are in my possession and they are evicted by the right Owner a Covenant will lye contra if I have not possession at the time of the letting them and if I let land and J.S. enter before the Lessee the Lessee cannot have a Covenant Quod nota Et ad journeâ—ur 35 Eliz. Scarret against Tanner in C. B. Rot 1458. IN a false Imprisonment the Defendant justified that he was High Constable of the Hundred of E. in the County of â—…p and that the Plaintiff made an affray within the said Hundred upon one Walm who came presently to the Defendant and told him of it and took his oath that he was in fear of his life whereupon the Defendant came to the Plaintiff and arrested him and carried him to Prison untill he could finde sufficient Sureties of peace Glanvill A Constable cannot arrest one to finde surety of the peace upon a complaint made to him unless he himself sees the peace broken 7 Ed. 4. Kingsmill contr For he is at Common Law Conservator pacis 12 H. 7.18 And how can he keep the peace if he may not compell them to finde surety 44 Ed. 3. Barr. 2â—2 If a man that is threatned complain to the Constable he may compell the party to finde surety for his good behaviour and may justifie the imprisoning him or putting him in the Stocks 22 Ed. 4.35 10 Ed. 4.18 where a Constable in such case may take a Bond. Anderson I grant that Constables are keepers of the peace at the Common Law and are to keep the peace as much as in them lyes and that is to take men that they finde breaking the peace and to carry them to a Iustice of peace to finde surety but the Constable cannot take security nor recognizance nor bail for he is not an Officer upon Record and if he do take a Bond how shall he certifie it and unto what Court Walmesley contr Who said that the Constable might take security by bond although not by recognizance or bail Beaumond A Constable may put him that breaks the peace within the Stocks but it must be where the breach of peace is committed in his view for he hath no authority to take an oath that a man is in fear of his life and then the foundation of his justification doth fail Owen The oath is not material for although he cannot take such oath yet his taking of surety is good and before Iustices of peace were made the peace was preserved by Constables and the Statute that creates Iustices does not take away the power of Constables and therefore he may justifie Sed adjournatur Pasch 38 Eliz. Worsley against Charnock in C. B. IN an audita quaerela the Case was thus The father and son were bound in a Statute-Merchant to Charnock who sued out an Execution against them and their lands were severally extended and they supposing that the Statute was not good because it was not sealed with both their seals according to the Statute they both brought a joynt audita querela and whether they could joyn in this Action or not was the question Warburton They shall not joyn for in all cases a man must make his complaint according to his grief and here their grief is several as it two men be imprisoned they shall not joyn in a false imprisonment The same Law in a Battery 8 Ed. 4. 18 H. 6. 10 Ed. 4. It J.S. hath goods of divers men they shall not joyn in a Replevin and 33 H. 6. two men shall not joyn in an audita quaerela unless the land in execution is in them joyntly and 29 Ed. 3. two Ioynt-tenants Infants alien they shall have several Writs of Cum fuit infra aeâ—atem But he confessed the Case in 30 Ed. 3. Fitzherbert audita quaerela where two men were in Execution and the Conusor did release to one and then to another by another Release yet both shall joyn in an audita quaerela but this is not Law and besides they cannot recover damages joyntly by reason of their several vexations and this Action being personal damages cannot be severed Vid. 2 Ed. 3. Execution 45. 9 Ed. 4.31 12 Ed. 4.6 Harris contra And as to the last reason the Book in the 20 of Elizabeth is that no damages shall be recovered in an audita quaerela which if it be Law then is the doubt at an end And whereas it hath been said that they shall not joyn because their griefs are several methinks there is no reason but that if he that survives shall be charged with the whole that they shall joyn also in their discharge for if their charge be joynt their discharge shall be joynt also And in the 34 H. 6. and 30 Ed. 3. where an audita quaerela may be brought joyntly and he resembled this to the Case of a Monstraverunt where if a Tenant in antient demesn be distreyned all the Tenants shall joyn because the grievance to one may be a grievance to all the rest Yelverton of the same opinion Tho suing of the Execution was the cause of the audita quaerela but not the ground for the ground was the Statute-merchant and therefore it is here brought according to the Statute Anderson If two men do me several Trespasses yet I may have a joynt Action against them and the death of one of them shall not abate the Writ but if two are Plaintiffs in a personal Action the non-suit of one shall be the non-suit of the other and in our case the Statute was joynt and also the Execution then if all the Writs are so the audita quaerela which is to discharge them shall be joynt also especially in this Writ where they are as it were Defendants and therefore he resembled this Case to a Writ of Errour or an Attaint brought by two joyntly and one is non-sued yet this shall not abate the Writ because they are in a manner Defendants Walmesley contr The Action ought to be brought according to the cause of the wrong and the wrong begun in suing the Execution and that was several and therefore the audita quaerela ought to be several also but if this Statute had been good and had been discharged by release or defeasance then the audita quaerela might be brought joyntly for then the ground of the execution was joynt but here is but a colourable Statute and the cause of the Action is not begun before the Execution sued Owen and Beaumond agreed and after by assent of Anderson Iudgement was given that they ought to have several Writs Note Pasch 36 Eliz. in B. R. Rot. 323. or 521. between Curteise and Overscot If A. did recover against B. by two several Iudgements whereby B. is in Execution it was adjudged that he shall not have one audita quaerela but two several Writs Pasch 37 Eliz. Sawer against Hardy in B. R. Rot. 254. IN an Ejectment the Case was this A woman was Lessee for forty years sub
that it should be against both for it is intire and cannot be affirmed in part and disaffirmed in another part And the Lord Norris case is very agreeable to this where Tenant for life did levy an erroneous Fine and then was attaint by Parliament and all the right which he had to any Land was given to the Queen and it was adjudged that there is no title of Error nor was it given to the Queen by this word Right and then if it be so the Title of Error is not of any right in the land but onely to the Suit and if it be a Suit it is a Suit intire for he cannot have severall Suits as is agreed in Sir Richard Knightleys case A man had judgment to recover 150 l. and did release 20 l. of it and after sued execution and the other brought an Audita querela upon the Releases and defeated all the execution But it is otherwise where such apportionment of such Suit is done by act in Law as in 7 Ed. 4. fol. ultimo The Sheriff levied parcell of the debt by Fieri facias yet shall he have an Action of Debt for the Residue upon the Record But in this case it is the act of the party himself that destroies his Suit for part of the Land for which it shall destroy the other suit for the Error is intire as to all the land and cannot be divided as in the 38 Ed. 3. and 12 H 6. if a false Verdict be found and the party greived does make a Feoffment of parcell he shall not have an attaint for any part So in the 19 H. 6. and the 39 Ass If he who hath cause to bring a Writ of Error or Attaint does take a Lease for years of parcell he doth suspend his Action and if he takes in fee it is quite gone But it was resolved by the Court that the Feoffment does not destroy the Title of the Writ of Dower for more then so much as a Feoffment was made of and thereupon they first took a difference between suspension and extinguishment of an Action for peradventure if he suspend his Action as to any part for any time this is a suspension unto all but extinguishment of part is a Bar to that part onely and Gawdy cited the case in 9 H. 6. where Iudgment was reverst for part only and it is not unusuall to have a Fine reversed for part as if a fine be levied of lands in ancient Demesne 47 Ed. 3.9 a. there by Parsley If there be Error in Law as to one parcell and Error in Fact as to another parcell the Iudgment as touching the matter of Law may be reversed Fenner He who hath Title to reverse a Fine or recovery by Writ of Error hath right in the Land and if he release all his right in the land the Error is extinct and the reason of the Lord Norris Case was not that the Title to the Error was an Action in privity annexed to the party to the Record and his Heires and cannot be transferred over to another no more then a Writ of partition between Coparceners or a Nuper obiit Popham He who hath Title to have the Writ of Error hath no Title to the Land although that thereby he be to be restored to the Lande for if the Land discend to one who hath Title to have the Writ of Error without doubt it shall not be accounted a remitter But as to the matter now in question he said that if two men bring a Writ of Error in the Realty and the Tenant plead the release of one this is a good Bar against both because the Error in the Record is released But if one who hath Title to a Writ of Error does make a Release of all his Right in one acre this is a Bar but for so much inasmuch as the Release is a Bar but as to the Restitution of the Land onely and no Release of Errors in the Record for by the Reversall of a Fine or Recovery the party may annihilate the Record and have Restitution of that which the Record before took from him and therefore it shall bar the Plaintiff And the opinion of all the Court was that the Fine should be reversed for that part of the Land onely whereof no Feoffment was made but for some defects in the Writ of Error Iudgment was stayed Mich. 37 and 38 Eliz. in B. R. Barnards Case SMith brought an Action of Debt upon a Bond against Barnard the Defendant pleaded that the Plaintiff was outlawed and a day was given him to bring in the Record at which day he made default Daniel moved that the Iudgment for the Plaintiff in this case should be that the Defendant should answer for that the plea of Outlawry was but a dilatory Plea and no Plea in Bar as appears 21 Ed. 4 15. but this difference was taken by the Court. In an Action of Debt upon a Bond Vtlary of the Plaintiff is a Plea in Bar and the reason is because all the Debts in specialties are forfeited to the Queen by reason of the Outlawry and because the Queen is to have them it is a good Plea in Bar But in a Trespasse or Debt upon a Contract the Outlawry is but to the abatement of the Writ and the Queen shall not have Debts upon simple Contracts but after the Outlawry pardoned the Plaintiff may have an Action for them again And because he failed to bring the Record at his day appointed the Plaintiff recovered vide Dyer 6 Eliz. 227 228. Hil. 32 Eliz. in C. B. Lord Dacres Case GRegory Lord Dacres was summoned to answer Richard Gawton in a Plea of Debt for 26 l. 14 s. and did declare that the Defendant did retain the Plaintiff to be his Bayliff of his Mannor of Moreford c. and to receive the Defendants money for a certain time and to do other businesses for the Defendant and to render an account and afterwards before one Launcelot Love the Auditor assigned by the Defendant the Plaintiff did account Super quo computo praefatus Richardus pro diversis costagiis expensis quae idem Richardus circa prosecutionem executionem negotiorum praefati Gregorii in surplusagiis in praedict 26 l. 14. s. erga ipsum Gregorium ultra omnes denariorum summas per ipsum Richardum ad ipsum dicti Gregorii recept permansisset And thereupon he brought his Action and the Defendant pleaded Nil debet and it was found for the Plaintiff and yet he had not Iudgment First because the Declaration was insufficient because the Plaintiff was not in Surplusage to the Defendant but the Defendant to the Plaintiff and so are all the Presidents directly and he ought to alledge he was in Service and that he had received Goods whereof no mention is made Secondly Because neither day nor place is alledged where the Auditor was assigned Pasch 33 Eliz. in C. B. Rot. 409. Owseleys Case ROger Owsely brought a
was a surrender But admitting it was no surrender but the first terme continues then the second question is 2. If when the Devisee enters into the terme devised to him without consent of the Executor by which entry he is a wrongfull Seisor and a Disseisor and after he grants his right and interest to the Executor if this Grant be good or no because he had not any terme in him but onely a right to the terme suspended in the land and to be revived by the entry of the Executor And adjudged that it was a good Grant and it shall inure first as the agreement of the Executor by the acceptance of the Grant that the Devisee had a terme in him as a Legacy And secondly the Deed shall have operation by way of Grant to passe the Estate of the Devisee to the Executor and so no wrong and the case was resembled to the case of surrender to the grantee of a Reversion which first shall inure as attornment and after as surrender and so was it adjudged Trin. 37 Eliz. IN an Action on the Case for these words Carter is a prigging pilfering Merchant and hath pilfered away my Corne and my Goods from my Wife and my Servants and this I will stand to And the Action was commenced in a base Court in the Country and Iudgment given and the Record removed by Writ of Error And it seemed to the Court that the words were not actionable wherefore Iudgment was reverst Sed quaere rationem Gowood against Binkes A Man did assume and promise to I.S. in consideration that he would forbeare a Debt due to him untill such a time That he would pay the Debt if A.B. did not pay it and he that made the promise died and the money was not paid and therefore an Action was brought against his Executors who traversed the Assumpsit and a Verdict found against them and in Arrest of Iudgment it was moved that an Action grounded on a simple Contract lies not against Executors unlesse upon an Assumpsit for a Debt or Duty owing by the Testator himself and not of such a collaterall matter as the forbearance of the Debt of another but by Gawdy Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff whereupon Popham said that he believed this Iudgment would be reversed by Writ of Error in the Exchequer Chamber and the same day at Serjeants-Inn such a case was depending in the Exchequer Chamber to be argued and reversed for the cause ut supra And the case was between Jordan and Harvey and entred Trin. 36 Eliz. Rot. 384. Hil. 37 Eliz. Rot. 34. Castleman against Hobbs IN an Action of the Case for saying Thou hast stollen half an acre of Corne innuendo Corne severed the Defendant demurred upon the Declaration Fenner It is not Felong to move Graine and take it away Popham agreed to it and that the word Innuendo would not alter the Case unlesse the precedent words had vehement presumption the Corne was severed and in this case no man can think that the Corne was severed when the words are half an acre of Corne on the contrary if the words had been that he had stollen so many loads or bushels of Corne And Gawdy was of the same opinion and Iudgment against the Plaintiff c. Hil. 38 Eliz. IN an Account the Plaintiff declared that he delivered Goods to the Defendant to Merchandize for him the Defend said that the Goods with divers other of his own proper goods werâ— taken at Sea where he was robbed of them And it was moved that this was no plea in Bar of an Account but if it be any plea it shall be a plea before Auditors in discharge But admitting it be a good Bar yet it is not well pleaded for the Plaintiff as it is pleaded cannot traverse the robbing and try it for things done super altum mare is not tryable here wherefore the Defendant ought to have pleaded that he was robbed at London or any other certain place upon the Land and maintain it by proofs that he was robbed on the Sea Gawdy It is no good plea for he hath confest himself to be accountable by the receipt 9 Ed. 4. and it is no plea before Auditors no more then the Case was in 9 Ed. 4. for a Carrier to say that he was robbed Popham It is a good plea before Auditors and there is a difference between Carriers and other Servants and Factors for Carriers are paid for their carriage and take upon them safely to carry and deliver the things received Gawdy If Rebels break a Prison whereby the Prisoners escape yet the Goaler shall be responsible for them as it is in the 33 H. 6. Popham In that case the Goaler hath remedy over against the Rebels but there is no remedy over in our case Gawdy Then the diversity is when the Factor is robbed by Pyrates and when by enemies Popham There is no difference Hil. 38 Eliz. Rot. 40. IN a Writ of Error upon a Iudgment given in Nottingham the Error assigned was because the Defendant had no addition for it appeared the Action was in Debt and the Record was that H. Hund complained against Richard Preston of c. in the County of Nottingham Husbandman the which addition is not in his first name but in the alias and that could not be good and therefore it was prayed that Iudgment might he reversed But by the Court the Court of Nottingham had no authority to outlaw any man so that addition is not requisite wherefore it is no Error and Iudgment was affirmed Trin. 37 Eliz. Rot. 553. Browne against Brinkley IN an Action of the Case for words the Declaration was That the Plaintiff was produced as a Witnesse before the Iustices at the Assises at Darby where he deposed in a certain cause and the Defendant said Browne was disproved before the Iustices of Assise at Darby before Mr. Kingsley Innuendo that he was disproved in his Oath that he took before the Iustices And adjudged against the Plaintiff for although he was disproved in his Oath yet it is not actionable in this case for that disproof might be in any collaterall matter or any circumstance but otherwise if the words had been that he was perjured and the Innuendo will not help the matter and so was it adjudged The chief Iustice and Fenner being onely in the Court. Trin. 36 Eliz. Higham against Beast IN an Action of Trespasse by the Parson of Wickhambrooke in the County of Suffolk against the Vicar of the same place for taking of Tythes and on the generall issue the Iury gave this speciall Verdict That the place where c. was a place called B. the Freehold of I.S. and parcell of the Mannor of Badmanshall and found that the Pope as supream Ordinary heretofore made such an Indowment to the Vicaridge in these words Volumus quod Vicarius c. habebit tertiam partem decimarum Bladorum Foeni quomodocunque pervenientem de
reason appears that the nature of the Lapse is to be taken hac vice and the King must take it then or not at all and where it is objected that by this means every Lapse may be taken from the King I conceive that far greater inconvenience will be to the Patrons on the other side for when a Lapse is devolded to the King and a stranger presents if then the true Patron may not present untill the death of such Incumbent perhaps the Incumbent will resign or be deprived and a stranger shall be presented again and again in like manner and so by this means the Patron shall never continue his advowson for by the Couin between the stranger and the neglect of the King to take his Lapse the Incâ—mbent shall never die And afterwards in this term it was adjudged that such usurpation shall not take away the Lapse from the King because the avoydance accrued by the act of the Incumbent Cook ib. 7.27 a. Hillary 29 Eliz. Lassell's Case LAssell brought an action of debt upon an obligation the Defendant pleads that the condition was that he should personally appear before the Iustices and set forth how he was taken by a Latitat by the Plaintiff who was Shiriff who took this obligation upon his deliverance and urged the Statute of 23 H. 6. and said that the obligation was not according to the Statute And by the Opinion of three Iustices Anderson being absent If it were in such an action wherein a man may appear by Atturney then it is void And the Plaintiff shewed a Iudgment given in the Kings Bench wherein in such case Iudgment was given for the Sheriffs and it was between Seekford and Cutts 27. 28. Eliz. Rot. 373. And the next Terme it was moved again Anderson The Obligation is voyd for when an express form is limited by the Statute no variance ought to be from it But the other three Iustices were against him for they held that he ought to appear in his proper person in case of a Latitat Anderson I deny that for Latitats have not been of above 60 years continuance Vid. Cook lib. 10. Beufages Case and his first Institutes 225. a. Pasch 25 Eliz. Kayre against Deurat in C. B. Rot. 603. IN a Waste the Plaintiff declared how the Defendant was seized in Fee and made a Feoffment to the use of himself for life the remainder to the Plaintiff in Fee after which he committed waste The Tenant said that he was seized in Fee without that he made a Feoffment as the Plaintiff declared and upon issue joyned it was found that the Defendant was seized in Fee and that he made a Feoffment to the use of himself for life of J.S. without impeachment of waste the remainder ut supra and whether this was the Feoffment which the Plaintiff alledged they prayed the advice of the Court. Anderson Chief Justice If the impeachment of waste be not part of their issue then the Verdict is voyd for that point and that which is found more than their issue is voyd 33 H. 6. the Defendant pleaded that he was not Tenant of the Free-hold and the Iury found that he held joyntly with another there the Plaintiff shall recover And then at another day it was said by the Iustices that the Iury had found such an estate as was alledged by the Plaintiff and although that they further found this priviledge to be dispunisht of waste which upon the matter proves that the Plaintiff hath no cause of action yet because the Tenant may choose whether he would take hold of this priviledge or not the Iury cannot finde a thing that is out of their Verdict and whereof the Defendant will not take advantage by pleading and for this cause their Verdict was voyd 7 H. 6.33 21 H. 7.12 where one pleaded in Bar a Feoffment and traversed the Feoffment and hereupon they were at issue and the Iury found that he had enfeoffed the Tenant after the Fine levyed to the Plaintiff this cannot be found because it is out of their issue 31 Assi 12. and Iudgement was given for the Demandant Hillar 29 Eliz. Michell against Donton in C. B. Rot 639. IN an Ejectment a man makes a Lease rendring Rent with a Covenant that the Lessee shall repair the houses with other Covenants and Conditions of re-entry for not performance and then he devised the same land to the same Lessee for divers years after the first years expired yielding the same Rent and under the same Covenants as in the former Lease and he devised the remainder in fee to the Plaintiff and the first Lease expires and the Defendant being possest by force of his second Lease doth not repair the houses and if the Plaintiff might enter was the question Shuttleworth In as much as he devised the land under the same Covenants as the first Lease was and the first was with Covenants and Conditions the second shall be so also the rather because he deviseth the remainder over so that the Devisee cannot take advantage of the Covenants but of the Conditions he may and the second Lease is conditional But the whole Court was against him Shuttleworth To what purpose then are these words in the Devise Under the same Covenants Periam They shall be voyd And by all the Iustices the intent of the Will was not that the Lease should be conditional for Covenants and Conditions differ much for the one gives an action but not the other but the intent was that he should perform the Covenants upon pain to render damages in a Writ of Covenant Bottenham against Herlakenden 29 30 Eliz. in C. B. Rot. 1620. HErlakenden was seized of land and devised the same to the Plaintiff for years the remainder to his wife for life Proviso that the Plaintiff should pay to the woman 20 l. per annum and if he failed of his payment c. wherefore the woman entred and if this shall be called reservation or reversion was the question Anderson A man cannot make a Reservation on a Devise Periam A man may to himself and his heirs but not to a stranger Anderson Every Devisee is in in the sier by the Devisor and why shall not this then be a reservation to the Devisor and a grant of the reversion to the woman Gawdy Wherefore cannot a man devise land reserving rent when by the Statute 32 H. 8. he may devise at his pleasure Periam Because his pleasure must correspond with the Law Anderson If I devise land to another reserving rent to me and my heirs and then devise the reversion he shall have the rent as incident to the reversion and the Iudges were divided wherefore c. 29 Eliz. Glover against Pipe in B. R. Rot. 838. IN debt upon a Bond the Condition was that where Glover the Plaintiff had a Copyhold of inheritance and had leased it to the Defendant if the Defendant should not commit any manner of waste and
this is voyd And after viz. 31 Eliz. It seemed to all the Iustices that the consideration was not good and therefore the contract voyd But if goods he delivered to an Infant to be re-delivered if Afterwards his Executor assumeth to re-deliver them this is good Gawdy in the 13 H. 6. If a man be indebted in a simple Contract and dye and his Executors assume to pay the debt it is good but â—his seems to be contrary to the Law for it is contrary to that which hath been lately adjudged in the Common Pleas. And Egerton cited a Caâ—e 10 H 6. where an Infant brought an Action of Trespass and submitted himself to an arbitrement this shall binde him at his full age and this was agreed by the Court but differs much from the Case at Bar for when an Infant commits a Trespass he is chargeable in an Action of Trespass and shall lose damages but it is not so here Wherefore Iudgement was given that the Plaintiff should be barred Mich. 30 Eliz. Stanton against Chamberlain Rot. IN an Action of Debt upon a Bond upon non est factum pleaded the Iury found that the Defendant sealed the Bond and cast it on the Table and the Plaintiff came and took up the Bond and carried it away without saying any thing and if this shall amount to a Delivery by the Defendant to the Plaintiff was the question And it was resolved by all the Iustices that if the Iury had found that he had sealed the Bond and cast it on the table towards the Plaintiff to the intent that the Plaintiff should take it as his Deed who took the Bond and went away that had been a good delivery or that the Plaintiff after the sealing and casting on the table had taken it by the commandment or consent of the Defendant but because it is found that the Defendant onely sealed it and cast it on the table and the Plaintiff took it and went away with it this is not a sufficient delivery for it may be that he sealed it to the intent to reserve it to himself untill other things were agreed and then if the Plaintiff take it and go away with it without the Defendants consent that will not make it the Descendants Deed. But it was said that it might be accounted to be the Defendants Deed because it is found that he sealed it and cast it on the table and the Plaintiff took it c. and it is not found that the Defendant said any thing and therefore because he did not say any thing it will amount to his consent Nam qui tacet consentire videtur But to this it was answered that it is not found that the Defendant was present when the Plaintiff took it and if the Defendant had sealed and cast the Bond on the Table when the Plaintiff was not there and then the Defendant went away and then the Plaintiff came and took it away then clearly it is not the Deed of the Defendant Hill 31 Eliz. Beron against Goodyne IN an Ejectment the Case was the King was seized of lands in Fee and a stranger intruded and the King grants this land to J. S. in Fee and the Intruder continues possession and dyes seized The question was if this descent shall take away the entry of I.S. Johnson It shall not for none will affirm that an Intruder shall gain any thing out of the King but that the land shall pass to the Patentee and the continuance of the Intruder in possession and his dying seized shall not take away the entry for he cannot be a Disseisor because he gained no estate at the beginning as if a Guardian continues possession after the heir is of full age he is no Disseisor nor shall gain any estate And 10 Ed. 3.2 where a tenant of the King dyes his heir within age and a stranger enters and after the heir is of full age dyes seized this shall not take away the entry of the heir Cook contr By his continuance of possession he shall be accounted a Disseisor and the Free-hold out of the Patentee for another estate he cannot have for tenant at sufferance be is not for he comes in at first by a title as in the 12 Assi The Dona's in Frank-marriage are divorced and the husband continues the possession and so where a Lessee continues possession after the death of the tenant for life these are tenants at sufferance and the Patentee hath a Free-hold in Law which is taken away by descent and denyed there was any such case as was vouched in the 10 Ed. 3. but compared the case to the 21 Ed. 3.2 where a Fine was levyed per conusans de droit come ceo c. if before the Conusee enters a stranger enters and dyes seized the entry of the Conusee is barr'd So is it where an Advowson is granted to J.S. and his heirs and a stranger usurps the Grantee hath no remedy And if a man deviseth land to J.S. and before he enters a stranger doth enter and dyes seized the entry of the Disseisee is taken away and so it is in our case But a further day was given Cook to shew cause why Iudgement should not be given against him Hillar 31 Eliz. Suttons Case in C. B. Rot. 533. IN an Ejectment the Iury gave a special Verdict that the Defendant nihil habens in terra did make a Lease thereof to the Plaintiff by Indenture according as the Plaintiff had declared and then the Defendant entred on the Plaintiff and whether this entry be good was the question Walmesley for the Defendant Iurors are sworn ad veritatem dicendum and therefore they shall not enquire of Estoppels because it is not in evidence But the whole Court was against him who held that the Iury might finde a matter that is not shewed in evidence for by Anderson in an Assize they may finde a Release although it be not given in evidence and he and Periam held that the Plaintiff ought to have Iudgement for that there was a good Lease between the parties and if Rent were reserved an Action of Debt would lye Windham contr For it is onely an Estoppell between the parties but the Court is at liberty and are not estopped when the truth appears to them and it is a Maxim in Law that he who hath nothing in the land cannot make a Lease and then the Plaintiff hath no cause of Action And afterwards viz. 32 Eliz. Anderson and Periam were expresly for the Plaintiff for whereas it hath been said that it was a Lease by Estoppell they held it was not so for that in Debt the Rent should be recovered And Anderson said If I levy a Fine of your land to you for years if you be put out I shall have an Assize but Windham was of opinion with Walmesley wherefore Periam said we will have the opinion of the other Iustices in the Exchequer Chamber wherefore c. Trinit 30 Eliz.
Writ is grounded upon a recovery by default in a reall action but a waste is a meere personall action And therefore in the 2 H. 4. in a waste against the husband and wife the wife shall not be received also it will not lie in this case because here is no default within the intent of the Statute for the Statute intends to relieve defaults after appearance and therefore all the Iudgment in this Writ is that the recovery was by default and if there was a default in pleading it is a default but not within the Statute Glanvill cont No waste is committed and so the recovery shall not bind for it appears in the 8 Ed. 4. by West That this action was provided instead of a Writ of right and there is no question but a Writ of right will lie here and this Writ is of the same nature And Mr Plowden in his Reading said that this action will lie upon a recovery upon a Writ of waste aswell as in other actions for the recovery is not upon the Inquiry of the Iury but upon default And it is also a reall action 7 Ed. 3. 28 Ed. 3.30 If the husband make default herein the wife shall be received Anderson There is no question but this action lies upon a recovery in waste but if this be a default within the Statute is a doubt for if this should be suffer d it were very mischievous for then contempts shall be favoured which was never the intention of the Statute and therefore it will not lie where there is a default after appearance Walmesley of the same opinion for this case differs much from the Statute of Glocester for this Statute gives remedy to a third person upon default of the particular Tenant and therefore upon this Statute the intent of the partie who makes default is more regarded than the manner of the default and therefore it shall be taken largely But here is default in the party himself and he shall have no favour against his willfull default for every nihil dicit is a confession of it self for thereupon it is supposed that nothing can be said Windham I hold that a Quod ei deforceat will not lie in a Writ of waste for the inquiry of the Iury is the cause of the Iudgment But he agreed that default within the Statute is intended such default that in it self is the cause of the Iudgment but here the Iudgment is given upon contempt and refusall of the party and therefore no favour Perryam This action cannot be compar'd to a writ of right which is grounded upon the right and not on the Iudgment but the form in the Quod ei deforceat is set down in the Statute which ought to be observed and the Statute gives this action upon a default and here is no default for it cannot be a default where the partie appears and hath no day in Court but he doubted much if it lay in awrit of waste because the damages are the principall but as the case is here it will not lie And to prove that a nihil dicit is a confession he cited Pepyss Ease in the Comentaries 438. And at last Iudgment was given that the Writ would not lye Pasch 35 Elizab. James against Portman WIlliam James and Thomas James Ioyntenants for life of a lease made by Portman William James doth assent covenant and agree that Thomas James occupy all the land alone and sow it with his own Corn After the land is sowed Thomas James dyes William James the survivor grants the Corne to Portman who takes it and the Plaintiff as executor to Thomas brought an action of trespass Ewens for the Defendant one Ioyntenant cannot make a Lease to his companion no more than one may infeof the other by reason they have joynt possession 10 Ed. 4.3 2 R. 2. Extinguishment 3. Also the words here are not sufficient to make a Lease but admitting this yet the survivor shall have the corn of that part which belongs to him for by this Lease the Ioynture is severed and then the Survivor shall have that which grows on his part For it two Ioyntenants sowe their land and one of them letts his moytie for years and he who did not let dyes the other shall have the corn as Survivor Pyne cont Although one Ioyntenant cannot inteof another because he cannot make livery because he hath possession before yet may he Release to his companion and so may he make a Lease for years for there is no need of any livery and by the 22 H. 6.43 If one Ioyntenant infeofs another this shall enure by way of confirmation And 14 H. 6.10 One Ioyntenant may put out his companion by this means for he may clayme a Lease from him and then a Release and if it be a good Lease then the Executors shall have it Popham The action is good for one Ioyntenant may make a Lease to the other although he cannot infeof for a Lease is but a contract And 11 H. 6.33 one Ioyntenant commanded the other to occapy all and in a trespass he was compelled to plead this as a Lease and then if one Ioyntenant does sow all and dyes the other shall have the Corne by Survivor and it is not as in case where a man hath an estate determinable upon uncertainty for there his Executors shall have the Corn but in our case the Survivor had contracted with his companion and thereby had bound himself not to meddle with the land and the other bestowed great costs in manuring and sowing the Land and therefore the Executors shall have the Corn. Fenner agreed but doubted whether one Ioyntenant could make a Lease to the other but said that by the contract he had excluded himself from the proffits and by the 39 Ed. 3.27 one Ioyntenant may have an account against the other And he said that if I agree that you shall sow my Land with me you shall gain no interest in the land and yet you shall have the corne And one Ioyntenant may distreyn for himself and as Bayly for the other And the Cause was adjourned and afterwards viz. Hillary 36 Eliz. the case was repeated And Gawdy said That if there be two Ioyntenants and one grants to the other that he may sow the Land yet may the other occupie with him for these words do not transfer any sole interest but if he sayes that he shall occupy all the Land and shall sow it solely this does exclude him from having any interest with him Popham Agreed because this is but a contract and so of a Lease for years Gawdy If one Ioyntenant sayes to the other that he will not occupie the Land with him or that he will not put in his Cattle this does not transfer any interest but that he may occupie with him and so in this case if it had not been said that he should occupy solely Popham of the same opinion for where he sayes he will not occupy
the words are in the negative which will not exclude him of his interest but in the Case at Bar they will because they are in the affirmative so That he shall occupy the Land solely And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Pasch 3. Eliz. Woodward against Nelson in B. R. WOodward Parson of Wotton in consideration of 120 l. payd by Bretman one of his Parishioners did accord and agree with him that he and his assignes should be discharged of Tythes during the time that he should be Parson Bretman made a Lease to Nelson Woodward did libell against him for Tythes and Nelson prayed a prohibition upon the said contract And it this was sufficient matter for a prohibition was the Question because it was by word only and without writing which amounts only to a cause of action upon a promise for Bretman but no action for his lessees neither can this amount to a Release of Tythes for as Tythes cannot be leased without Deed so they cannot be released or discharged without Deed. Gawdy Justice Tythes cannot be discharg'd without Deed unless by way of contract for a sum of money and he cited the 21 H. 6.43 Fenner for that year in which the discharge was made it was good by way of discharge without Deed because the Parson for that year had as it were an Interest but such discharge can have no continuance for another year for default of a Deed and so a promise being no discharge it is no cause of a prohibition But Gawdy held as afore And about this time Wray Chief Iustice dyed and Popham succeeded and the same day he was sworn Cook moved this Case again And the Court held that the agreement being by parol was not good And Fenner then said that without writing the agreement could not be good between the parties but for one year And the Court awarded a consultation But upon search made no Iudgment was entred in the Roll. Trinit 35 Eliz. Dr. Foord against Holborrow in B. R. Rot. 367. IN an Action of Debt upon a Bond the case was Dr. Drury to whom the Plaintiff was Executor made a Lease to Holborrow of the Mannour of Golding for years and Holborrow the Lessee entred into a Bond that if he his Executors or Assigns did pay to Anne Goldingham widow the sum of 20 l. for 17 years if the said Goldingham should so long live and so long as Holborrow the Lessee or any claiming by or under the said Holborrow shall or may occupy or enjoy the said Mannour of Goldingham and then Holborrow surreudred his Lease to the Obliges praecextu cujus the Defendant pleaded quod non occupavit nec potuit occupare c. wherefore he did not pay the said sum to Anne Goldingham and the Executor of the Obligee brought an Action of Debt upon this Obligation Johnson for the Defendant The term is gone for he cannot occupy after the surrender and also the Obligee is a party to the cause why it is not performed and therefore he shall take no advantage 4 â— 7.2 But the whole Court was against him for he to whom the surrender is made cometh in quodammodo by him and is his Assignee for he shall be subject to the charge that was before the surrender and also the Defendant shall be bound by these words in the Obligation viz. so long as he shall or may and although these words were not inserted yet he shall pay the annuity for where the first Cause does commence in himself he shall not have advantage thereby but otherwise where he is not party to the first Cause As if two Ioynt-tenants with Warranty make a partition the Warranty is gone because they are parties to the act which made the extinguishment but if one makes a Feoffment of his part the Warranty as to the other remains 11 Ed. 4.8 and in the Case at Bar the Obligor made the surrender and therefore he is party and the first cause and there is a diversity when the thing to be done is collateral and when not for if a Lessee does oblige himself to do a collateral thing as payment of money there he ought to do it although that he surrender for although the Obligee do accept of the surrender yet no act is done by him to hinder the performance of the condition but where the Obligee does any act to hinder the performance of the Condition the Condition is saved as if the Lessee be bound to the Lessor to suffer J.S. to enter into a Chamber during the Lease and he surrenders to the Obligee who will not suffer J.S. to enter the Obligation is saved and Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff 36 Eliz. Bedford against Hall in B. R. IN an Action of Covenant wherein the Plaintiff declared that the Defendant did devise and grant to him certain land with all his goods contained in a certain Inventory for 20 years and said that in the Inventory amongst other things were five Cows which the Defendant seized and that one J.S. took them away as his proper goods as indeed they were and hereupon he brought this Action Fenner The Action will not lye for no interest in the Cows doth pass to the Lessee by this Lease neither was there any right to them in the Lessor As if I demise to you the land of J. S. by these words Dem si concessi and you enter and J S. re-enters no Covenant lyes against me And so in the 11 H. 4. a Prebend made a Lease for years and resigned now is the term of the Lessee quite destroyed and if after he be outed by a new Prebend yet he shall have no Action of Covenant And so is it 9 Eliz. Dyer â—57 Lessee for life makes a Lease for years and dyes the Lessee shall not have a Covenant if he be outed by him in the reversion because he is not in as a Termor at the time of the disturbance But if in the principal Case the Lessor had been possest of the goods although by a wrong title and the Owner had seized them then a Covenant would lye And so if a Disseisor makes a Lease and the Disseisee re-enters the Lessee shall have a Covenant Gawdy If a man lets lands wherein he hath no estate together with his goods although the land will not pass yet the goods do and if a man lets goods for a year and re takes them within the year no Covenant will lye for the property was never in the Lessee Câ—…câ— If a man lets anothers goods to me by Deed if I seize them and the Owner re-takes them a Covenant will lye and so will an Action on the Case if it be without Deed 42 Assi 8. If I be in possession of anothers goods and sell them a deceit lyes against me by the Vendee and so is the Book of Ass 42.8 conâ—ra where the Vendor hath not possession at the time of the sale And if I sell goods by Deed which
himself to infeof the Obligee of all the Land which he hath by descent of his Father there he may plead that he hath no Land from his Father for all may be Released although the Releasor hath no right but a feofment cannot be made of land which a man hath not Pasch 38 Elizab. Holcombe against Rawlins in B. R. Rot. 401. IN a trespass Quare Clausum fregit with a continuando from the 31 Elizab. to the 36. the Defendant pleaded that J.S. was seised in Fee and made a Lease to him c. The Plaintiff replyed that long time before J.S. was seised he himself was seised untill the said J.S. did disseise him and J.S. being so seised did make the Lease to the Defendant for years whereupon the Plaintiff reentred Tanfield It appears by the Plaintiffs Replication that the Defendant was in under the title of J.S. viz. the Lessee of the Disseisor of the Plaintif and therefore he cannot be a Trespassor to the Plaintiff notwithstanding his regress 34 H. 6 30. 37 H. 6 35. 2 Edw. 4 17. 13 H. 7.15 Atkinson contra At the Common Law the Disseisee being out of possession shall not recover any damages but only against the Disseisor and not against any other that comes to the land afterwards and for this cause the Statute of Glocesteâ— was made But at the Common Law when the Disseisee re-enters he is remitted as if he had not been out of possession at all and he shall have a trespass against the meane occupiers as in the 4 H. 7. A man was restored to his land by Parliament as if he had never been out of possession at all and he shall have a trespass against the occupiers that are in by title aswell as here he had against the Kings Patentee Gâ—wdy If a Disseisor be disseised and the first disseisee enter he shall have a trespass against the second Disseisor And Popham and Fenner agreed but Clench cont But at last adjudged for the Plaintiff vid. Cook 11. Rep. fol. 57. Lyfords Case to the contrary Pasch 37. Eliza. VViseman against Baldwin in B. R. Rot. 341. IN a writ of errour to reverse a judgment given in the Common Pleas the Case was thus Râ—chard Baldwin did demise his land in Taile upon condition that the Devisee should pay to J.S. 20. l. and if he failed of the payment that then the land should remain to J.S. and his heires for ever and whether this be a Condition in Law that the heir shall take advantage of or a limitation of the estate so that J.S. shall take advantage was the Question Gawdy It is a limitation and not a condition as is apparent in Dyer Wilfoâ—ds Case 7.128 and Pewis and Scholasticas Case in the Comentaries and there is great diversity between an estate in Law and a devise in which the intent of the Devisor is to be observed and here if this shall be taken for a condition the intent of the Devisor is defrauded Clench agreed For this should be as a new devise to J.S. and not as a remainder as a devise to a Monk the remainder to J.S. the remainder is not good as a remainder but as a new devise Fenner of the same opinion and said it had been so adjudged in this Court in an Attournies Case of Devonshire and also in Sir Edward Cleeres Case Gawdy The received opinion of all learned Lawyers hath been such as hath been said viz. that to the end the intent of the Devisor should be observed it shall be a limitation Then I put this Case A man deviseth his Land to J.S. upon condition and for non-payment be devises that his Executors shall sell the Land if J.S. faile of the payment it is cleere that the Executors may sell the Land Godfrey I agree because the Executors have nothing devised to them but only an authority given them by the Will to sell Gawdy But when the Executors have sold the Vendee is in by the Devisor and then it is no other than a devise to one in Fee on condition of payment c. and if he fail then to another And the three Iustices agreed but because the Chief Iustice was absent it was adjourned to another day at which time Fenner said that he had spoken with â—…wen one of the Iustices of the Common Pleas who said he never agreed to the Iudgment but in case of a perpetuity And therefore the Iudgment in the Common Pleas was reverst The Earl of Lincolne against Fisher THe Steward of the Leete being in Court did say in Fisher who was resident within the precinct of the Leet that he must be sworn for the Queen to make presentments at the said Court. To which Fisher replyed in saying I ought to be sworn you lie For which Fisher was fined at the Court 20 l. And the Earl who had the Leet brought his action for the same Yelverton The action will not lie for he is not finable for such words for they are no disturbance to the Court nor hindrance of Iustice for this word you lie in ancient speaking is no more than to say you do not say true Gawdy agreed that the action would not lie But Fenner Clench and Popham cont For this is a misdemeanor for which the defendant is finable for every Leet is the Queens Court and a Court of Iustice to which respect and reverence ought to he given and these words are in great contempt to the Court and the authority thereof which is supreme And Posito that he should here say to the Iudge of a Court when he delivered his opinion in any Case Mr. Iudge you lie without question he may be fined and imprisoned and as it is of a Iudge here so is it of a Iudge of any inferiour Court because it is a Court of Iustice And Popham said That if any misdemeaned himself in the Leet in any outragious manner the Steward may commit him And Gawâ—y changed his opinion Wherefore the Plaintiff had judgement to recover Pasch 36. Eliz. Allens Case A Scire facias issued out in the name of the Queen to shew cause why execution of a debt which is come to the Queen by the attainder of J.S. should not be had The Defendant pleaded that the Queen had granted over this debt by the name of a debt which came to her by the attainder of J.S. and all actions demands c. upon which the Plaintiff demurr'd And the question was if the Patentee might sue for this in the name of the Queen without speciall words And two presidents were cited that he may 1 Pasch 30 Eliz. rot 191. in the Exchequer where Greene to whom a debt was due was attainted and the Queen granted over this debt and all actions and demands and a â—câ—re facias was sued for him in the name of the Queen also in the 32 Elâ—z rot 219. Mabb of London was indebted by bond and the debt came to the Qu. by
Administration it is at the election of the Plaintiff to sue him as Executor or Administrator 9 Ed. 4.33 21 H. 6.8 2 Rich. 2.20 18 Ed. 4. Walmesley agreed for the Statute of the 27 Eliz. hath made voyd the Testators gift and subâ—ata causa toll â—ur effectus and the gift being taken away the property is also taken away from the Donee and setled in the Donor as to any Creditor To which the other Iustices agreed and Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff Trinit 43 Eliz. George Brooks Case in C. B. Rot. 1822. GIbson recovered in a Debt against Broâ—k as Executor to J.S. 60 l. and 6 l. damages and upon a scire facias to the Sheriff he returns no Assets and then upon the estate which was in Lâ—ndon which the Defendant had wasted and soâ—d a fieri facâ—as was awarded to the Sheriff of Lâ—…don with a Commission to the Sheriff of London to enquire if he had Assets at the day of the Writ c and by the inquest it was found that he had Assets at the day of the Writ purchased c. and that he had wasted the estate which was thus return'd by the Sheriff against which the Defendant took issue that he had not Assets and upon this was a a Demurr Walmesley A man may avert against the return of a Sheriff if the return be a matter collateral as if upon a Caâ—ias the Sheriff returns a Rescous there may be an averment against this 4 Eliz. 212. a. But if it be in pursuance of the Writ as non est inventus there no averment shall be taken against this but here the return is the saying of the Inquest and not his own saying Warburton I conceive he shall have an averment and traverse or else he shall be without remedy for he cannot have an Action on the Case against the Sheriff because he returns that which was found by the Inquest and so not like where the Sheriff returns falsly without such Inquest and no attachment lyes because it is but an Inquest of office and after it was moved at another day and a president shewn 33 Eliz. in B. R. between Westner and Whitenore and there it was adjudged that such return of the Sheriff was traversable and Anderson and Kingsmill agreed to it wherefore Iudgement was given for the Defendant and that the issue was well taken Day against Fynn IN an Ejectment the Plaintiff declared of a Lease for years of a house and 30 acres of land in D. and that J. S. did let to him the said Messuage and 30 acres by the name of his house in B. and ten acres of land there sive plus sive minus it was moved in arrest of Iudgement because that 30 acres cannot pass by the name of 10 acres sive plus sive minus and so the Plaintiff hath not conveyed to him 30 acres for when 10 acres are leased to him sive plus sive minus these words ought to have a reasonable construction to pass a reasonable quantity either more or less and not twenty or thirty acres more Yelverton agreed for the word 10 acres sive plus sive minus ought to be intended of a reasonable quantity more or less by a quarter of an acre or two or three at the most but if it be 3 acres less than 10. the Lessee must be content with it Quod Fenner Crook concesserunt and Iudgement was staid Smith against Jones IN an Action of the Case upon an Assumpsit the Case was that the wise of Jones was Executrix to J.S. and had Assets to satisfie all Debts and Legacies The woman dyes and the goods remained in the hand of her husband who was the Defendant and Smith the Plaintiff being a Legatee demanded his debt of the husband who said to him Forbear tâ—ll Michaelmas and I will pay you and if this was sufficient cause of Action was the question on a Demurrer Davies The promise is voyd because it is after the death of the wife Yelverton The Action will lye because he hath the â—oods in his possession and therefore is chargeable and must answer for them and therefore there is a good consideration And he cited Godfreys Case who laid claim to a Copyhold and the Copyholder in possession said to him If the opinion of the Lord Cook be that Godfrey hath a good title to it I will surrender it to him and because he did not surrender to him Godfrey brought an Action on the Case and it was adjudged that the staying of the suit was a sufficient consideration to have an Action on the Case Yelverton If the promise had been to pay this Legacy in consideration he would not sue him then it had been good Williams If there be no cause of suit there is no assumpsit and here is no just cause for he cannot be sued for Legacies Flemming of the same opinion for the husband cannot be sued by the Plaintiff and although perhaps the Legatee may sue him in the spirituall Court yet that is only for the temporall administration And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Defendant Michaelm 9. Jacob. Kempe and James against Laurence in C. B. Rot. 3648. IN a scire facias the case was thus Gant having two daughters made his wife Executrix untill his daughters came to the age of 21. years or should be married and then the Executorship should cease and that then his daughters should be his Executors and the woman did recover a debt upon a bond made to the Testator after which the daughters marryed the Plaintiffs and they brought the scire facias upon the said Judgment against the Defendants as terre-tenants and the Sheriff return'd the Defendants terre-tenants and no others and upon Oyer of the scire facias the Defendants pleaded that H. was seâ—sed of those lands die Judicii reddit and made a Lease for years to them Iudgment c. Nichols The daughters shall have this judgment as Executors for they are in privity and in by the Testator and are not like an Administrator who comes in by the Ordinary after the death of the Executor 6 H. 8.7 Cook 5. Rep. Brudnells Case and the daughters are Executors and subject to debts of the Testator And as to the plea he said that forasmuch as the Defendants are returned terre-tenants they cannot plead that they are but tenants for years and that their Lessor is not warned for the scire facias is a personall action to have execution but of the goods but in a reall action it is a good plea because the lessor himself cannot plead in discharge of such action 8 H. 6.32 And note that Michaelm 43 44. Eliz. Rot. 834. Iudgment in the very same point was given accordingly Trinit 9 Jacob. Information against West in C. B. Rot. 1246. IN an Information upon the Statute of the 5 of Ed. 6. cap. 14. for buying of wheate-meale and converting it into starch It was resolved by three of the
was upon the pleading Taylor being Lessee for years 9 Elizabeth did grant and assigne this to Ayer the Plaintiff The Defendant pleaded that before the grant made to Ayer sc 8 Elizabeth Taylor did grant and assigne his estate to the Defendant without traversing the gift made to the Plaintiff Williams There needs no traverse for being granted the 8 Elizab. it is impossible it should be granted 9 Eliz. 2 Edw. 6. and 1 H. 5. Anderson He ought to travers for it is impossible to confesse and avoyd a grant by confession that was granted to another before for if it were so the second grant is voyd and so being so confest here ought to be a travers Walmesley cont in 32 H. 6. it is sufficient to say that at another day c. there was another arbitrement c. for by that the first arbitrement is voyd in Law And it is a good plea in a Will that after that there was another Will made without Traversing and there is difference between Lands and Chattells for land may be gotten out of a man by wrong and therefore it may be that after the feoffment the Feoffor entred and it disseised the Feoffee and did infeoffe another but it cannot bâ— so here of a terme for years for no man can take it away from the Lessee by wrong Glanvill and Kingsmill cont There must be a Traverie for there ought to be a confession before there can be an avoydance but here he does not confess the grant but pleads matter that denies it being granted And at last Anderson gave Iudgment that he ought to Travers 42 Eliz. Rudd against Topsey in C. B. Rot. 135. IN a Quare Impedit The Iury found that Edward Capell was seised of an Advowson in Fee and did let it to the Defendant for years and during the Lease he presented the Defendant and the doubt was whether this were a surrender or an Extinguishment And it was held by all the Iustices that this could not be a surrender but is cleerly an extinguishment For if a man does present to his own Church as Proctor to another by this he looseth his advowson Nat. Br. 25.17 Ed. 33.24 H. 6. Hillar 42 43 Eliz. Forrest against Ballard Rot. 2480. AN Audita querela was brought upon a Statute which was acknowledged before a Maior who had no power to take it Anderson An Audita querela will not lie upon a voyd Statute But Kingsmill Walmesley and Warburton cont and Walmesley cited 〈◊〉 Br. 102. where an Audita querela was brougt upon a forg'd Statute and there it would lie upon a Statute made by Duress 20 Ed. 3.28 Trinit 40. Eliz. Goodrick against Cooper in C. B. Rot. 1259. IN a Replevin the Defendant justified for Rent granted to the Master and Schollers of Emanuell Colledge in Cambridge And the Iury found that one Spendelose being seised of the land where c. by his Deed did grant to the said Master and Fellowes a Rent Ch. of 40 l. per annum for ever and that Spendlose did seale his part of the Indenture and delivered it to the use of the Master and Fellowes to one J.S. to deliver it accordingly but there was no dead to shew their receit thereof and then they sealed the other part but they made no Attorney to deliver it and it was â—ound that the Rent was payd for divers years after VValmesley Although no Letter of Attorney were made yet it is good for by their sealing of the Counterpart there is a sufficient agreement to the grant As it a Reversion be granted to a Corporation by Deed although they cannot accept of this but by Attorney yet if they bring a waste this is a sufficient agreement to vest it in them Quod assi Justiciarii concesserunt And judgment was given for the Avowant Michaelm 43 44. Eliz. Claygate against Batchelor in C. B. Rot. 3217. IN debt upon a Bond of thirty pound the Condition was that if Robert Batchelor son to the Defendant did use the Trade of Haberdasher as Iourneyman servant or Apprentice or as a Master within the County of Kent within the Cities of Canterbury and Rochester within four years after the date that then if he pay twenty pound upon request the Obligation to be voyd And all the Iustices agreed that the condition was against Law and then all is voyd for it is against the liberty of a Free-man and against the Statute of Magna Carta cap. 20. and is against the Commonwealth 2 H 5. 5. And Anderson said that he might aswell bind himself that he would not go to Church And Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff Michaelm 43 44 Eliz. Dogget against Dowell in C. B. Rot. 65â— IN an action on the Case upon an Assumpsit The Plaintiff declared that at the request of the Defendant he had lent to him 30 l. the 10th day of May 5 Eliz. and the Defendant in consideration thereof viz. the second day of May aforesaid did promise and assume upon himself that he at the end of the yeare would lend the Plaintiff other thirty pounds for a year or give to him five pound It was said that the consideration is good for although the promise was made at another day yet is it in pursuance thereof so that in Law it shall be accounted all at one time and is not like to the case in Dyer 372. where the Master promised one who was bayle for his servant that he would save him harmless this is no consideration for the Ballment was of his own will and was executed before the Assumpsit but if the Master had first requested and afterwards assumed there it is good and so was it adjudged in the case of one Sydenham against Worthington Trinit 27 Eliz. Rot. 748. Where the request was before and the promise after and there it was a good Assumpsit VVarburton agreed And it is like as if I should say to you do such a thing and I will give you five pound this is no good contract But all the Iustices on the contrary for when at the first day the Plaintiff did lend to the Defendant thirty pound that was absolute and the speaking on the second day cannot have such reference to the first agreement that it shall be accounted all one Anderson If I say to one In consideration you will serve me for a year I will give you five pound here is no cause of action for the consideration is precedent and not mutuall and so judgment was entred for the Defendant Hillar 41 Eliz. VVentworth against VVright Rot. 2529. IN a Quare impedit two points were moved 1. If the Parson be made Bishop whether the Patron should present or the King by his prerogative VVilliams The King shall for before the Statute the Pope should present and the reason was because the Bishop had received his presentment gratis from the Pope and by the same reason the King now
the wife is at large to have the twelve pound and her Dower also But the Court held that she could not have her joynture for by the recovery of the Dower her joynture is barred for the Rent was given her in recompence of her Dower so that it cannot be intended that she shall have Rent Dower also wherefore it was adjudged that her entry on the Land was not good 30 31 Eliz. The King against the Bishop of Canterbury and Hudson Rot. 1832. IN a Quare impedit Hudson the Incumbent did plead that King Edw. the 4th did grant the Rape of Hastings Et bona catalla Fellonum Fugitivorum ategat of all Residents and non-residents within the said Rape to the Earl of Huntington And pleaded that John Ashborne was seized of the Mannor of Ashborne and of the advowson appending to it and held the same of the Earl of Huntington as of his Rape of Hastings and that the said John Ashborn was outlawed during which the Incumbent of the said Church dyed and the Earl presented the said Hudson Shut I conceive this avoydance does not belong to the Earl by reason of this grant for by the same Patent libertie is given to the said Earl his heirs to put himself into possession and of such things as he cannot put himself into possession they will not passe and here this is a thing in action which by these words will not passe 19 H. 6.42 by the grant de Catalla Fellonum obligations do not passe VValmesley Stanford in his prerogative saith that by the words Bona catalla the King shall have the presentation to the Church of him that is outlawed or Attaint and by the same reason he may grant it by such a name and although the party cannot seise such a thing yet it shall passe 39 H. 3.35 Rent for years shall passe by the grant of bona Catalla Periam It will passe by these words for it is an ancient grant for in that time the Patents of the King were not so specially penned as now they are Anderson I conceive the avoydance will not passe by thse words for within this word bona moveables are contained both dead and living and Avoydance is no Chattell nor right of Chattell Quod Peryam negavit c. Mich. 37 38 Eliz. Townsend against VVhales IN an Ejectment the Iury found that J.S. was seized of land in possession and also in reversion for terme of life and made a Devise by these words That his Executors take the profit of all his Lands and tenements Free and Copy for ten years for the payment of his debts and Legacies and after the end of the said ten years that all the aforesaid lands and tenements with their appurtenances should be sold by his Executors or one of them and the silver to be bestowed in the performance of his Will or by the Executors of his Executors or any of them and then one of the Executors dyed within the ten years and the two surviving Executors did grant all aswell in possession as in reversion to House who made a Lease to the Plaintiff And two points were resolved 1. That the Executors may grant the reversion 34 H. 6. for by these words Free and Copy his intent appears that all should be granted 2. That although one of the Executors died yet the other two Executors may sell Anderson If such bevise had been at the Common Law and one Executor had refused the two others could not sell but if one die the survidors may sell the land for there the authority doth survive Which difference the other Iustices agreed to And at another day Anderson said there was difference where the Devise is that Executors should sell his and the money divided between them there if one die the others shall not sell but otherwise here because the money is the performance of his will Walmesley The sale by the two Executors is good for it is said the Executors or any of them c. And Beaumond agreed Wherefore judgment was given for the Plaintiff Note that there were two verdicts in this case and the first only found that the Executors shoull sell after the ten years and that one dyed and the other two did sell within the ten years and the opinion of the Court was that the sale was voyd but in the 39 and 40 Eliz. all the whole will was found and Iudgment given ut supra The Earle of Rutlands Case Roger Earl of Rudand and John Maners and others Executors to John late Earl of Rudand Executor to Edward Earl of Rutland brought an action on the case against Isabell Countess of Rutland And Declared for divers Iewells and goods c. that came to the hands of John Earl of Rudand as Executor to the said Edward and the said John the 10th of July 29 Eliz. did casually loose them which after came to the hands of the Defendant licet saepius requisita she would not deliver them to the said John in his life time nor to the said Plaintiffs after his death but knowing the goods did belong to the Plaintiffs in D. in the County of Notingham converted them to her proper use And a verdict for the Plaintiff And it was moved often in arrest of Iudgment but all the Iustices agreed that the action of Trover and converversion would lie by the Executors upon the Satute of the 4 Ed. 3. upon a conversion in vita Testatoris and so hath it been adjudged in the Kings Bench and although the Statute mentions onely a Writ of trespass that is only put for example Also they all agreed that the sole cause of action to the Conversion for it there were no conversion they shall be put to their Detinue therefore the great doubt did arise because the day and time of the conversion was not shewed for perhaps it was after the Writ and before the Declaration And also if it was in vita Testatoris they should have this action by the 4th of Ed. 3d. But at length Walmesley said That all Iustices of the Common Pleas and of Serjeants Inne in Fleet-street besides Peryam Chief Baron were of opinion that Iudgment should be given for the Plaintiffs for that some of them held that the day of the Conversion is not materiall to be shewn and others that of necessity as this case is it shall be intended that the conversion was in the Plaintiffs time wherefore Iudgment was entredfor the Plaintiffs but a Writ of Errour was brought and the Case much debated Michaelm 38 39 Eliz. Carew against Warren in C. B. Rot. 1945. GUnter Tenant in Tasle of Lands in antient Demesn made a Lease for 60. years to J.S. and for security thereof levied a Fine to Lee and Loveland who rendred to Gunter in Fee who devised the reversion to his wife for life the remainder in Fee and dyed And then the Lord of Andover which is an ancient Mannor by an