enfant being a Copyholder makes no difference in the Case And in Murrels Case C. 4. part It is said That if a Copyholder make a Lease not warrantable by the Custome it is a forfeiture which proves it is a good Lease otherwise it could not be a forfeiture Hill 37 Eliz. in the Kings Bench Rot. 99. East and Hardings Case A Copyholder makes a Lease for three years by word to begin at Michaelmas next ensuing it is a forfeiture of the Copyhold and a good lease betwixt the parties Hill 18 Jacobi Haddon and Arrowsmiths Case One licensed his Copyholder for life to make a Lease for 20. if he should so long live and he made a lease for 20 years and left out the words if he should so long live yet because he was a Copyholder for life and so the lease did determine by his death and so he did no more then by Law he might do it was adjudged a good Lease and no forfeiture otherwise if he had been a Copyholder in Fee All Conditions in Fact shall bind an Enfant but not Conditions in Law C. 8. part 44. Whittinghams Case An Enfant Tenant for life or years makes a Feoffment in Fee it is no forfeture For if the Lessor entreth the Enfant may enter upon him again yet it is a good Feoffment but he shall avoid it by Enfancy but if it be by matter of Record then it is otherwise For if an Enfant be Lessee for life and levieth a Fine it is a forfeiture and in that case if the Lessor enter for the forfeiture the Enfant shall not enter again The same Law if an Enfant committeth Waste which is against a Statute it is a forfeiture and if the Lessor recovereth the place wasted the Enfant shall not enter again 9 H. 7 24. A woman an Enfant who hath right to enter into lands taketh a husband and a discent is cast yet she shall avoid the discent after the death of her husband The Court said That if in the Case at Barr the Enfant had been Tenant in Fee at the Common Law and made a lease without Deed and had accepted the Rent at his full age that the same had been good for that there he had a recompence but being a Copyholder it is a question Jones Justice It was adjudged in the Common Pleas in Peters Case That if a Copyholder without licence maketh a Lease not warranted by the Custome That such Lessee should maintain an Ejectione firme The Councel against the Enfant in the Case at Barr said That the Enfant made the Lease as Tenant by the Common-Law for that he made it by Conveyance of the Common-Law And so the Lease was voidable and not void and then the acceptance of the Rent had made the Lease to be good It was adjourned to another day Hill 2. Caroli Rot. 389 in the Kings Bench. 457. GEORGE BUSHER against MURRAY Earl TILLIBARN A Scire facias was brought dated 28 Junii retornable in Mich. Term 2 Car. Regis why Execution should not be awarded against the Defendant upon a Iudgment had against him in this Court The Defendant pleaded That King Charles 7 Octob. in the second year of his Reign did take him into his protection for a year and did grant unto him that during that time he should be free from all manner of Plaints but Dower Quare Impedit and Placit coram Justiciariis Itinerantibus It was said that this Protection was not warrantable by Law for three causes 1. Because it is after the purchase of the Scire facias and before the Retorn 10 H. 6. 3. 11 H. 4. 7. A Protection depending the Suit is not allowable although it make mention that the party is to go a voyage with the Kings Son 2. Because he doth not specifie any particular cause why the Protection was granted unto him All our books do express a cause viz. Quia moratur c. quia profecturus c. Register 22 23. there three Protections are Quia incarceratus 39 H. 6. 38 39 40. per Curiam The Protection ought to express a special cause otherwise it is not good Fitz. 28. a. b. the cause is expressed 1. R. 2. cap. 16. The particular cause ought to be in the Protection A Protection being general the party hath no remedy against him to traverse it or to procure it to be repealed 3. This Court is greater then a Iustice in Eyre and he is excepted in placitis itinerantibus That Court was of opinion that there was no colour for allowing of the Protection A Safe-conduct will only keep the party safe from harm but will not protect him from Actions Mich. 2 Caroli Intratur Pasch 18. Jur. Rot. 298. in the Common Pleas. 458. ROYDEN and MOULSTER's Case IN Trespass for entring into his Close called Dipson in Suffolk upon Not guilty pleaded the Jury gave a special verdict That the said Close was parcel of the Mannor of Movedon and demisable by Copy of Court-Roll and that the same was granted to G. Starling in Fee by Copy of Court-Roll who had issue two sons John and Henry And that 35 Eliz. George Starling did surrender the same to the use of his Will and thereby demised the same to John and the heirs males of his body with divers Remainders over and dyed seised And that the Surrender was presented according to the Custom and that John was admitted to have to him his heirs And that the said John had issue 3 sons Harry George and Nicholas And that the said John 43 Eliz. did surrender to the use of his Will and thereby devised the same to Katherine his wife and dyed and that the said Surrender 9 Martii 4t Eliz. was presented and the said Katherine was admitted Harry George and Nicholas dyed without issue They further found That the Custom of the Mannor is That the youngest brother is to have the Copyhold by discent And also That no Copyholder by the Custome could make any Estate in feodo and that the said Katherine took to her husband Francis Robinson who 1 Sept 17 Iacobi leased the same to Royden the Plaintiffe for one year who entred and was thereof possessed untill Moulster the Defendant by the commandment of c. did out him c. In which case the only Question was Whether a Copyhold be within the Statute of West 2. so as an estate thereof so limited should be a Fee tail or a Fee conditional And by the opinion of the Justices of the Common-Pleas it was adjudged That a Copyhold could not be entituled within the